Couple of Updates in the GMO Arena

[overtone]

So does anyone remember the much mocked claims made by the hippies and whackos and anti-science victims of Dunning-Kruger, to the effect that one of the serious problems with the major GMOs currently marketed was their all but inevitable breeding of resistance to the relatively benign herbicides and pesticides they exploited (Bt and glyphosate), with various consequences all generally unfortunate (especially: the loss of the better chemicals to responsible use)? Among the expected consequences - expected by the Luddites etc - was to be an expansion of the GMs involved to include increasingly less benign chemicals (and of course an increasingly complex mixture of adjuvants and auxiliary stuff not available for public viewing or governmental regulation).

Some update:

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/24d-captan/24d-ext.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic_acid

http://www2.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/registration-enlist-duo

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/15902-farmers-and-ngos-condemn-usda-approval-of-monsanto-s-gm-dicamba-tolerant-soybeans-and-cotton

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/15/enlist-duo-everything-you-need-to-know-about-new-dual-herbicide-resistant-crops/ The money quote is buried about half way down, in which he validly and responsibly states (possibly for protection of whatever future his reputation still has) that his arguments in the rest of the essay do not apply to the real world: since the entire reason for the new products is to handle situations in which glyphosate resistant weeds have become a problem, and farmers do not follow best practices that cost them serious money, that combination is the real world circumstance of their use.

http://www.croplife.com/crop-inputs/adjuvants/spray-drift-enters-more-complex-era/

http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDAS/dh_092a/0901b8038092a9ec.pdf?filepath=enlist/pdfs/noreg/010-80241.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Meanwhile: http://pratoslimpos.org.br/?cat=4 Anyone with some Spanish or familiarity with Latin word roots in English can get the drift of the Portuguese - essentially, the article reports that in 2015 non-GM soybeans in Brazil gave around 5-6% higher yields (solidly consistent with most other side by side comparisons of such crops) and between 10% and 180% higher profits per acre (that’s less typical), compared with the two varieties of GM soybeans marketed there by Monsanto.

There’s a problem, in that the acreage of the non-GM was comparatively restricted in scale and distribution - the comparison should be viewed warily. Also, I have no familiarity with Brazilian sources.

But that restriction itself reveals a further problem with the GM soybeans: the seed market in Brazil is (essentially) controlled by Monsanto, and Monsanto enforces an 85/15 GMO/Conventional seed ratio in its Brazilian sales. So conventional seed is often not available. That is part of the reason so much acreage is planted in what by now is seen by many farmers to be less profitable crops

And in the side topics:

http://www.gmwatch.org/news/latest-news/16557-seralini-s-team-and-criigen-win-two-court-cases-about-their-research-on-toxicity-of-gmos-and-pesticides

[CharonY]

Where in these links does it show that resistance generation is due to GMO plants as opposed to increased use of the herbicides and pesticides? Resistance to Bt has been on the rise for a while as it is being used in increasing amount. I know that you claimed at some point that spraying massive amounts of it does not increase resistance. However biologically that does not make any sense as for the insect it does not matter where the selective pressure comes from. As a matter of fact, this is the reason why mostly a combination is sprayed, in a deliberate attempt to slow down the survival of resistant bugs. What is pertaining to resistance (whether by spraying or by production in GMO crops) is to some degree the habitat and the respective bug present in the system.

 

But again, the main point that you seem to make that for some reason GMO is much worse than traditional insecticide use has not been shown. Especially as the latter is known to be pretty bad and I do not expect GMOs to do much better either as they get more common.

What always surprises me is that you like to highlight the risks of GMOs whereas you like to think taht "traditional" industrial approaches as perfectly environmentally sound and safe. Just because we did it for a long time does not mean that we are not doing massive damage to the environment, especially water sources and numerous biota (not the least of it the massive spread of antibiotics resistance due to the way we handle livestock).

 

How companies control food markets is a different (if serious) issue altogether.

[overtone]

Where in these links does it show that resistance generation is due to GMO plants as opposed to increased use of the herbicides and pesticides?

The increased use is due to the GMOs - sometimes incorporated into the crops by the GM, sometimes predicated on GMs incorporated into the crop. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

 

 

I know that you claimed at some point that spraying massive amounts of it does not increase resistance

I made no such claim anywhere.

 

 

However biologically that does not make any sense as for the insect it does not matter where the selective pressure comes from

It does matter how and how intensively the selective pressure is applied. For example: Incorporating a particular Bt into each and every plant over hundreds of square miles of monoculture every year for years on end is how one would breed resistance on purpose, right? That's textbook selection pressure.

 

And once you've done that, your nice safe benign Bt spray option, that you used to be able to handle infestations with at low medical or environmental risk and manage to minimize selection pressure for resistance, is destroyed. Your antibiotic has gone the way of DDT and Penicillin. Public cost, Monsanto profit.

 

As a matter of fact, this is the reason why mostly a combination is sprayed, in a deliberate attempt to slow down the survival of resistant bugs.

Which works if - and only if - you aren't spraying the combination on pests already resistant to all but one of the ingredients, and blanketing the aforementioned hundreds of square miles of genetically similar monoculture with it. Because if you are, you are just going to be breeding superpests you can't kill with anything. (And that is exactly what's being launched in the US midwest, with the advent of GMOs carrying resistance to 2-4D as well as glyphosate, to allow combination spraying in regions beset by glyphosate resistant weeds).

 

 

What always surprises me is that you like to highlight the risks of GMOs whereas you like to think taht "traditional" industrial approaches as perfectly environmentally sound and safe

That would surprise me, too. Why do you post stupid shit like that? Am I supposed to believe that about my own posting and thinking, or are you trying to fool somebody else?

 

How companies control food markets is a different (if serious) issue altogether.

My post referred to Monsanto controlling Brazil's seed - not food - market. That is not a "different issue" from GMOs. It's central to several of their problems and downside potentials.

Edited December 3, 2015 by overtone

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

overtone,

 

My initial reaction to seeing this thread was to close it. You have had numerous chances to have genuine discussion about GMO's in almost as many threads and every time is has come back to the same lines and the same problems. Indeed, you were told not to reintroduce these topics. However, I thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt since you (somewhat surprisingly) posted links to back up your claims.

 

Alas, not even one response in and we are back to what staff have come to expect of you when discussing GMO's. Your attitude here leaves much to be desired. Acting hostile and bizarrely smug, implying that readers and / or their posts are ignorant or stupid (or both) is no way to go about things if having intelligent debate is what you are after. If it isn't, that's too bad, because it's what this forum attempts to foster.

 

I'm giving you one final chance to keep this thread going. Drop the snarky tone and back up your claims. If you can't or won't do that, this gets closed.

 

Do not respond to this note within the thread. Please report the post or PM staff if you take issue with it.

[CharonY]

Let me stick to Bt use for the moment as there are several specific questions I have. Also the mode is very different and it does not make sense to blanket BT crops and herbicide resistant crops.

 

 

The increased use is due to the GMOs - sometimes incorporated into the crops by the GM, sometimes predicated on GMs incorporated into the crop. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

So your assertion is that Bt GMOs singificantly increased the overall release of Bt into the environment and thereby promotes resistance on a higher level than just external application? If so, kindly provide the corresponding data (or links to these studies).

 

 

That would surprise me, too. Why do you post stupid shit like that? Am I supposed to believe that about my own posting and thinking, or are you trying to fool somebody else?

 

You repeatedly characterized Bt release as benign. How else am I to interpret it? Or are you talking about toxicity? But that has no impact on resistance or the way it is released. If neither of it is relevant why repeat it like a mantra? Has GMOs made them less benign? Being more specific really would help to communicate what you think.

 

 

Which works if - and only if - you aren't spraying the combination on pests already resistant to all but one of the ingredients, and blanketing the aforementioned hundreds of square miles of genetically similar monoculture with it. Because if you are, you are just going to be breeding superpests you can't kill with anything.

If bugs are already multiresistant then nothing will work. However how does release of a single toxin via GMO create them, whereas spraying does not? What if one variant is presented as GMO and another is sprayed? Where is the difference there? Obviously you are talking about Bt and not herbicide tolerance here (as that would make no sense).

 

Also, where is the news aspect on it? I expected a new study finally demonstrating the issues of GMOs yet came up short. Actually, I can help you there and list some specific issue (rather than handwaving opinions). And let me focus here on herbicide resistance as I happen to have some data here.

 

1) Glyophosate resistant weeds are on the rise. Surveys have shown that their numbers have increased since the use of resistant GMOs. The reason is less due to the GMOs themselves but they way were used. Monsanto advertised that one would only need the application of one herbicide and that crop rotation had not impact (among other claims). A number of studies have been published on this topic and even Monsanto has now shifted its stance in promoting multi-herbicide application, for example. Just to make sure, the resistance is not due to the GMOs but due to the increased use of glyophosate.

 

2) On the other hand resistant crops allowed the use of glyophosate which are less toxic and USDA data has shown a decrease in their use (with increase in glyphosates). Of course one could argue that using more glyphosates creates more resistant weed, which it does, but then on the other hand you would use other herbicides with the same issues but even higher toxicity. As proposed by numerous researchers, mixed application and crop rotation even with GMO plants would be a better approach (see USDA economic research report 162).

 

3) Worries about spread of transgenic traits. Here the data is conflicted as it requires expensive environmental sampling and tends to be underfunded. There are a couple of papers out there but the results are mixed. Some groups found no evidence (e.g. Oritz-Garcia et al 2005, PNAS) others found sporadic evidence but nothing conclusive yet (for a review see Mercer and Wainwright 2008, Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.).

 

4) Mixed yield with herbicide tolerant plants. Several studies have looked at yield as well as net return (factoring cost of seed, herbicides etc.). Overall the effect seems to be pretty small, but varied from region to region. In a number of cases no significant change in net gain has been found, indicating that yield alone would be a relatively weak argument for the of adoption of herbicide resistant crops. The situation is different for Bt crop (both findings are summarized in an USDA study from 2014 on GMO use).

 

 

Overall, the major point you are missing is that one cannot discuss GMO apart from general agricultural use. Each technology has its own advantages and disadvantages and proper crop management requires a strategic use with view on cost, yield, sustainability and environmental impact. Focusing on only one aspect is at best shortsighted. The glyophosate use is a perfect example in this context.

Edited December 3, 2015 by CharonY

[overtone]

So your assertion is that Bt GMOs singificantly increased the overall release of Bt into the environment and thereby promotes resistance on a higher level than just external application? If so, kindly provide the corresponding data (or links to these studies).

Bt GMOs produce their own Bt. They make it themselves. It's in their leaves and stuff. That's what the GM is. A thousand acres of Bt GMO soybeans is a thousand acres in which every single plant has Bt in it - in all parts of it, often. Then the next year, another thousand. It's always there, bug or no bug. It's like adding antibiotics to cattle feed - always there, whether the cow is sick or not, even found in the cowshit and groundwater and so forth. Is the picture clear?

 

Meanwhile, Bt varieties are often kind of expensive to buy and spray. They have been used for a long time in spot applications against local infestations, especially by organic farmers and others who can handle the cost, because they are effective and benign and often can be tailored to not injure pollinators etc. In such applications any resistance can be kept temporary and localized - it still takes a few years to develop, see, and the exposure is not chronic and landscape scale, so resistance is rarely created and can be allowed to die out whenever it is created. It will die out because it's surrounded by a landscape without the selection pressure, and the exposure is intermittent. Darwinian evolution 101.

 

 

b If bugs are already multiresistant then nothing will work.

My response was to your post in which you claimed combination spraying of herbicides was universal and greatly reduced resistance. I pointed out that it only slows resistance if all or most factors in the combination are effective. That's supported in a couple of the links in the OP, of course.

 

 

Obviously you are talking about Bt and not herbicide tolerance here (as that would make no sense).

My post was in response to your claim that resistance was unlikely because combination spraying of herbicide slowed its development. My point was that combinations are no more effective or less likely to provoke resistance than singles if only a single factor works anyway - i.e. resistance has developed. And as linked in the OP, that is our situation.

 

Just to make sure, the resistance is not due to the GMOs but due to the increased use of glyophosate.

I'm a bit baffled here, as to what you are trying to say. The glyphosate resistant GMOs are invented to allow - require - the increased use of glyphosate. That's what they're for. That's the whole point of them. The increased use of glyphosate is predicated on the resistance built into the GMOs. Farmers wanted to use more glyphosate, but couldn't because it would damage their crops. These crops are not damaged by it, so more can be used. It can be used in place of plowing and tilling, even. That's the big advantage. That's what the GMO is for. There is no advantage to that GMO at all unless one plans to use more glyphosate than before. And glyphosate use is way up, as you noted in 2).

 

Without the GMO, less use of glyphosate, less selection pressure for resistance. With the GMO, universal and prophylactic and landscape scale use of glyphosate, more selection pressure for resistance. (and more residue in food etc).

 

 

2) On the other hand resistant crops allowed the use of glyophosate which are less toxic and USDA data has shown a decrease in their use (with increase in glyphosates).

Which brings us to one of the harms done by destroying the effectiveness of glyphosate - the alternatives are almost all more toxic, more dangerous, etc. There's a window in which the more dangerous stuff is less employed, and then when the weeds return the more toxic stuff is all you've got.

 

And remember, the GMO farmer isn't plowing and tilling as much any more - they're set up to control weeds with herbicide. That was one of the major advantages.

 

And so I posted some links there showing that as glyphosate is destroyed by this overuse ( as predicted in standard Darwinian theory, just like any other antibiotic overused), not only are the more poisonous chemicals now being used in place of plowing and tilling, but Monsanto et al have by lucky coincidence developed GMOs resistant to a couple of these nastier chemicals (can't be foresight - their public claims were that resistance would be long delayed if it ever happened). So now 2-4D, say, is set up to be used on the landscape scale with resistant GMOs, same as the glyphosate was. But 2-4D and its adjuvants etc are not nearly as nice. And so we see the future as we are run up the ladder, each step losing the more benign chemical and increasingly reliant on the more toxic, with no alternative.

 

 

As proposed by numerous researchers, mixed application and crop rotation even with GMO plants would be a better approach (see USDA economic research report 162).

Why yes. Hold that thought.

Overall, the major point you are missing is that one cannot discuss GMO apart from general agricultural use.

What? That is my point. It is not missing, but always and universally and with great frustration present in every single post I have ever made on this topic. I am always talking about GMOs in actual use, not theory, in the context of current practices etc.

 

For example: the decrease in yield common to most GMOs (all currently marketed GMOs) is always specified by me to be in comparison with comparable agricultural practice, levels of sophistication, etc. Obviously if one chooses to compare GMO yield to yield from inferior seed, inadequate fertilizer, no modern methods of pest and weed control, poor harvest and storage practices, etc etc etc (as is almost universal, in third world countries), the GMOs with their modern fertilizer and improved seed varieties and so forth will show increased yields over past practices. The link above, Brazil's 2015 soybean harvest, corrects for that illusion by comparing fields of modern seeds and modern methods, some GM and some not. And like all such corrected and accurate comparisons, it shows a yield hit of a few percent (typically around 5). The surprise there was that there was also a profit hit - normally the current GMOs show increased profits for at least three or four years after introduction (until resistance etc). It's possible the honeymoon period is over in Brazil, or maybe the conventional plantings benefitted from some factor invisible in the report.

 

 

Each technology has its own advantages and disadvantages

Not just each "technology", but each GMO separately and each kind of GM. And each new one. They are all different.

 

The Chinese, for example, have deployed Bt expression trees for pulpwood harvest. What could possibly go wrong?

Edited December 5, 2015 by overtone

[CharonY]

See the issue is that you treat speculations (without calculation or sourcing) as facts and construe speculative narratives with this as as basis. Someone without any knowledge on the topic could mistake our opinion as facts and that is something I severely disagree with.

 

Take your first paragraph. You do not even try to find values regarding how much the protein (Cry to be precise) is produced vs amount sprayed. You just speculate. Specifically you claim that organic farmers use them only in spot treatment. What you completely neglect is that there are guidelines on their use. One reason is that If the spray just the protein it degrades quickly. Thus, if you do not apply enough and repeatedly, you have underdosage. And THAT is the condition that favors resistance formation. To increase the amount farmers often do not spray the protein but genetically modified Bacillus strains (yes instead of GMO crops you got GMO bacteria, chew on that). But even then the typical application is ca. 1-2 lbs per acre every 3-10 days. If we take a weekly application with 1 lb each and have a crop life of 4 months, we have applied 16 lbs of material on the plants. The only other effective means would be to use alternative (and potentially more toxic) insecticides. This and the narrow range of targets usually requires the use of Bt sprays with other insecticides.

 

 

EPA has published concentrations of Cry variants in all GMO plants which averages out to about 10 ng/mg dry weight. For corn the yield is about 7000 lb dry tons per acre so we get roughly 7 lbs per acre throughout one cycle.

So the expected amount on the field in one harvest cycle is roughly the same with either method, or at least not hugely different. But here is the real kicker: spray applications is, as every farmer will tell you, not homogeneous. Rather depending on time from spray, the type of application and other factors (e.g. rain, wind) you will have large differences in the final concentrations. Thus, if you underapply you do not control pest efficiently. In contrast the toxins produced by the plant accumulate precisely where they are supposed to act. With all other factors being equal and using Bio 101 one would conclude that a point application (i.e. in the plant) would greatly reduce dilution effects.

 

And again, the use of Bt-GMO plants (which typically is still supplemented with other insecticides) has reduced the use of total inecticide use compared ot just using Bt spray + other insecticides (as shown in the USDA report I mentioned earlier).

 

Again, every agricultural practice has ecological issues (not only GMOs) and it is important to follow the data in these discussions. Many people invest serious time investigating these challenges and neglecting all reports and studies and insist on throwing your opinion around without referring to any of them:

a) does not do the issue justice. Ecological and health impacts of how we utilize the environment is just too important to just form discussions based on opinion and gut feeling.

b) is incredibly arrogant towards researchers who worked hard to obtain funds to the research only to be dismissed by either interest group because it does not fit their respective narrative.

 

I should add that I focus here on the way the biology is misrepresented and am not arguing the economic side, which requires a separate discussion in the broader context of patented seeds (or food for that matter). Just by being GMO does not make it commodity that follows different economic rules.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

And with that, this thread is closed. Overtone, you are not to reintroduce this topic.