EAT IT!
2 Likes
You could try choking it out with kudzu.
14 Likes
Reality is more complicated than that.
BT strains have reduced insecticide applications, an overall 7% (yes, just 7%) increase in herbicide use is driven mostly (70% of that 7%) by herbicide-resistant soybeans. Herbicide usage on corn (maize for you Europeans) dropped.
1 Like
Thereās also projects like Golden Rice, which have basically no downsides, and it would actually be a good thing if its modifications got out into wild populations.
Oh no! A native strain of rice picked up the beta-carotene gene from golden rice! Now everyone has to eat rice that will prevent blindness, what a crying shame.
3 Likes
Of course, if weāre eating āRoundup Readyā plants, there could be a whole lot more of it in our food.
I thing genetic engineering has enormous potential for good, as with golden rice. It is also used in some incredibly irresponsible ways, as with allowing us to use even more pesticides. Saying that all GMOs are inherently safe is just as silly as saying that theyāre all inherently bad. I absolutely guarantee you that it is possible to make a transgenic plant thatās not safe to eat.
8 Likes
Well more indirectly from what I have understood that goes to feed stock which then of course ends up in the beasties we eat which makes it good that it breaks down into other stuff quickly. Still it is a trade off as @clevername said about the low-till to no-till farming. If you look up how much fertile topsoil there was say 150 years ago when heavy tilling was used up until now you can see we donāt have much topsoil left and no food is a worse option.
1 Like
Studies like this is probably why a serious discussion can not have absolute discussion about the dangers of chemicals, gmo and climate change. I am probably wrong but it is probable I am right.
From your linked study summary:
āContrary to often-repeated claims that todayās 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. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.ā
You may be thinking of pesticide as insecticide only. I was using the term in its broader application. Massive increases.
1 Like
Confusingly, Yucca is a totally different plant from Yuca (which we English-speakers called Cassava until a few years ago when we all of a sudden started borrowing the Spanish name). Iām 99% sure that that article is about Yuca ā the text of the article says Yuca but the link says Yucca which is the kind of thing that keeps me up at night.
1 Like
Also does no touch lespedza, a woody legume that forms a mat an inch thick in your yard with the density of a doormat.
1 Like
Also celery, carrots, mushrooms, figs ā¦ actually i think mushrooms only cause cancer with no protective effects.
Iām still gonna eat mushrooms. Theyāre too tasty not to eat, and Iām already a smoker. I likely have cancer in the cards whether I quit or not, seeing as all my genetically related grandparents are dead of cancer or heart disease. Well, 2 from cancer, 1 from heart disease, and 1 who survived cancer, but died of dementia with co-morbid scleraderma, which, if that happens to me, Iām moving to Oregon and ending it before I lose my mind.
This has nothing to do with GMO. GM skepticism (as commonly practiced) is, yes, the same as climate change denial or creationism. Whether or not you use this as your āDid you see how much it snowed this winter! Hah, that proves global warming is fake!ā is up to you, but it hardly reflects well.
Just because someone is extremely pro-GMO like myself doesnāt mean Iām stupid. Monsanto is a pretty garbage company and everyone knows it, and the risks of Roundup to those directly exposed is hardly news (though itās always good to get good studies on it, which might help the workers effected win their court cases if they bring them, and might help spread the knowledge that working directly with this stuff has risks).
2 Likes
So you support the GMO that decreases pesticide use (or have no impact on it) and oppose the ones that increase it then? Thatās a decent position to hold. If the anti-gmo folk were more like you, we might have managed to make more progress combating the threat pesticides pose, instead of them spending all their time railing against any gmo at all and alienating everyone who can see the good uses of the technology.
1 Like
The irony is that DDT is good for youā¦ in the sense that it will keep you from getting malaria. Its negative effects are primarily environmental. Iām not saying you should bathe in the stuff or that itās an amazing elixir we should still be using, but itās weird how the narrative got warped from something that was killing birds into DDT being a potent toxin in humans.
As for the article:
the report stopped short of saying the chemical
conclusively causes cancer, because these existing studies focused on a
limited population of healthy male workers; they did not include young
people or women. Itās unclear how much exposure would be cancerous, or
why glyphosate leads specifically to this kind of cancer, Guyton says.
These news stories always take the most important piece of information and bury it deep within body of the text. Hereās the thing, at this point, Monsanto hate has gone completely over the top. Itās one thing to be critical of Monsanto for X, Y, or Z but now the very name brings out the kooks and concern-trollies.
Iāll illustrate what I mean: Iāve been doing water testing in my area, looking at various pollutants. We have several superfund sites around where I live, largely due to the use of PCBs. PCBs are terrible, and knowing whether we have any quantity in out streams is actually pretty important. So Iām minding my own business one morning and lo and behold, itās front-page news. Apparently, to use Onion terminology, a Local Man discovered we had superfund sites and was trying to get people in the area to come together to work on getting the sites cleaned up.
Iām all for community-involvement, and I feel compelled to join any community discussion, but based on the flyers floating around town- Iām skeptical of how much of his activity is going to be useful. He talked about how these were āMonsanto PCBs,ā which is not helpful. Monsanto manufactured something like 90% of PCBs used in industrial applications in the US, but itās Westinghouse that was using them in our area. But, Monstanto has scare-cred and Westinghouse doesnāt; Iām sure thatās why it was underlined on the flyers. At this point I think people are just looking to kick Monsanto in the teeth at the slightest provocation. Which isnāt to say I feel sorry for a massive, wealthy corporation, but Iām sure thereās plenty of other dirt.
Bottom line: We see marginal effects in populations with high exposure. Call me when there is actual news. Because if thatās the criteria you have for panic, stop eating buttered microwave popcorn- another arena where we see effects in industrial workers (from inhaling diacetyl) that we donāt really worry about in consumers.
Keep hating Monsanto if you want, but hate it for good reasons, not just whatever reason you can find to fit your biases. Be careful with that, Monsanto isnāt even the only agrochemical corporation out there. Itās the McDonaldās effect: As long as McDās has a crappy reputation, Burger King can get away with murder.
8 Likes
GMOs on their own should be mostly fine, the problem is that when you can soak the Roundup ready stuff in (per TFA) their suspected carcinogen there are health and issues not directly related to GMO but rather as a result of the use of a GMO food plant which can now survive the ultra-dosing with possible poison.
And then people wave pitchforks because they saw GMO markings on the thing that makes them sick, or itchy, or sneezy, or grumpy, or sleepy, or dopey, or they have to go to the doc.
Correlation is not causation, but when you suspect correlation based on the anecdotes you hear it is not a bad time to start using scientific method
Oh for heavenās sakeā¦
Isnāt it more likely that the increased incidence of NHL is due to the sample group spending significantly more time outdoors than average, and exposure to sunlight might have something to do with this finding?
Paging Ben Goldacre, paging Ben Goldacreā¦
Sunlight might make sense if weāre talking melanoma. NHL is a cancer of the white blood cells though. They only get significant exposure to sunlight when passing through the retina. Otherwise theyāre pretty much in the darkness no matter how much time you spend outdoors.
2 Likes
This is a tricky one. IARC classifies all sorts of rubbish as 2B (possible carcinogenic) because theyāre scared to call it safe (e.g. cellphones).
However, this is class 2A (probably carcinogenic), which normally requires much better evidence.
The three studies cited seem to involve sub-group analysis of a range of pesticides and are studying a rare effect (non-common cancer in a relatively young and healthy population). That is almost a perfect recipe for getting false positives. I havenāt been able to find the effect sizes in the lancet article and I donāt have time to research the original reports.
Iād be surprised if it was carcinogenic, based on its known chemistry and the number of negative carcinogenicity studies.
Still, it will come down to relative risk assessments. Is cheap food worth a potential risk of cancer?
āNoā might seem an obvious answer, but the weeds will have to be killed by other means. IARC classify sunlight as a Class 1 carcinogen and nightshifts as a Class 2B, So glyphosate could still be the safest way to make food.
Disclaimer: I work for the pesticides industry and have reviewed various glyphosate data, though I get no financial benefit from itās continued use. Iād actually benefit if glyphosate was threatened with a ban and alternatives were needed. Glyphosate allows farmers to profit by reducing labour costs, and Monsantoās GM business thrives - but there is a market glut from cheap Chinese/Indian imports so no one makes much profit from selling glyphosate.
1 Like
