GM canola is cross-pollinating with wild relatives in North Dakota

[jeskill]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-modified-crop

 

I saw these researchers speak at the ESA meeting. Meredith Schafer (the Masters student) stated that 86% of canola sampled in transects (away from farmers fields) contained transgenes that allow the plant to resist herbicides glyphosate and/or glufosinate. Farmers are seeing these feral transgenic canola plants growing in fields in which canola has not been planted.

 

So Monsanto, since it's YOUR genes that have escaped, are you going to be responsible for the extra cost to farmers caused by weedy pesticide-resistant canola growing in their fields? mmmm probably not.

[Joe Tian]

That's wonderfull

http://www.chinazhongke.net/

[imatfaal]

That's wonderfull

http://www.chinazhongke.net/

 

Spamming porn or handbags I can almost understand - but heavy engineering?!

[zapatos]

Extra weeds seems like a small price to pay.

[jeskill]

Small price to pay for what?

 

Herbicide-resistant genes haven't been the panacea they were made out to be. The ridiculously large amount of glyphosate we've been using has actually led to the evolution of at least 21 herbicide-resistant weeds. This means that even after farmers have bought the expensive GM seeds and the glyphosate, they often have to spend even more money on more toxic herbicides, or they have to hire people to manually remove the weeds. The first weed on this list (linked to above as well), Amaranthus palmeri, has such thick stems, it can destroy tractors and can only be removed manually (e.g. with a machete). All of this increases the cost to the farmer.

 

And then there's the issue of'gene police'., who have been known on more than one occasion to sue farmers for "illegally growing Monsanto seeds" on their farmland. It doesn't much matter if said farmer didn't want the seeds in there in the first place.

 

I could go on...

 

I think the extra weeds is just the tip of an iceberg-sized block of socio-economic and environmental problems associated with GM seeds. I'm hoping it will be one of the last straws to break the camel's back.

[zapatos]

Small price to pay for what?

 

Agricultural biotechnology has been shown to multiply crop

production by seven- to tenfold in some developing countries,

far beyond the production capabilities of traditional agriculture,

and the global community is taking notice. In 2007, 12 million

farmers in 23 countries – 12 developing and 11 industrialized

– planted 252 million acres of biotech crops, primarily

soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Eleven million of these

were small or resource-poor farmers in developing countries.

Farmers earn higher incomes in every country

where biotech crops are grown. When farmers

benefit, their communities benefit as well.

 

Arguably, the biggest environmental impact of biotech crops

has been the adoption of no-till farming... In

fact, no-till farming has led to a global reduction of 14.76

billion kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2006, the equivalent

of removing 6.56 million cars from the roads for one year.

 

Global pesticide applications decreased six percent in the 10

years after biotechnology derived crops were first introduced,

eliminating 379 million pounds of pesticide applications.

 

Biotechnology derived crops are improving water

quality both through less herbicide and pesticide in

runoff from fields, and in the future through reducing

phosphorus excretion in livestock by using biotech

derived feed that contains reduced levels of phytate.

 

The G8 leaders, meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, at their annual

summit in July 2008, agreed to work to increase global

agricultural yields by providing farmers with greater access

to seed varieties developed through biotechnology.

 

Biotech crops decreased U.S. farmer’s production costs

by $1.4 billion in 2005, contributing to an increase in net

profits of $2 billion that year.

 

The Human Food Safety Panel of the Institute of Food

Technology (IFT) reviewed the available literature and

concluded: “Biotechnology, broadly defined, has a

long history of use in food production and processing.

It represents a continuum that encompasses both

centuries-old traditional breeding techniques and the latest

techniques based on molecular modification of genetic

material…The newer rDNA biotechnology techniques,

in particular, offer the potential to rapidly and precisely

improve the quantity and quality of food available.”

The IFT statement continues, “Crops modified by modern

molecular and cellular methods pose risks no different

from those modified by earlier genetic methods for

similar traits. Because the molecular methods are more

specific, users of these methods will be more certain

about the traits they introduce into the plants.”

 

Biotechnology provides targeted pest control methods

that are dramatically reducing impacts on non-target

species. In 2005, biotech varieties markedly reduced

farmers’ needs to use pesticide applications, eliminating

69.7 million pounds of pesticide use in the U.S. alone

 

http://www.ussec.org/resources/biotech/USB_BiotechCompendiumForApproval.pdf

 

I could go on...

 

I believe using new technology wisely in all cases is prudent. With all new technologies there is the potential for harm along with the good. But I'm not prepared to do away with mass transportation due to increased high speed accidents, or to do away with newly developed drugs because of potential side effects. To me GM seeds are similar; they offer many benefits along with additional risks. I'd rather minimize the risk than throw out the technology.

[John Cuthber]

"Amaranthus palmeri is a species of edible flowering plant in the amaranth genus."

From WIKI with added emphasis.

 

But, more seriously, a herbicide tolerant weed is just a weed if you don't use that herbicide.

It didn't take over the world before, and it won't do it now.

 

Monsanto's patently unreasonable behaviour where they " sue farmers for "illegally growing Monsanto seeds" on their farmland. "

is, IMO a bigger problem.

[jeskill]

"Amaranthus palmeri is a species of edible flowering plant in the amaranth genus."

From WIKI with added emphasis.

 

But, more seriously, a herbicide tolerant weed is just a weed if you don't use that herbicide.

It didn't take over the world before, and it won't do it now.

 

Right. But many weeds are edible. The problem with it is that farmers need to manage their systems and right now, they use large-scale equipment (i.e. harvesters, tractors) to manage their large-scale systems. Contamination due to unwanted plants, be them edible or not, will decrease the price they get. Manual weeding is time-consuming and expensive, especially when you have 1000 acres of corn you need to harvest. As edible as A. palmeri is, it doesn't have a big following right now and it doesn't allow farmers to use their equipment in the fields.

 

 

 

 

Monsanto's patently unreasonable behaviour where they " sue farmers for "illegally growing Monsanto seeds" on their farmland. "

is, IMO a bigger problem.

 

I agree.

 

I will respond to zapatos when I have a bit more time.

[zapatos]

Right. But many weeds are edible. The problem with it is that farmers need to manage their systems and right now, they use large-scale equipment (i.e. harvesters, tractors) to manage their large-scale systems. Contamination due to unwanted plants, be them edible or not, will decrease the price they get. Manual weeding is time-consuming and expensive, especially when you have 1000 acres of corn you need to harvest. As edible as A. palmeri is, it doesn't have a big following right now and it doesn't allow farmers to use their equipment in the fields.

So what they need is some solution that will allow the use of large scale systems, limiting unwanted plants, to increase their profit. This is exactly what herbicide resistant canola has done for canola farmers. Of course there is a downside in that some plants have become herbicide resistant, but the cost of the problems this plant has introduced seems, at least for now, to be minimal compared to the positive impact of this GM plant. From my perspective keeping the benefits of the GM plants and doing risk mitigation on the detriments seems a good approach.

 

I also wonder if there would be an outcry if someone had managed to genetically modify plants to resist herbicides using traditional breeding methods, which has been going on for centuries. Is the modification worse because it was done in a lab instead of a field?

[jeskill]

To summarize the arguments made in zapato's post:

GM crops are good because of;

1) increased production

2) no-till farming

3) decreased pesticide applications

4) less pesticide runoff; potentially less phosphorus run-off

5) production costs for US farmers

6) same as other breeding techniques

 

My first question: Did you check to see if they are comparing GM crops against conventional (i.e. industrial non-GM) farming practices or ecological agricultural practices? Because usually in these publications, they're comparing GM vs. non-GM industrial. In which case, I'd say I'm not a fan of either, for many of the same reasons.

 

I am a proponent of ecological farming, which basically means I think there should be more research and support for agricultural techniques that rely less on capital inputs (i.e. pesticides, herbicides, chemical fertilizers, specialized seeds that can't be saved) and more on our knowledge of ecological systems (i.e. autonomous biocontrol, polyculture, specialized compost systems, sustainable slash and burn, conservation of intraspecific diversity to mitigate environmental extremes). This is a value issue for me, but is influenced by overwhelming evidence that industrial agriculture is ecologically damaging many ecosystems in the world.

 

This doesn't necessarily mean I'm against the general concept of genetic modification. Rather, I think that the current form of GM foods (corporate seeds with stringent intellectual rights created for industrial agricultural systems) are not good for the environment or for society. For example, the laws concerning intellectual rights of GM genes unfairly benefit corporations and unfairly penalize small farmers. Due to the paradigm in which they are created, GM foods are also engineered to be grown in an unsustainable manner that requires monoculture cropping and too many capital inputs. Really, this is a bigger issue than "GM" for me, but "GM" is a useful example of how the industrial agricultural system negatively affects small farmers.

 

 

With respect to the link you provided, GM production as it is right now cannot compete with ecological farming practices.

 

Production:

The majority of GM crops are meant to be grown as large-scale monocultures. Large scale monocultures are less productive per acre than small scale polycultures:

"In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity in terms of harvestable products per unit area is higher than under sole cropping with the same level of management." (Altieri 2008)

 

No-till Farming:

Perennial grains have the potential to improve soil retention far beyond the ability of no-till annuals

 

 

Pesticide, Herbicide and Chemical fertilizer applications:

A well-managed agroecological system requires little to no chemicals -- the ecological interactions are managed such that herbivores never become "pests".

e.g. Landis et al. 2000. Ann. Rev. Entom. 45, 175-201

 

It should be pointed out that while pesticide use has not increased, neither has it decreased, and herbicide use has definitely increased since the invention of glyphosate-resistant crops.

 

Production Costs:

They differ. Industrialized agriculture costs are for capital inputs, while agroecological costs are related to labour inputs. However, when you think about how many small farmers there are in the world (the majority of the developing world is fed by small farmers with less than 1 acre), it's easy to see how this trade-off is not bad.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/07/01/agroecology-small-farms-and-food-sovereignty

The peasant population includes 75 million people representing almost two-thirds of Latin America’s total rural population. The average farm size of these units is about 1.8 hectares, although the contribution of peasant agriculture to the general food supply in the region is significant

Impoverished farmers can't afford the pesticides, (heck, US farmers can't either -- hence the subsidies) they can afford to do the labor. Moreover, since large scale monocultures also require less manpower, farm ownership (and hence land ownership) is concentrated to a few producers. This begets problems including less jobs overall, less money going into local economies, and, in places like Brazil, more landless peasants cutting down rainforests.

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

So what they need is some solution that will allow the use of large scale systems, limiting unwanted plants, to increase their profit. This is exactly what herbicide resistant canola has done for canola farmers. Of course there is a downside in that some plants have become herbicide resistant, but the cost of the problems this plant has introduced seems, at least for now, to be minimal compared to the positive impact of this GM plant. From my perspective keeping the benefits of the GM plants and doing risk mitigation on the detriments seems a good approach.

 

Apologies -- I don't really understand the first two sentences. Could you rephrase?

I think the main problem is that companies such asMonsanto have gone to great lengths sue farmers whose fields have been accidentally contaminated with GM seeds. At the same time, the farmers incur a loss (increased herbicide cost or manual labor) because companies such as Monsanto have not been able to 'control' their product -- the seed does and will escape. The lack of fairness in the system is what makes the costs of the problem such an issue. Farmers have lost their livelihoods because of accidental contamination.

 

I also wonder if there would be an outcry if someone had managed to genetically modify plants to resist herbicides using traditional breeding methods, which has been going on for centuries. Is the modification worse because it was done in a lab instead of a field?

 

I'm sure some people think it is worse. I'm not one of them. I don't have a problem with the technology per se, just how it's currently used. Given the amount of private money, time and energy that goes into genetic engineering vis-a-vis hybridization, I do wonder if it's possible to have a socially just version of GM food.