patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

Crack pots cant argue about shortages of food

Goddamn that is just pitiful argument.

We have corn coming out our ears so bad, we inefficiently turn it into ethanol for our cars. We pay farmers NOT to produce on some land, to avoid even more foodstuffs flooding markets and driving prices down so badly that plowing under would become commonplace.

Hungry people is about politics not an actual shortage of food production.

Vicente says

We have corn coming out our ears so bad, we inefficiently turn it into ethanol
for our cars.

Correct, and ethanol had to be mandated to create demand and soak up supply. Inefficient isn't really applicable even though it is, it's more welfare for the welfare kings of the right wing persuasion.

Vicente says

My issue is big agribusiness, they are little different than tobacco people. Perfectly happy to sell corn that might give me cancer or whatever as long as they make money.

That may be true, however even big AG should know what will happen to their bottom line if their products are shown to significantly increase cancer risk.

New Renter says

Vicente says

My issue is big agribusiness, they are little different than tobacco people. Perfectly happy to sell corn that might give me cancer or whatever as long as they make money.

That may be true, however even big AG should know what will happen to their bottom line if their products are shown to significantly increase cancer risk.

What do they care? They are most concerned with profits in the next quarter.

Any cancer risk that they can not cover up is probably decades away from being discovered by the public.

Vicente says

We have corn coming out our ears so bad, we inefficiently turn it into ethanol for our cars. We pay farmers NOT to produce on some land, to avoid even more foodstuffs flooding markets and driving prices down so badly that plowing under would become commonplace.

Hungry people is about politics not an actual shortage of food production.

You do know the study that claimed ethanol was negative-efficient was done in the 1990s and has been widely discredited, right? I'm not saying corn is the best choice for bio-fuel, but bio-fuels do burn cleaner than gasoline and are renewable. The meme that they are negative-efficient is a myth.

donjumpsuit says

Before you dare to accuse GMO's of causing cancer

Don't worry I will not dare to accuse GMO's of causing cancer, because well...the evidence is just not there.

However, I will dare to accuse big agribusiness to have it well within their capacity of not actually caring that they are pushing a product that causes cancer.

Humans did not evolve with a genetic memory or sensory perceptions to identifying cancer causing substances. Many things on your list (and a few in particular) were not known to the public (some were known -- and denied -- by industry to cause cancer) to be a cause of cancer, and were viewed as safe for decades. It could be that two or three decades from now a GMO protein or three is added to that list.

Personally I am not overly worried about GMOs, but I like to be made aware of the process in how my food was made. If GMOs were labeled I would not entirely avoid them, but would eat them in moderation.

leo707 says

Many things on your list (and a few in particular) were not known to the public (some were known -- and denied -- by industry to cause cancer) to be a cause of cancer, and were viewed as safe. It could be that two or three decades from now a GMO protein or three is added to that list.

ANYTHING could end up being added to that list. So by your logic, EVERYTHING should have a warning label. I don't understand the point of warning labels if they are warning against nothing.

leo707 says

Personally I am not overly worried about GMOs, but I like to be made aware of the process in how my food was made. If GMOs were labeled I would not entirely avoid them, but would eat them in moderation.

So should cross-bred food be labeled as well? Has anyone done a study on the long-term health effects of the tangelo? I doubt it. Why not? You really want labels on everything you eat, telling you the entire process by which they were developed? That makes no sense.

It would make far more sense to put labels on food detailing how it was grown and handled, as vegetables are the biggest culprit in food-borne illness:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324329204578271970675684826.html

I don't hear anyone asking for this, when there is clear evidence of danger, yet I hear people clamoring for labels on GMOs when there is no evidence of danger whatsoever.

Homeboy says

I don't understand the point of warning labels if they are warning against nothing.

It would be difficult for my logic to suggest that "EVERYTHING" have a waring label when I never suggested a warning label for ANYTHING. Think of it more as in ingredient label.

You like to know the ingredients of your food right?

leo707 says

You like to know the ingredients of your food right?

Agreed, GMO food need to be labelled.

Then free choices by consumers can decide the matter.

donjumpsuit says

That would fully identify EXACTLY what is in my food.

Actually, I do like your label better. Except perhaps the last sentence would make me feel very suspicious that someone is trying to manipulate me to reach some nefarious end. I would be fine if the ingredients said only "DroughtGard maize", and then I could go look up the details of DroughtGard maize if I was interested. Just like I do with some of the other mysterious ingredients on a label.

donjumpsuit says

However I don't see it happening.

Reason and middle-ground rarely seem to prevail. We will either get the "GMO" label stamped on the front, or nothing at all.

donjumpsuit says

Case closed.

I know this topic annoys you to no end, but thanks for participating anyway.

donjumpsuit says

Calories from fat:160

Trans fat:80

Saturated fat: 0

Everybody knows the consequences of fat, trans-fat, and saturated fat.

Ironically we don't - research keeps evolving even around these dinosaurs. That;s why we need labeling for GMOs as well.

Skip the labeling.. too expensive given low margins of producers and supermarkets.

I rather keep producers and supermarkets in business for the viable long term doing what
they do best.

eventually your handheld Cell phone can scan the counter product label or UPC and
you can read it off..

else do your label reading on the internet before you go shopping
if your concerned about GMOs.

eventually an economical solution will present itself.

Vicente says

leo707 says

You like to know the ingredients of your food right?

Agreed, GMO food need to be labelled.

Then free choices by consumers can decide the matter.

Put it right next to the Prop 65 label.

leo707 says

It would be difficult for my logic to suggest that "EVERYTHING" have a waring label when I never suggested a warning label for ANYTHING. Think of it more as in ingredient label.

You like to know the ingredients of your food right?

So... I wrote a long detailed response to your post, and you have nothing to say except to nitpick the word "warning" vs. "ingredient" label. So I guess you have no answer for the rest of my points, since you dwelled only on this semantic non-argument.

C'mon, you know perfectly well that proponents ARE treating the concept as a warning label. A warning not to buy GMOs. And you know perfectly well that's how the public will treat it. Since the public obviously doesn't understand or even know anything about GMOs, they're going to react with fear, just like when Florida residents flipped out when they were told "dihydrogen monoxide" was coming out of their faucets http://www.geekosystem.com/djs-suspended-over-april-fools-joke/ . How is that fair to the farmers who grew the food, when there is no evidence whatsoever that the food is in any way harmful?

Also, you are dead wrong to say it would be an "ingredient" label. If it were an ingredient label, it would say, INGREDIENTS: CORN, or INGREDIENTS: SOYBEANS. Do we really need an ingredient label to tell us what kind of produce we're buying? There's a sign right there at the store that says "CORN".

Just putting a sign on something saying it's GMO would be meaningless and unnecessarily frightening to a misinformed public. If you really wanted a label that makes any kind of sense, and explains what the product is, it would have to say something like, "Some of the genes in this product were changed by man rather than by natural selection." But then, to be at all consistent, you would have to put the same label on EVERY food, because there isn't a single plant or animal we consume that hasn't had its genetic structure altered by selective breeding.

leo707 says

You like to know the ingredients of your food right?

That doesn't make any sense. Produce and meat don't have "ingredients", unless something has been added to them. If it has, that should be disclosed, which I believe is already required by law. GMO corn and traditional corn both have one ingredient: corn. NONE of it is "natural". It is all the result of thousands of years of selective breeding.

Homeboy says

C'mon, you know perfectly well that proponents ARE treating the concept as a warning label. A warning not to buy GMOs. And you know perfectly well that's how the public will treat it.

I disagree.

Only a minority of people will look beyond what it costs and how yummy it tastes. Those of us who CHOOSE to look though, should be informed.

Vicente says

I disagree.

A picture of a fat kid. Yeah, great evidence there.

Only a minority of people will look beyond what it costs and how yummy it tastes. Those of us who CHOOSE to look though, should be informed.

No offense Vicente, but I don't think you understand the issue at all. You are acting as if GMOs are the equivalent of junk food. You post a picture of someone eating potato chips and say "Only a minority of people will look beyond what it costs and how yummy it tastes". GMOs are not junk food. You could MAKE junk food with them, but you can make junk food with organic crops too. We KNOW that fatty, salty foods like potato chips are bad for you. But there is absolutely no evidence that GMOs are bad for you. The fact that you would imply a similarity between GMOs and potato chips shows you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. If there were a REASON to label GMO food, I would be all for it. But there is no reason.

We've found out that too much refined sugar or corn syrup isn't good for you, so products that contain those things have to have a label.

We've found out that transfats are not good for you, so products that contain transfats have to have a label.

We've found out that too much sodium isn't good for you, so products have to say how much sodium they contain.

etc...

We don't have any evidence that GMOs are bad for you, so there is no reason to put extra labels on them.

The real health issue with GMOs isn't due to the gene splicing techniques used to create the strains. It's what is sprayed on the plants that causes harm. Example: Round-up-ready crops are standard issue from Monsanto. This means that they are resistant to this pesticide. So farmers spray it liberally on their crops. Result: city dwellers have high concentrations of Round-up in urine. A study was just released about this. The chemicals in the pesticide are detrimental to good health.
That's the problem with GMO, and it's not new. It's as new as modern farming using pesticides.

Quigley says

This means that they are resistant to this pesticide. So farmers spray it
liberally on their crops. Result: city dwellers have high concentrations of
Round-up in urine. A study was just released about this. The chemicals in the
pesticide are detrimental to good health.
That's the problem with GMO, and
it's not new. It's as new as modern farming using pesticides.

Roundup is a herbacide, not a pesticide, and herbicide/pesticide use was very common and extensive prior to the Roundup-ready hybrids, with the use of surfectants too. So the chemical use before "GMO" crops was OK then?

donjumpsuit says

Now, people would have you belevie that ROUND UP is deadly.

It's fucking unbelievable. You realize that Round Up is SOOOOO safe, that is
why we are modifying our crops to tolerate it so that it can be used in
replacement of more nasty stuff.

Roundup use was limited and targeted BEFORE Roundup Ready crops were created. It was a strong herbacide that if enough was taken up by any plant through the leaves/foliage, it would kill that plant, whether it was a weed or grain plant. The use of Roundup now doesn't do that, but is actually a weaker version too.

It's funny that people believe that Roundup(and other herbacides/pesticides) wasn't used before the GMO scare. It's more effective now because of the targeting, cuts down on fuel use and compaction that hinders plant growth, not to mention the changes to tillage that reduced erosion/runoff. The only bad things are that weeds are becoming resistant to it, and possibly the surfectant used to improve plant uptake.

If you don't like roundup there IS a more natural way to eliminate the weeds:

Lol, yea the actual biggest concern should be the excess amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus runoof as noted and studied by the EPA, but the GMO hype and scare tactics has managed to remain front and center. The help of Monsanto's competitors has nudged that along too because of their drop in comparable herbacide sales.

Fear seems to have won.New Renter says

If you don't like roundup there IS a more natural way to eliminate the
weeds:

That idea might work better if the weeds actually emerged, or above ground.

upisdown says

That idea might work better if the weeds actually emerged, or above ground.

The flames would kill seeds or seedlings. There are other tools that can be used after the crops sprout. The flames are simply limited to between the furrows. If the homogeneity of the planting is good enough I can see timing the burners to work around the crops to nail ~100% of the weeds.

I'm pretty sure that Mao and Pol Pot were in the committee as well.

New Renter says

The flames would kill seeds or seedlings. There are other tools that can be
used after the crops sprout. The flames are simply limited to between the
furrows. If the homogeneity of the planting is good enough I can see timing the
burners to work around the crops to nail ~100% of the weeds.

Not according to the picture, it shows total coverage not limited to the furrows. The picture looks like raised potato beds, and another pass would be required to plant the preferable seeds, because they would be killed along with weed seeds. And, after that much tillage, as shown in the picture, a majority of weeds would have already been killed.
So it looks as though(according to the picture) 3 passes through the field have to be made at the minmum. That excess amount adds unneeded costs for fuel over conventional, old-school tillage methods too, and gets better with post emergence application of herbacides. If you could skip the tillage and let weeds emerge, then burn, till, and plant(preferably in a single pass) it would work.

upisdown says

Not according to the picture, it shows total coverage not limited to the furrows.

As I said "other tools"

http://www.flameengineering.com/Agricultural_Flamers.html

There are handheld products for the smaller scale farmer as well. In fact here is a pic of AF weeding his yam field:

(Too bad he burned the instruction manual before reading it.)

Row Crop Flaming FAQs

Question: What is the average fuel consumption per acre?

Answer: You can expect to use between 5 and 10 gallons per acre.

Question: How fast can I travel while flaming?

Answer: Around 3 miles per hour.

Question: How does flaming kill the weeds but not hurt the crop plant?

Answer: As long as the weeds are smaller than the crop, flaming will kill weeds without damaging the crop. The flames from the staggered torches are directed under the crop leaves and through the crop row. The flame will not affect the hearty stalks but will apply intense heat to the weed leaves and grass in the row causing damage to cell structure. This in turn destroys the photosynthesis process which kills the weeds.

The above explains why it won't, and can't compete with the methods employed now. What if propane spikes, which is very common along with supply issues too? And time is probably the biggest factor because of large acreages now held/farmed by farmers, along with very large equipment.
But the use of GMO seeds are so widespread, even though Roundup may not be used, is the whole point. There's other ways to cut down on pesticide and herbacide use such as cover crops and narrower rows(for an increased canopy to deprive weeds of light) that will get widespread implementation because of the high price of fuels, that goes to other input costs too. A sacrifice in yield would be justified by the reduction in time, labor, fuel, and equipment costs. High prices have a way of creating efficiency and but also creating overplanting. There's a reason why the GMO/Roundup Ready crops are popular now, because it saves and makes money, which is exactly what the purpose and design was for.

upisdown says

Row Crop Flaming FAQs
Question: What is the average fuel consumption per acre?

Answer: You can expect to use between 5 and 10 gallons per acre.

Question: How fast can I travel while flaming?

Answer: Around 3 miles per hour.

Question: How does flaming kill the weeds but not hurt the crop plant?

Answer: As long as the weeds are smaller than the crop, flaming will kill weeds without damaging the crop. The flames from the staggered torches are directed under the crop leaves and through the crop row. The flame will not affect the hearty stalks but will apply intense heat to the weed leaves and grass in the row causing damage to cell structure. This in turn destroys the photosynthesis process which kills the weeds.

The above explains why it won't, and can't compete with the methods employed now. What if propane spikes, which is very common along with supply issues too? And time is probably the biggest factor because of large acreages now held/farmed by farmers, along with very large equipment.
But the use of GMO seeds are so widespread, even though Roundup may not be used, is the whole point. There's other ways to cut down on pesticide and herbacide use such as cover crops and narrower rows(for an increased canopy to deprive weeds of light) that will get widespread implementation because of the high price of fuels, that goes to other input costs too. A sacrifice in yield would be justified by the reduction in time, labor, fuel, and equipment costs. High prices have a way of creating efficiency and but also creating overplanting. There's a reason why the GMO/Roundup Ready crops are popular now, because it saves and makes money, which is exactly what the purpose and design was for.

I'm sure there can be workarounds. Perhaps converting the torches (and tractor) to run on methane. Some farms can produce their own fuel either from wells or livestock. Maybe even using focused heat from the tractor's exhaust (do tractors have cat converters?)

I have no problem with the use of GMO crops - at least until it is scientifically proven their risk/reward ratio is unfavorable. Despite many claims I have yet to see any convincing studies which provide such proof.

Homeboy says

No offense Vicente, but I don't think you understand the issue at all. You are acting as if GMOs are the equivalent of junk food. You post a picture of someone eating potato chips and say "Only a minority of people will look beyond what it costs and how yummy it tastes". GMOs are not junk food.

No, I thought I was explicit. Vast majority of Americans look at 2 things

How much is it?
Do I want corn?

You could put IDENTICAL corn in bins right next to each other. $0.99 (GMO), $0.99 (unlabelled) $1.00 (organic). I'd wager you'd see the 2 cheaper corn sell out equal rates, and the more expensive corn less so. *I* want the labelling but I realize I'm a minority. Nobody in my office which is 18 people could give a fuck about organic foods, and I allegedly live in Granola-head country.

I wonder how many carcinogens are added to crops by flaming them with petroleum flammables? If don is right about the safety of roundup it might be a much safer option.

Quigley says

I wonder how many carcinogens are added to crops by flaming them with petroleum flammables? If don is right about the safety of roundup it might be a much safer option.

None.

http://cropwatch.unl.edu/web/cropwatch/archive?articleID=4963643

Flame weeding is considered an organic method of weed control.

Sure GMOs and Roundup are probably better; however, for organic or natural farmers GMOs and Roundup are not an option. Flame weeding as an alternative to hand weeding IMO looks pretty good.

New Renter says

I'm sure there can be workarounds. Perhaps converting the torches (and
tractor) to run on methane. Some farms can produce their own fuel either from
wells or livestock. Maybe even using focused heat from the tractor's exhaust (do
tractors have cat converters?)

Most farmers don't even raise livestock any more, as that used to be their main source of income, that was by selling the animal/energy. Now, the primary source of energy(grains) is profitable due to ethanol mandates that it doesn't need to be converted into a secondary source source such as livestock. There are very large scale dairies, and beef, and pork farms due to economies of scale, that could and would use that technology, but it has to compete with the costs of the current technology and practices in use now, and it probably can't. plus, after a huge upgrade in equipment across the board due to the Bush tax cuts, throwing in some new technology that requires new types of equipment, that would sit idle if propane prices rise too much or supply issues surface, impedes the use of that technology.

Now for premium pricing organic produce that is grown on a small scale, the savings over labor and other technology might justify the use of burn technology. Those operations are already running tight margins, and a like increase in price/supply could sink it there too, over cheap options now like ground cover fabric.

upisdown says

ground cover fabric.

Sure - that works too.

chart data

Herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops, developed to survive application of specific herbicides that previously would have destroyed the crop along with the targeted weeds, provide farmers with a broader variety of options for effective weed control. Based on USDA survey data, HT soybeans went from 17 percent of U.S. soybean acreage in 1997 to 68 percent in 2001 and 93 percent in 2012. Plantings of HT cotton expanded from about 10 percent of U.S. acreage in 1997 to 56 percent in 2001 and 80 percent in 2012. The adoption of HT corn, which had been slower in previous years, has accelerated, reaching 73 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 2012.

Insect-resistant crops containing the gene from the soil bacterium Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) have been available for corn and cotton since 1996. These bacteria produce a protein that is toxic to specific insects, protecting the plant over its entire life. Plantings of Bt corn grew from about 8 percent of U.S. corn acreage in 1997 to 26 percent in 1999, then fell to 19 percent in 2000 and 2001, before climbing to 29 percent in 2003 and 67 percent in 2012. The increases in acreage share in recent years may be largely due to the commercial introduction in 2003/04 of a new Bt corn variety that is resistant to the corn rootworm, a pest that may be more destructive to corn yield than the European corn borer, which was previously the only pest targeted by Bt corn. Plantings of Bt cotton expanded more rapidly, from 15 percent of U.S. cotton acreage in 1997 to 37 percent in 2001 and 77 percent in 2012.

Use of Bt corn will likely continue to fluctuate over time, based on expected infestation levels of European corn borer (ECB), and the corn rootworm which are the main pests targeted by Bt corn. Similarly, adoption of Bt cotton depends on the expected infestation of Bt target pests, such as the tobacco budworm, the bollworm, and the pink bollworm. Adoption appears to have reached the low-growth phase, as adoption has already occurred on acreage where Bt protection is needed most. Insects have not posed major problems for soybeans, so insect-resistant varieties have not been developed.

These figures include adoption of "stacked" varieties of cotton and corn, which have both HT and Bt traits. Adoption of stacked varieties has accelerated in recent years. Stacked cotton reached 63 percent of cotton plantings in 2012. Plantings of stacked corn made up 52 percent of corn acres in 2012.

Adoption of all GE cotton, taking into account the acreage with either or both HT and Bt traits, reached 94 percent of cotton acreage in 2012, versus 93 percent for soybeans (soybeans have only HT varieties). Adoption of all biotech corn accounted for 88 percent of corn acreage in 2012.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx

One big consideration that affects whether GMO crops are planted is the availability of non-GMO seed because of the widespread/popular use of GMO seed. Increases in fees and the price of Roundup have turned farmers away from it, along with premium pricing for non-GMO grain, but it will be limited.

New Renter says

Almost as good as a Gatling gun.

Vicente says

No, I thought I was explicit. Vast majority of Americans look at 2 things

How much is it?

Do I want corn?

You could put IDENTICAL corn in bins right next to each other. $0.99 (GMO), $0.99 (unlabelled) $1.00 (organic). I'd wager you'd see the 2 cheaper corn sell out equal rates, and the more expensive corn less so. *I* want the labelling but I realize I'm a minority. Nobody in my office which is 18 people could give a fuck about organic foods, and I allegedly live in Granola-head country.

Well that's awfully nice of you to decide FOR farmers that slapping confusing labels on their products isn't going to hurt sales, or result in additional costs, or lead to lawsuits. If that were actually true, then none of this would even be an issue. Of course it's not true. So far, the majority of Californians haven't succumb to this lunacy, and voted the measure down.

As for your example of regular corn selling better than "organic" corn, that might be true, but not for the reason you think. Many people don't care about "organics" because they know it's just a bunch of hype. I've read articles that say "organic" food isn't any better for you than regular food. So yes, I would buy what's cheaper. I would pay more for something I think is WORTH more, but I'm not going to pay more for nothing.

And I think the fact that you brought it up is very telling. You (and other organic proponents) say you just want to have "choices", but everything you say and do shows your belief that organic is "better", and your attempts to prosthelytize to that end. The organics industry is making huge amounts of money right now, and are very motivated to smear the competition. They have already succeeded in making "GMO" a dirty word, and now they want to slap that dirty word all over their competitors' products.

zzyzzx says

I'm pretty sure that Mao and Pol Pot were in the committee as well.

Also Professor Moriarty, Jack the Ripper, and Evil Lincoln.