March Against Monsanto

[Raymond Fries]

I just got back from participating in our local march. There was an excellent turnout here to protest GMO food manufacturing and our voice to have GMO food labeled.

How was the turnout in your city?

Odd that this is a worldwide protest and I have yet to see anything on the main stream media. I wish the USA would catch up to the European countries where GMO food is illegal. We would be a healthier nation.

Enjoy Life...

[Art Mann]

I didn't hear about any such activities until you posted. Of course, some kinds of genetic manipulation of food crops have been going on for centuries by way of plant breeding. The earth would mostly be starving if it were not for all those hundreds of years of effort. How do you determine what is good genetic manipulation and what is bad? I am not being facetious. I am just not very informed on the issue.

[Mike Henderson]

I hadn't heard about it either. But I agree that some of the GMO is very valuable. For example, "golden rice" which contains a vitamin which prevents blindness because of the deficiency in normal diets in part of the world.

GMO can be a force for good or it can create problems. Banning all GMO is not the right choice, in my opinion.

Mike

[Dave Sheldrake]

I wish the USA would catch up to the European countries where GMO food is illegal

It's not illegal here, it just has to be approved and marked, animals fed on GM feeds aren't required to be notified at all.

cheers

Dave

[Prashun Patel]

Ooh this is a dangerous thread. Gmo's dangers and values are highly debatable and frankly unpredictable.

the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.

[Roger Feeley]

I have heard that there is some corporate bullying going on. You have an organic farmer growing legacy produce. The wind blows some GMO pollen into his fields and blends with his crop. The corporate guys come around and test his crop find some patented DNA. They sue the farmer for patent infringement. The farmer, being a little guy can't do much.

[Dennis Peacock]

This thread is being watched and subject to being closed. Let's try and keep this on topic...shall we? :)

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ok, I'll breathe deeply before posting...

I make my living using GMO tech. Marching against Monsanto is an attack on my livelihood so I take this personally. People who blatantly kowtow to a political agenda by partaking in this nonsense without even bothering to understand the facts of whatever it is they are protesting, are quite frankly being manipulated by a "dog whistle" sent by someone who needs mindless masses to gain power. Don't be used like that.

Prashen put forward a legitimate complaint about Monsanto, their near monopoly on one specific trait for many years probably should have been prosecuted. The patent is up though now, there is competition finally. It's an interesting subject.

Roger, one of those organic producers took a bogus case to a liberal judge and shut down a whole industry for a while. It was thrown out eventually by a sane court. Who's bullying who? I personally had to lay people off over that.

I'm not personally attacking anyone, just keep in mind that there are other sides to this.

[Raymond Fries]

Here is some scientific data if you want to research:
http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/1notes

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Who paid for the studies and the data? What was the scientist's theories and beliefs BEFORE they did the studies?

Everyday new studies come out countering what previous studies found.

Point blank, if you have the money you can buy any study results you want. I would suggest that scientists today will allow their pre-study ideas to sway their research to gain not the unbiased data but rather that which backs their theories.

Food revolution.org...... responsibletechnology.org.....hmmmmm....I would be concerned about their objectivity without even going to the site. I've seen enough.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Sadly Ray on more than one occasion there have been highly qualified members of the community I was a part of who turned against their previous disciplines with some quite scathing reports. There is usually an underlying reason for their sudden change of heart that is rarely reported.

For example:

http://humansarefree.com/2014/02/why-obama-will-never-admit-fukushima.html


I suggest that they know that the many of nuclear reactors in the United States are also prone to catastrophic meltdown, and they are doing nothing about it.

Reactors can melt down, as can any fission type reactor but they are not in any way prone to it when operated correctly but the byline suggests it is some wild conspiracy to withold information that half the planet is upon being made uninhabitable for the next 240,000 years.

In the second link the poster has suggested that he/she is providing evidence? without checkable data and blind testing / peer review all it actually provides is anecdote and speculation based on opinion. The data may exist but unless it is presented it means nothing.

cheers

Dave

Edit: Just saw Kens post, that about sums up my tale on it as well :)

[Greg Peterson]

Ooh this is a dangerous thread. Gmo's dangers and values are highly debatable and frankly unpredictable.

the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.

BINGO! Monsanto's business practice is beyond heavy handed.

People often confuse hybridization with genetically modifying a plant. Inserting DNA into a plant is not the same as cross fertilizing.

In 2012, Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University had a study on Roundup ready crops published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The use of glyphosate based herbicides had increased each year by upwards of 25% due to the emergence of glyphosate tolerant weeds. In the first few years the GE crops worked well. But weeds migrated that were tolerant and existing weeds developed tolerance. In 1999, growers applied 1.5 million pounds of the herbicide. By 2011, 90 million pounds were being applied. The frequency and quantity per application increased each year in order to remain effective.

"It does not matter how a farmer, a forester, or a gardener’s seed or plants become contaminated with GMOs; whether through cross pollination, pollen blowing in the wind, by bees, direct seed movement or seed transportation, the growers no longer own their seeds or plants under patent law, they becomes Monsanto’s property."
(http://thegranddisillusion.wordpress.com/monsanto-vs-farmer/)
"A June 2013 ruling of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC conceded to the plaintiffs' argument that contamination from Monsanto seeds would occur, but ultimately dismissed them: "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land)." (source)

As Rady Ananda points out, a "trace amount" in this ruling, only means less than one percent contamination of a crop! Those are not the percentages of contamination in the real world - i.e. Monsanto can sue, sue, sue. Furthermore, less than one percent contamination still leaves the integrity of an organic crop ruined. It does not settle the issue of Monsanto trespassing on private land to take samples for infringement cases."

"Organic farmer and President of Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), Jim Gerritsen, had said:
Our farmers want nothing to do with Monsanto. We are not customers of Monsanto. We don't want their seed. We don't want their gene-spliced technology. We don't want their trespass onto our farms. We don't want their contamination of our crops. We don't want to have to defend ourselves from aggressive assertions of patent infringement because Monsanto refuses to keep their pollution on their side of the fence. We want justice."

Link (http://www.activistpost.com/2014/01/supreme-court-gives-monsanto-full.html)

Regardless of whether one supports GMO or not, consumers have a right to make an informed decision when it comes to something as fundamental as choosing the food they feed their family. We know the country of origin, why can we not know if the food contains GMO's? Or more likely the case, foods that do not contain GMO's.

[John C Lawson]

I hadn't heard about it either. But I agree that some of the GMO is very valuable. For example, "golden rice" which contains a vitamin which prevents blindness because of the deficiency in normal diets in part of the world.

GMO can be a force for good or it can create problems. Banning all GMO is not the right choice, in my opinion.

Mike

While I am undecided about GMO food, I would like to point out that GMO e. coli and yeast (depending on manufacturer) produce the human insulin that keeps Type 1 and many Type 2 diabetics alive with many fewer complications.

[Dennis Peacock]

Steve Rozmiarek,
If you make your living via GMO....then why don't you share what you know to be "truth"...real truth if you please. I am far more impressed by people who see the bad AND the good side of things when they post supporting arguments about "stuff". I don't mean this in a derogatory manner....just that if you complain because we don't know the truth? Then why not tell us? :)

I am against Monsanto because of their very poor business ethics and practices. It would suit me fine if someone shut them down for good...IMHO. ;)

But....allow me to say this.....A Woodworking forum is not the place to fight nor bicker about stuff like this. I realize this is an Off Topic Forum section, but still, a woodworking forum is not the platform to get truth out to the general public that is causing your livelihood to be threatened.

[Dale Murray]

Who paid for the studies and the data? What was the scientist's theories and beliefs BEFORE they did the studies?

Everyday new studies come out countering what previous studies found.

Point blank, if you have the money you can buy any study results you want. I would suggest that scientists today will allow their pre-study ideas to sway their research to gain not the unbiased data but rather that which backs their theories.

Food revolution.org...... responsibletechnology.org.....hmmmmm....I would be concerned about their objectivity without even going to the site. I've seen enough.

You response actually contained zero useful information, instead tried to call into question the validity of the material.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the thread in general.

How would you feel if a Frisbee manufacturer drove around your neighborhood flipping Frisbees onto your lawn then later sent lawyers around to sue you for possession of their Frisbees? I know it is not exactly the same but it is equally as ridiculous as them sewing somebody who is involuntarily using their tech via pollination. They should be sued for crop contamination in such cases.

[Mike Henderson]

Let me make a comment about labeling food as GMO. Some years back, California passed Prop 65 which required stores to post a sign warning that some products they carried may contain chemicals "known to the state of California" to cause cancer, birth defects, and so on. I'm sure the intent was to get stores to quit carrying products with those chemicals.

However, what actually happened is that every store posted the sign at their entrance, whether they carried the products or not, just to make sure they couldn't get sued if they did carry such a product. And people who enter the store just ignore the sign.

So let's look at corn, which in one way or another (see high fructose corn syrup) finds it's way into a whole lot of products. It's impossible to carry corn in bulk without having some GMO corn mixed in. So if mandatory labeling comes into effect, just about every product will have a label on it saying "May contain GMO ingredients" and no one will pay attention to it except the people who are radical about it. Non GMO products will be available, but because of the special handling and testing, they'll be much more expensive and, again, the only people who will buy them will be the radicals.

You see this effect now with peanuts (not GMO peanuts, plain peanuts). Companies mark their product as "may contain small amounts of peanuts or peanut products, or may have been processed on equipment that also processes peanut products." That's just a way of protecting themselves from liability.

Unless GMO food is shown to be unsafe - and then it probably won't be able to be sold - labeling it is useless, but will open the door to lawyers who will sue everyone in the food chain for any violation of the labeling.

Mike

[If there's a market for non-GMO food, companies will produce it and label the product as "Non-GMO" Those people who are concerned about GMO food can vote with their dollars and buy that product. That way, the free market will decide about labeling of food and there won't be a feast for the attorneys.]

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Dale,

I would suggest that it's very useful to caution everybody about automatically accepting the information at websites with names like "Activist", Foodrevolution.org....responsibletechnology.org... . The names alone provide ample indication that the website proudly has an axe to grind, a political bias and the information contained there should be heavily scrutinized. The internet is the world's largest source of MISINFORMATION .....and misunderstanding..and NO.....the sky isn't falling Chicken Little.....there might be something falling out of the sky but the sky isn't falling.

It is ridiculous that Monsanto filed that lawsuit. I would love to know the unbiased truth why Monsanto filed that law suit. I would suggest you won't get that truth at websites supporting either party in the lawsuit. It's also just as ridiculous suggest they should be sued for contamination since neither the organic farmers or Monsanto can contain the wind, insects etc.

I would agree with mandatory labeling with regards to GMO food products. People should be able to make an informed decision.

The truth is most people in this country don't fully appreciate the high standards of living we enjoy at a relatively low expense when compared to other countries. I will take issue with my close friend Dennis and state that we have that standard of living partially because of large corporations like Monsanto and others. Period. New developments take money, lots of money. Often new products require research for periods of time of a decade or longer. Scientists, engineers, farmers, laborers have families to feed too. Thus they require payment for their labors during the research time. The type of financing required to fund long term research or in the case of huge expensive inventories of seeds or in the case of other industries for example, the spare parts for jet engines used in commercial airliners, can only be handled by large corporations.

The stocks for large corporations are owned by people, individuals. It surprising how many people are invested in the stock market directly or indirectly and don't realize it. They don't realize that their retirement funds are invested in the stock market. Current estimates indicate 52% of the US population is invested in the stock market. What does that have to do with Monsanto? If you don't like what they are doing, then buy some stock, attend the stockholders meetings and get resolutions passed to change corporate policies or executives voted out of corporate offices. If you can't get it done, then accept the fact that you ideas aren't popular.

I have family members who are farmers in Illinois and Indiana. I married into a family that has members who are farmers or professionally employed in farm related businesses. Farmers are, among a lot of other trades, businessmen. If there was as much profit in organic farming as current traditional farming, farmers would switch tomorrow. They have to be financially successful or go out of business. Note, I am not taking issue at organic farming but rather the profitability of it and the resultant increase in cost of living to the average US citizen it could cause.

In response to the OP....in past years, the main stream media carried coverage about the March on Monsanto because the news was the "soup du jour". It's not the current media interest and as is obvious by you disappointment, not many people are as concerned about it as you are.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Steve Rozmiarek,
If you make your living via GMO....then why don't you share what you know to be "truth"...real truth if you please. I am far more impressed by people who see the bad AND the good side of things when they post supporting arguments about "stuff". I don't mean this in a derogatory manner....just that if you complain because we don't know the truth? Then why not tell us? :)

I am against Monsanto because of their very poor business ethics and practices. It would suit me fine if someone shut them down for good...IMHO. ;)

But....allow me to say this.....A Woodworking forum is not the place to fight nor bicker about stuff like this. I realize this is an Off Topic Forum section, but still, a woodworking forum is not the platform to get truth out to the general public that is causing your livelihood to be threatened.

Sure, be glad to. A little background is probably in order. I am a farmer first, growing corn, sugar beets, hard red wheat, and several types of dry edible beans. My farm has grown around 10% of this nation's great northern bean production for example. I've also worked in boardrooms of companies that take beans from the field to the grocery store shelf.

Monsanto brought out a trait called Round Up ready, more than a decade ago. I doubt that most of the anti GMO crowd even know what it does. What RR does is make the plant tolerant of a non selective Monsanto chemical, Roundup. It'll kill most everything but the RR ready crop. We use the RR corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. The benefits of this are that you can use a simple, safe chemical program of a couple that work very well, vs the massively expensive and much more dangerous cocktails of the past. Atrazine for example is a chemical that the enviros tend to bemoan. RR has pretty much replaced it in corn fields, and is much safer.

These RR crops can now be grown no, or minimum till, which eliminated erosion, ala the dust bowl. They can be grown cheaper now that competition has lowered the prices finally for the seed and chemical, and they are a better quality product, ie you can clean up the toxic nightshade infestations that couldn't be controlled in a beet field, so they don't happen in the food grade beans and end up on your table.

Flip side is, Monsanto acted like a monopoly to get to this point. It was tolerated because they make great products that really work, and probably significant lobbying. You can buy generic glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) now for a small fraction of the prices they were charging during the height of their reign. There is a new business model there now though. Sugar beets went RR several years ago. Because of the generic RR availability, the profit is built into a tech fee now. A unit of sugar beet seed will cost around $350, half actual seed, half tech fee. This is tolerable because the RR trait allows a safer cleaner product. The finances are similar at this point.

No RR crops are direct to human consumption. They all get turned into cattle feed, fuels, or processed into something else. Personally, I'd be much more worried about the safety of the processing facilities than the GMO trait. An interesting detail, consumers don't seem to care where their food comes from. There has been a tremendous fight to try to get beef source verified, and the consumer simply doesn't seem to care. They would rather save a buck and import cheaper dry edible beans from China that have potentially been fertilized with raw human waste than by local. To compete with whatever shady activities happen around the world to make "food" to sell to the USA, our farmers need these technologies to raise efficiencies to compete.

I mentioned sugar beets. The industry started growing RR sugar beets 5 years ago. Two years after that, a group of enviro's sued on behalf of a small seed grower. They claimed that the seed was being contaminated by pollinating sugar beets. Sugar beets don't pollinate in farming, they are a biannual, so they get harvested prior to flowering. The suit shut down the beet industry for a bit. It eventually got tossed but it cost many much.

I have to get going, will be happy to add more if any want.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Please post more when you have a chance Steve!

[george wilson]

I am afraid that Monsanto may be causing the bees to die off with their genetically altered plants. We do not know the unseen side effects these crops might have. But,something is very wrong with the bees. If we lose them,we will be in horrible trouble.

[David Weaver]

Sure, be glad to. A little background is probably in order. I am a farmer first, growing corn, sugar beets, hard red wheat, and several types of dry edible beans. My farm has grown around 10% of this nation's great northern bean production for example. I've also worked in boardrooms of companies that take beans from the field to the grocery store shelf.

Monsanto brought out a trait called Round Up ready, more than a decade ago. I doubt that most of the anti GMO crowd even know what it does. What RR does is make the plant tolerant of a non selective Monsanto chemical, Roundup. It'll kill most everything but the RR ready crop. We use the RR corn, soybeans, and sugar beets. The benefits of this are that you can use a simple, safe chemical program of a couple that work very well, vs the massively expensive and much more dangerous cocktails of the past. Atrazine for example is a chemical that the enviros tend to bemoan. RR has pretty much replaced it in corn fields, and is much safer.

These RR crops can now be grown no, or minimum till, which eliminated erosion, ala the dust bowl. They can be grown cheaper now that competition has lowered the prices finally for the seed and chemical, and they are a better quality product, ie you can clean up the toxic nightshade infestations that couldn't be controlled in a beet field, so they don't happen in the food grade beans and end up on your table.

Flip side is, Monsanto acted like a monopoly to get to this point. It was tolerated because they make great products that really work, and probably significant lobbying. You can buy generic glyphosate (Roundup's active ingredient) now for a small fraction of the prices they were charging during the height of their reign. There is a new business model there now though. Sugar beets went RR several years ago. Because of the generic RR availability, the profit is built into a tech fee now. A unit of sugar beet seed will cost around $350, half actual seed, half tech fee. This is tolerable because the RR trait allows a safer cleaner product. The finances are similar at this point.

No RR crops are direct to human consumption. They all get turned into cattle feed, fuels, or processed into something else. Personally, I'd be much more worried about the safety of the processing facilities than the GMO trait. An interesting detail, consumers don't seem to care where their food comes from. There has been a tremendous fight to try to get beef source verified, and the consumer simply doesn't seem to care. They would rather save a buck and import cheaper dry edible beans from China that have potentially been fertilized with raw human waste than by local. To compete with whatever shady activities happen around the world to make "food" to sell to the USA, our farmers need these technologies to raise efficiencies to compete.

I mentioned sugar beets. The industry started growing RR sugar beets 5 years ago. Two years after that, a group of enviro's sued on behalf of a small seed grower. They claimed that the seed was being contaminated by pollinating sugar beets. Sugar beets don't pollinate in farming, they are a biannual, so they get harvested prior to flowering. The suit shut down the beet industry for a bit. It eventually got tossed but it cost many much.

I have to get going, will be happy to add more if any want.

Contamination of other pollinating crops is a problem, though, even if it's not with sugar beets. Anyone who has crop contaminated will just get rolled, there's nothing they can do about it.

I personally would rather see GMO labeling. To give monsanto a bye would be out of bounds in my book, though I'm sure our renter plants monsanto products. But they (M and not the renter) bought our legislature and got a law put on the books to keep us from being able to label milk has having rBST treated cows or not. Now, I'm not calling for BST to be made illegal or anything, but I'd like to be able to get labeled products. My distaste for them has more to do with how they conduct themselves than with necessarily known problems with their genetic trait.

There's really no reason they should've gone to our legislature and lobbied for a law to ban labeling something that is perfectly honest, factual and true. That's what I don't like.

Should there be a problem (like there was with dioxin laced Agent Orange), their response would probably be the same as it has been for Agent Orange, which is, and I quote:
"Monsanto should not be liable at all for injuries or deaths caused by Agent Orange.....reliable scientific evidence indicates that Agent Orange is not the cause of serious long-term health effects"

(maybe not, but when you lace it with dioxins and they are, you should probably take some responsibility).

I agree, though, too, that eating food grown in heavy concentrations of atrazine isn't an attractive option, either.

Maybe if we weren't so wasteful with our crops, we wouldn't need to have the perfect yield conditions that are needed to meet demands to burn food, etc. Maybe we'd have better quality food, too, instead of so much processed low protein and low vitamin trash.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

George,

Where did you get the idea that GMOs are causing the bee problem?

I would suggest it's in Monsanto's best interest to not be causing that problem as bees provide a lot of pollination.

Copied from the USDA website:


CCD History
In October 2006, some beekeepers began reporting losses of 30-90 percent of their hives. While colony losses are not unexpected, especially over the winter, this magnitude of losses was unusually high.

The main symptom of CCD is very low or no adult honey bees present in the hive but with a live queen and no dead honey bee bodies present. Often there is still honey in the hive, and immature bees (brood) are present. Varroa mites, a virus-transmitting parasite of honey bees, have frequently been found in hives hit by CCD.
This is not the first time that beekeepers are being faced with unexplained losses. The scientific literature has several mentions of honey bee disappearances—in the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 1960s. While the descriptions sound similar to CCD, there is no way to know for sure if those problems were caused by the same agents as CCD.
There have also been unusual colony losses before. In 1903, in the Cache Valley in Utah, 2000 colonies were lost to an unknown "disappearing disease" after a "hard winter and a cold spring." More recently, in 1995-96, Pennsylvania beekeepers lost 53 percent of their colonies without a specific identifiable cause.
In June 2007, ARS and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), USDA's extramural research grants agency, co-chaired a workshop of scientists and stakeholders to develop a Colony Collapse Disorder Action Plan. This plan identified areas where more information was needed and developed a research priority list for additional research projects related to finding the cause/causes of CCD.

I point out George....Monsanto didn't exist in most of those historical time periods I marked in bold.

[Mike Henderson]

I am afraid that Monsanto may be causing the bees to die off with their genetically altered plants. We do not know the unseen side effects these crops might have. But,something is very wrong with the bees. If we lose them,we will be in horrible trouble.
The cause of colony collapse disorder (CCD) is not clear and is probably due to multiple stress factors affecting the hive at the same time. Researchers have examined GMO pollen as a factor and have not found that it correlates with CCD. I'm not an expert on bees, although I have one hive in my backyard to pollinate my avocado trees. I do follow the research on bees just because I'm interested.

I'll just comment that pollination of the almond crop here in CA is big business but puts real stress on the hives. The hives are transported long distances and the crops around the almond groves may be using certain chemicals which stress the bees, even if the almond growers are not.

Mike

[Greg Peterson]

Japan and Europe cancelled their wheat orders from the NW when it was discovered that a farmer's crop had contaminated by GMO's. Surprisingly, Monsanto has yet to sue the farmer for patent infringement although apparently they would have the right to do so.

The farmers who have customers that require non-GMO product should have standing in the US court system to seek remedy from Monsanto when the farmers crop is compromised by Monsanto's GMO's.

If Monsanto wants to lock farmers into annual leases (licenses), so be it. But if their product contaminates another farmers crop, it is the non-GMO farmer that is the injured party, not Monsanto. It is magnanimous of Monsanto to agree to not sue farmers whose crop is not significantly polluted by their product. But where is the recourse for the farmer when their seed line is contaminated and forever altered? How is this even remotely ethical or reasonable?

If I have a choice between a non-GMO and GMO product, I would select the non-GMO product. In part because I don't think the science on GMO's is in yet, but also because non-GMO farmers are fighting an uphill battle against the industrial agriculture industry.

Without farmers, there would be no us. I honestly do not understand how they do it. I can imagine few jobs more labor intensive for little in return than farming.

[jared herbert]

I am also a commercial farmer in nw Iowa. I make my living growing corn and soybeans. Every acre of crop that I have is either corn or soybeans that have the roundup ready gene in the seed. I pay a royalty that is included in the price of the seed that goes directly to Monsanto. The advent of roundup ready crops has made life much easier, safer, better for the environment and by the way more profitable. Every acre I have is farmed by the notill method meaning I just plant in to last years crop residue with no mechanical tillage. This method has cut my fuel usage by about 75% per acre. I use less than 2 gallons of diesel fuel per acre to grow the crop compared to about 8 gallons per acre in the past. The roundup technology allows me to use roundup, one of the least toxic chemicals, to control weeds as opposed to atrazine and a host of other products that were dangerous to the applicator and also to the environment and wildlife. I apply 22 to 40 oz per acre of roundup per acre compared to several times that amount of other chemicals popular in the past. Roundup has made the transition to notill farming much easier. The notill methods have cut soil erosion on my land drastically from what it use d to be when land was tilled several times each year. The organic matter of my soil has increased about 25% since I have adopted roundup technology and notill farming. The yield per acre I have has increased every year basically since I have started farming due to better technology, genetics and farming methods. I can grow more grain per acre with less chemical use and safer methods, a lot of this is directly traced back to Monsanto and their products.

That is not to say that Monsanto is lily white on any of this. They have good product that is dependable and safe for me to use. They have their faults I am sure but they have made my world better. I would not use their products if I felt it was unsafe to me or the environment.

One poster mentioned the huge increase in the amount of roundup used from sometime in the 90s until now. the insertion of the round up gene into commercial crops did not exist in 1990 so to compare that amount of gallons per year to what is used now is like comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps similar to comparing I phone usage in 1990 to what it is now.

I was the first farmer in my community to plant roundup beans, I don't remember what year it was, but I did it and never looked back. I do dislike paying a royalty to them on every bag of seed every year but that is the way the world works. If anyone has any questions I would be glad to answer them Jared Herbert

[Greg Peterson]

"In 2012, Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University had a study on Roundup ready crops published in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe. The use of glyphosate based herbicides had increased each year by upwards of 25% due to the emergence of glyphosate tolerant weeds. In the first few years the GE crops worked well. But weeds migrated that were tolerant and existing weeds developed tolerance. In 1999, growers applied 1.5 million pounds of the herbicide. By 2011, 90 million pounds were being applied. The frequency and quantity per application increased each year in order to remain effective."

Link (http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/pesticide-use-rises-as-herbicide-resistant-weeds-undermine-performance-of-major-ge-crops-new-wsu-study-shows/)


Link to Study (http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

Who paid for the study? What was the good doctor's pre-study beliefs and what was the beliefs of those who financed the study?

[David Weaver]

I think the bee issue right now is neonicotinoids, and I think those are a Bayer product and not Monsanto.

[Art Mann]

I can believe that the principle of natural selection would produce weeds that would be resistant to the initial rate of Roundup. So what? Since its discovery in 1928, the use of Penicillin has resulted in bacteria that are resistant to the original dosage. Consequently, higher doses have to be prescribed. Is that a good reason to abandon its use?

[Joel Goodman]

the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.

+1 For 10,000 years farmers have been harvesting their seeds for the next planting -- I am not convinced that we should outlaw this practice based on the a few years experience. I am also not convinced that putting herbicide on "Round Up Ready" crops and then eating them is in my best health interests. My wife grew up chasing the DDT truck as it sprayed -- no one thought that was unsafe then.

[Todd Willhoit]

What was the good doctor's...

A little bias there Ken? Suggesting that the doctor is biased or the study is flawed without having your own facts clearly points to your own bias.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

No bias Todd. Just asking a question. What was the doctor's beliefs before he performed the study. I'd like to know why he did the study. I'd like to know the methods he used in the study and what other outside considerations he may have had if any with respect to other possible positive effects of the GMOs and the gerbicide.

Keep in mind, that WSU also has a professor who is the widely known expert on Bigfoot.

The link that Greg posted appears to only go to the Dr.'s summary and there are no details.

If doubt, follow the money. Who funded the study? What outcome would benefit the financier?

I am a skeptic.

[Greg Peterson]

Greg,

Who paid for the study? What was the good doctor's pre-study beliefs and what was the beliefs of those who financed the study?

I don't know who paid for his research. He is not employed by any activist groups or private industry. He is a research professor at Washington State University Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources. He earned a BA in economics from Harvard in 1971 and received his masters and PhD in agricultural economics from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1979/1980.

On the surface it appears his analysis is fair and balanced. His academic training seems to suggest an interest in economical agricultural practices. As for his feelings before the study, who knows. The study was the first such study subjected to peer review. I assume this means if there were any flaws in the study or procedures it would have been caught. It isn't as if he just posted this on a blog somewhere.

Ken, here is the paper: Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. -- the first sixteen years (http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24)

[Chris Kennedy]

Keep in mind, that WSU also has a professor who is the widely known expert on Bigfoot.


Guilt by association.

You have nothing tangible against his research, so you throw in a red herring. The journal has refereed and vetted his paper. If you want to question his research and its validity, question the people who have vetted it. You would like to know his methodology -- it's published. Read it. Find the problem. The journal is certifying body here, not the university.

Chris

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Cris,

When Greg repeatedly posted, calling the writer of the research paper by "Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University", it appeared to me he was trying to impress the reader by the nice doctor's title, position and employer. I was merely pointing out that Dr. Grover Krantz of the same WSU is a noted believer and expert of Bigfoot. I was trying to demonstrate that having a high level of education with appropriate title at even a respected university like WSU doesn't necessarily guarantee the believability or integrity of one's professional opinion.

Sorry, based on my personal 30+ years of elk and deer hunting and fishing in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Illinois and Indiana, I haven't seen any physical evidence of Bigfoot. I don't buy Dr. Krantz's professional opinion. While I can take you to country where if a reasonably intelligent animal like a birds, squirrels, raccoons, mink, muskrats, mountain lions, bobcats, lynx, horses, mules, deer, elk or bear want to remain hidden, they can, they also generally leave some evidence of their presence in the form of odor, scat, tracks or sounds. Bigfoot hasn't provided any for me yet.

BTW..I worked on the WSU campus several years both at the old veterinary school hospital and at the old Pullman Hospital that once was located on campus.

Reading the summary of Dr. Benbrook's study didn't provide enough information to determine whether or not his study is worthwhile.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

Check out the end of the acknowledgements:

Funding to support the development of the model was provided by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, UCS, and The Organic Center.

At least one of those organizations has a mission statement and an agenda that are less than unbiased. There are at least one other organization whose mission statement might make one think they have an agenda.

Follow the money.

Now I will read the report.

[Greg Peterson]

Cris,

When Greg repeatedly posted, calling the writer of the research paper by "Dr. Charles Benbrook of Washington State University", it appeared to me he was trying to impress the reader by the nice doctor's title, position and employer.

Don't know if the doctor is a 'nice' guy or not. However, it is likely he has more experience in the matter than most people participating in this thread. The title of doctor and peer reviewed studies used to denote some degree of authority on the subject at hand.


I was merely pointing out that Dr. Grover Krantz of the same WSU is a noted believer and expert of Bigfoot. I was trying to demonstrate that having a high level of education with appropriate title at even a respected university like WSU doesn't necessarily guarantee the believability or integrity of one's professional opinion.

The difference between Dr. Krantz and Dr. Benbrook, is Dr. Benbrooks data set and model are available for all to examine and has been peer reviewed. Has Dr. Krantz any peer reviewed studies published on bigfoot?


Sorry, based on my personal 30+ years of elk and deer hunting and fishing in Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Mississippi, Illinois and Indiana, I haven't seen any physical evidence of Bigfoot.

I seriously doubt there is a bigfoot. But I do not have the outdoor experience you have, therefore I am basing my belief on even less than you.

Perhaps Dr. Benbrook has it all wrong. Perhaps he missed a conversion or his data set is fundamentally, unintentionally corrupted. Until someone puts in the effort to prove his analysis wrong, I'm going with his study. Who else are we to believe? Monsanto? ADM? Tyson Farms? Hormel?

Who else here has "...studied the impacts of agricultural biotechnology since the mid-1980s in a variety of positions including Executive Director, Board on Agriculture, National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council, and as Chief Scientist, The Organic Center."?

[Greg Peterson]

Greg,

Check out the end of the acknowledgements:

Funding to support the development of the model was provided by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, UCS, and The Organic Center.

At least one of those organizations has a mission statement and an agenda that are less than unbiased. There are at least one other organization whose mission statement might make one think they have an agenda.



Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Mission Statement: "IATP works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems."


Consumers Union Mission Statement: "Consumer Reports is an expert, independent, nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves."


Union of Concerned Scientists Mission Statement: "The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet's most pressing problems. Joining with citizens across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future."


The Organic Center Mission Statement: "Our mission is to convene credible, evidence-based science on the environmental and health benefits of organic food and farming and communicate them to the public."

While obviously all these organizations have an agenda, organizations usually do, I fail to see any malevolent intentions in any of these organizations. Are their interests at odds with Monsanto, ADM, Tyson or Hormel? Very likely. Does this invalidate their studies or perspective? No.

[Jack Terpack]

I think the bee issue right now is neonicotinoids, and I think those are a Bayer product and not Monsanto.
http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf


I quit using Round-up 2 years ago because we were not seeing any honey bees in our clover. I really mean NONE. we have 4 acres of (http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol67-2014-125-130lu.pdf) clover and could find no bees in it. This spring it was loaded with honey bees. I have several friends that claim the same results. That's not hearsay or third hand info. None of these products were ever tested for effects 30 or 50 generations down the road. I prefer to keep them out of my environment.

Jack

[Moses Yoder]

Every study is biased in one way or another; it is not possible to study something without bias. Our subconscious mind makes decisions influenced by a world view; it is not possible to avoid it. The reason people like Monsanto or don't like Monsanto is a bias; in order to do a study on GMO foods without bias you would have to develop true artificial intelligence in robots, set them free, and then wait until they decided of their own accord to do a study on the subject. This would eliminate the influence of the subconscious mind. I do not think it is derogatory in any way to ask what someone's bias is; it is simply a matter of fact.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Moses' comments on bias and Ken's on follow the money add up to my perspective on this. There is nothing black and white, right and wrong, EVER. One extreme has humans farming every square inch of this planet in a manner to support a population 100 times what it is now, and obliterating anything that is not useful to that end. The other drives humans off the face of this planet because we are all so destructive to all the "natural" flora and fauna. There are plenty of people who lean the latter direction.

This thread is a great illustration of something. It referred to Monsanto, but the subjects being used to support the marching have nothing to do with Monsanto. Its the same old desire to find a boogyman to campaign against. I bet there was a left leaning politician with a need to fire up their base voters driving that march. Like Ken said, follow the money. If they really wanted to impact Monsanto, they would be trying to get the people buying Monsanto products to quit, and I didn't see any of them around here. Stirring up a group of voters is all they actually wanted, facts or not.

The proof that has been posted here is ridiculous. The best proof is to look at the lifespans of today vs 50 or 100 years ago.

The people that march and protest this sort of thing without bothering to understand the whole picture have strong parallels in history. A charismatic leader guided a branch of a followers with a common religion to do unthinkable things 15 years ago, in the name of ridding the planet of the great satan. 90 years ago another similar situation was fomented against a different "evil", resulting in despicable acts of human depravity. I could go on, and on. It's human nature to want power, and Hitler and Bin Laden used a "boogyman" tactic to get it. The line is so easily crossed to justify the ends no matter the means, that humans fall into it regularly.

Not wanting to make this political but it's impossible to avoid to some extent. There is a well founded movement and party here now that uses this same human pathology to hold their power. Thankfully here, the system designed to work as checks and balances has prevented catastrophe.

[Stephen Musial]

As I see it, the jury is still out on eating GMO foods. I live in St. Louis (Monsanto World Headquarters) and have a number of friends who work there. When you're first hired, you attend a seminar on how to handle people when they find out that you work for "The Evil Empire"...

The real problem is that when you have GMO plants, the farmer sprays more Roundup which leaches into the soil and is absorbed by the plant and we are then eating it. Additionally, the Roundup washes down into waterways and kills aquatic plants thereby disrupting the ecologic balance in waterways.

There have been a number of studies on the effects of the chemicals (glyphosate) in Roundup on our bodies but I'm not educated enough to decipher all of them, however they don't look good. I think one of the most telling facts is that when you talk to a potato farmer, he'll tell you that he doesn't eat the potatoes he grows for sale. He has a special patch that is grown for self-consumption and is not treated the same as the stuff he sells with fungicides, etc. (there are stories both for and against this all over the internet so make up your own mind on it). My wife has talked with several and they confirmed it second hand - they don't grow potatoes but know people who do. (She works for one of the ABCD traders - ArcherDanielsMidland/Bunge/Cargill/Dreyfus)

It stands to reason that when chemicals are sprayed on the soil and on the plants they are absorbed and make their way into the food chain. We eat the corn, soybeans, etc. as well as the cows that are eating the same corn.


Now that the patent on Roundup is past, the Chinese are making their own version and selling it here and they don't have the greatest track record for making much of anything...

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Stephen, roundup has no residual that washes anywhere. It very quickly breaks down. I can spray bare dirt, and have non roundup crops or weeds grow through it as soon as the chemical is dry. It breaks down in a matter of minutes. You must be thinking of something else, atrazine possibly.

[David Weaver]

Steve, I don't think that's true. Somewhere in the last two weeks, I saw a study of the amount of glyphosate left in food that we're eating and it wasn't trivial. I think if you read literature about glyphosate, it claims that it breaks down in a very short period of time, but the reality is that the half life can be up to 200 days depending on where it goes. If it ends up in water on the surface of a field, or in runoff, it doesn't break down very quickly.

USDA doesn't test for it and neither does the FDA, but every independent test that I've seen has it showing up in vegetables and milk when it's actually tested. How much of it, I don't know, but enough to detect it.

As a consumer (and user) of the retail bottled glyphosate, the description on the bottle is interesting, it makes it out as if you spray it on a plant and then it just vaporizes after it does its job, but that's not reality...unfortunately.

[Moses Yoder]

Is there any advantage to living longer?

[Greg Peterson]

The other drives humans off the face of this planet because we are all so destructive to all the "natural" flora and fauna. There are plenty of people who lean the latter direction.

I think this is an oversimplification and derogatory characterization of people who believe humans have over extended the natural systems of this planet. I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?


This thread is a great illustration of something. It referred to Monsanto, but the subjects being used to support the marching have nothing to do with Monsanto. Its the same old desire to find a boogyman to campaign against.

I think quite a bit of the thread has remained focused on Monsanto, their technology and the potential unintended consequences.


The proof that has been posted here is ridiculous. The best proof is to look at the lifespans of today vs 50 or 100 years ago.

I'm not sure how life span is germane to this thread. Monsanto was not responsible for the development of improved sanitation, health care, access to clean water, immunizations. These several factors are what led to current life spans.



Not wanting to make this political but it's impossible to avoid to some extent. There is a well founded movement and party here now that uses this same human pathology to hold their power. Thankfully here, the system designed to work as checks and balances has prevented catastrophe.

I agree. A quick review of the Fortune 500 reveals many entities whose interests are parallel to Monsanto's. Follow the money indeed. History is full of products that knowingly were harmful yet remained on the market because someone with money was able to grease the gears. The Pinto story is a classic example of corporate devaluation of human life. Monsanto's behavior to date has done nothing to diminish the impression that they are more interested in creating a monopoly by forcing all farming to use their products and by default force everyone to have a diet based on their technology. Frankly, I'm stunned that people would practically cheer on this type of practice, seemingly out of spite for those they disagree with.

Since Monsanto is tampering with the very fundamental nature of our food supply, I think it prudent that every facet of the enterprise be fully examined, both short term and long term. Who is to say that twenty years down the road that there are irreversible negative consequences? Are we to take Monsanto's 'unbiased' word on the safety of their products?

Obviously the study was sparked by a pretty reasonable question. Do GE crops really reduce the use of RR? I think the doctor did a good job of analyzing the data. And the answer in this case is that RR GE crops do not decrease the use of RR.

We can question the hypothesis certainly. But, if in the end there is solid evidence to support the initial question, why vilify they person who conducted the study?

[Greg Peterson]

I can not access this peer reviewed study, but the author is a scientist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service.

Here is the abstract: (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1161030109000641)
"Current crop production relies heavily on transgenic, glyphosate-resistant (GR) cultivars. Widespread cultivation of transgenic crops has received considerable attention. Impacts of glyphosate on rhizosphere microorganisms and activities are reviewed based on published and new data from long-term field projects documenting effects of glyphosate applied to GR soybean and maize. Field studies conducted in Missouri, U.S.A. during 1997–2007 assessed effects of glyphosate applied to GR soybean and maize on root colonization and soil populations of Fusarium and selected rhizosphere bacteria. Frequency of root-colonizing Fusarium increased significantly after glyphosate application during growing seasons in each year at all sites. Roots of GR soybean and maize treated with glyphosate were heavily colonized by Fusarium compared to non-GR or GR cultivars not treated with glyphosate. Microbial groups and functions affected by glyphosate included Mn transformation and plant availability; phytopathogen–antagonistic bacterial interactions; and reduction in nodulation. Root-exuded glyphosate may serve as a nutrient source for fungi and stimulate propagule germination. The specific microbial indicator groups and processes were sensitive to impacts of GR crops and are part of an evolving framework in developing polyphasic microbial analyses for complete assessment of GR technology that is more reliable than single techniques or general microbial assays."

Perhaps someone here is a member and can access the full report?

Dr. Kremer, or I guess I should just say Kremer, is observing degradation of soils where Roundup is used. Superweeds, resistant to roundup, are a more important problem according to his boss at Agricultural Research Service, Michael Shannon. But Mr. Shannon acknowledges that soil degradation is also a concern.


"Michael McNeill, who has a Ph.D. in quantitative genetics and plant pathology from Iowa State University, advises large-scale corn and soy farmers on weed control and soil fertility. He's observing trends in the field that are consistent with Kremer's research. Here's Boulder Weekly:




McNeill explains that glyphosate is a chelating agent, which means it clamps onto molecules that are valuable to a plant, like iron, calcium, manganese, and zinc.…The farmers' increased use of Roundup is actually harming their crops, according to McNeill, because it is killing micronutrients in the soil that they need, a development that has been documented in several scientific papers by the nation's leading experts in the field. For example, he says, harmful fungi and parasites like fusarium, phytopthora and pythium are on the rise as a result of the poison, while beneficial fungi and other organisms that help plants reduce minerals to a usable state are on the decline. He explains that the overuse of glyphosate means that oxidizing agents are on the rise, creating oxides that plants can't use, leading to lower yields and higher susceptibility to disease."

Link (http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/08/monsantos-roundup-herbicide-soil-damage)

I do not care for the reporting, but these scientists are suggesting that roundup is not good for the soil. It's possibly choking off the nutrients and agents that break down the nutrients the plants require by attaching to the nutrients themselves.

Perhaps someone can find a peer reviewed study that refutes this study?

[David Weaver]

It depends on longer than what.

Longer than 80? Longer than 50? Longer than 45?

[jared herbert]

Steve, I don't think that's true. Somewhere in the last two weeks, I saw a study of the amount of glyphosate left in food that we're eating and it wasn't trivial. I think if you read literature about glyphosate, it claims that it breaks down in a very short period of time, but the reality is that the half life can be up to 200 days depending on where it goes. If it ends up in water on the surface of a field, or in runoff, it doesn't break down very quickly.

USDA doesn't test for it and neither does the FDA, but every independent test that I've seen has it showing up in vegetables and milk when it's actually tested. How much of it, I don't know, but enough to detect it.

As a consumer (and user) of the retail bottled glyphosate, the description on the bottle is interesting, it makes it out as if you spray it on a plant and then it just vaporizes after it does its job, but that's not reality...unfortunately.


ed
Glyphosate or roundup has no soil activity. It must be applied to growing, living, green plant material that contains chlorophyll to be effective. Once it hits the soil, it quickly breaks down into some of its components, which may or may not be able to be detected. It will not kill any plants that come up out of the soil after roundup is applied. I have personally sprayed roundup over a susceptable crop after it has been planted and before emergence with no affect on the seeds that were yet to emerge. It will not leach into the soil or be transported in water, the only way possible for it to be carried in water is if a large quantity of undiluted product was spilled into a water way. Any state university ag department would tell you the same thing. I am going out on a limb here but I do not believe it is possible to detect traces of roundup in a roundup ready crop after it has been sprayed. The growing plants metabolize the chemicals and it either kills the plant if it is not roundup ready or the plant continues to grow as if nothing has happened to it. Jared Herbert

[David Weaver]

http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html


Plants



Glyphosate is absorbed by plant foliage and transported throughout the plant through the phloem.3 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references) Glyphosate absorption across the cuticle is moderate, and transport across the cell membrane is slower than for most herbicides.4 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references) Because glyphosate binds to the soil, plant uptake of glyphosate from soil is negligible.3 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate accumulates in meristems, immature leaves, and underground tissues.4 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Very little glyphosate is metabolized in plants, with AMPA as the only significant degradation product.3 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Lettuce, carrots, and barley contained glyphosate residues up to one year after the soil was treated with 3.71 pounds of glyphosate per acre.61,62 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate had a median half-life of 8 to 9 days in leaf litter of red alder and salmonberry sprayed with Roundup®.48 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)




Water



The median half-life of glyphosate in water varies from a few days to 91 days.1 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate did not undergo hydrolysis in buffered solution with a pH of 3, 6, or 9 at 35 °C. Photodegradation of glyphosate in water was insignificant under natural light in a pH 5, 7, and 9 buffered solution.58,59 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate in the form of the product Roundup® was applied to aquatic plants in fresh and brackish water. Glyphosate concentrations in both ponds declined rapidly, although the binding of glyphosate to bottom sediments depended heavily on the metals in the sediments. If chelating cations are present, the sediment half-life of glyphosate may be greatly increased.60 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate has a low potential to contaminate groundwater due to its strong adsorptive properties. However, there is potential for surface water contamination from aquatic uses of glyphosate and soil erosion.6 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Volatilization of glyphosate is not expected to be significant due to its low vapor pressure.6 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)



Soil




The median half-life of glyphosate in soil has been widely studied; values between 2 and 197 days have been reported in the literature.7,48 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references) A typical field half-life of 47 days has been suggested.4 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references) Soil and climate conditions affect glyphosate's persistence in soil.1 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references) See the text box on Half-life.The "half-life" is the time required for half of the compound to break down in the environment.

1 half-life = 50% remaining
2 half-lives = 25% remaining
3 half-lives = 12% remaining
4 half-lives = 6% remaining
5 half-lives = 3% remaining
Half-lives can vary widely based on environmental factors. The amount of chemical remaining after a half-life will always depend on the amount of the chemical originally applied. It should be noted that some chemicals may degrade into compounds of toxicological significance.

Glyphosate is relatively stable to chemical and photo decomposition.6 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)The primary pathway of glyphosate degradation is soil microbial action, which yields AMPA and glyoxylic acid. Both products are further degraded to carbon dioxide.3 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)
Glyphosate adsorbs tightly to soil. Glyphosate and its residues are expected to be immobile in soil.6 (http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/glyphotech.html#references)



What I gather from all of this is that quite a bit of it does or can remain in the soil, and is absorbed, especially by RR plants, and we eat it since the plants don't metabolize it.

The statement about the glyphosate existing in food grown a year after it was applied is contained in here, also. This appears to be from oregon state.

[Kent A Bathurst]

I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century.

1. Pretty interesting thread.
2. "Lot of passion" is an understatement
3. The ability of modern technology to change every aspect of our lives is pretty well established, in every facet of daily living. GMO included.
4. To me, the use of herbicide for improved crop yields is long-established best practice. Using a product that degrades quickly seems pretty smart.
5. The ability to use no-till farming technology seems very important to me. Full disclosure: My Dad spent his career in the Soil Conservation Service, rising from your basic county agent to the top-most levels of the Service - a kid born in the depression-dust-bowl central plains. It seemed to me he had a pretty good focus on priorities.

Now then - Greg - your line quoted above:

Wha the ???? That relates how??

And, lastly - what do you mean? Are you saying modern forestry practices are, somehow, fundamentally, unsound??

[Greg Peterson]

Now then - Greg - your line quoted above:

Wha the ???? That relates how??

And, lastly - what do you mean? Are you saying modern forestry practices are, somehow, fundamentally, unsound??

Here is the quote and the sentences that followed it, which give it some context.

"I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?"

Current forestry practices, 21st centruy, seem to be much better. Admittedly much of the true old growth was harvested in the 19th century, but 20th century practices left us with huge gaping holes in our forests where entire sides of hills were clear cut.

Fishing yields are on the decline after decades of over fishing and international competition for said resource.

Must we wait till we arrive at a point where we might discover that GE crops and the application of roundup is no better than soil erosion? Who says GE RR crops are better and sustainable? Evidence suggests that not only are super weeds becoming a concern, but more of the herbicide is required to be effective in areas where the super weeds have yet to be established. And then there is the matter of roundup suppressing the micro nutrient ecosystem the crops feed on. Albeit the best guess is 47 days, but even if it persists in the soil for five to seven days, does that not starve the plant for that duration?

Must we allow industry to bring a system to the edge of complete collapse before we address the matter?

[Art Mann]

The comment about forestry practices is puzzling in view of the fact that a much larger percentage of the nation is covered in forests now than at the beginning of the 20th century. For example, there are 1920's photos of the Great Smokey Mountain National Park that show the vast majority of the acreage was clear cut. That could never happen again. Is it the species you are referring to or what?

[Greg Peterson]

Forestry practices during the 20th century included clear cutting g and indiscriminate harvesting. To be fair, the industry started smplkykng sustainable practices in the 90's.

Clear cutting was cost effective but damaged fish habitat and caused extensive soil erosion.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ok, how about some pictures to add to the pretty interesting thread?

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g26WnvaVVaw/U4NpswbNWYI/AAAAAAAAE_c/l6PKffT0ia8/w311-h553-no/20140526_101843.jpg https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-6x2A8n3gbS8/U4NqCFlJCTI/AAAAAAAAE_g/i3Y4xkWH2HY/w311-h553-no/20140526_101911.jpg

Second picture first as it clarifies the first: This is a shot of some RR beets that I took this morning. They have been froze 5 times so far this spring, and covered with a 6" of snow twice, so give their wimpy little butts a break, they are trying. I used wheat as a cover crop here (its the dead looking grass), striptilled into it and planted the beets. After the beets came up, and the wheat got tall enough to protect the beets from wind, I killed the wheat with RR.

The first picture shows how quickly RR stops working. This is the same field, in a place where one of the guys strung out some old bean seed. These are pintos and blacks, either of which would easily qualify as the easiest to kill with RR plant out there. They are not RR ready. The day after I sprayed the wheat these beans started to come through, the yellower ones are the youngest, they turn a darker green which a little sun. If you look closely enough, you can see the RR beets in a row through the beans.

Like Jared says, RR breaks down fast. Think of the beans as the canary in the mine. If there was any amount of RR there now, these wimpiest of all little plants would certainly have passed on.

David, careful with the studies, there are two different things to look at here. One is a spill, which is an accident and no one wants one of those, In that case, assuming that RR blended with water, like a stream, yes it would make a huge mess. Any chemical, fuel, most foods, and probably most anything else would. The breakdown and half life when analysed in water, are completely different than applied solution. Think of it this way, the chemical blend sitting in your tank will last a long time, but when sprayed and it touches soil, it's a whole different animal. The half life you mentioned is in solution. When applied to soil, it rapidly breaks down by binding to soil and deteriorated to carbon dioxide and something else that I don't remember off the top of my head. As you can see, it has no residual effect on plants growing through it.

I did see a study referencing detecting glyphosate residue in various vegetables. Clear down in the fine print, they noted that the glyphosate was applied at a rate that is so far off label (a legally binding document) that they ought to be ashamed.

Another thing, here is an interesting read if anyone cares to see some relative toxicities of some common chemicals and other things you may be familiar with. I'll paraphrase a bit, to get to a lethal dose, it takes so many mg of the chemical per kg of body weight, so listed are a few lethal doses, as noted in this University of Nebraska document- http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec130/build/ec130%20human%20hazards.pdf

Sugar - 29,700
Ethanol - 9,000
Glyphosate (Roundup) - 5,600
Table salt - 3,000
Malathion (insecticide) - 1,375
Aspirin - 1,000
Ammonia - 350
Caffeine - 192
Nicotine - 1
Botulinum toxin - .00001

Shish, never thought posting a pic of a sugar beet would be relevant to a thread here...

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I think this is an oversimplification and derogatory characterization of people who believe humans have over extended the natural systems of this planet. I don't know how one can defend forestry practices through the 20th century. Fishing practices have led to significant declines in fish populations. Do we have to learn every lesson the hard way?



I think quite a bit of the thread has remained focused on Monsanto, their technology and the potential unintended consequences.



I'm not sure how life span is germane to this thread. Monsanto was not responsible for the development of improved sanitation, health care, access to clean water, immunizations. These several factors are what led to current life spans.




I agree. A quick review of the Fortune 500 reveals many entities whose interests are parallel to Monsanto's. Follow the money indeed. History is full of products that knowingly were harmful yet remained on the market because someone with money was able to grease the gears. The Pinto story is a classic example of corporate devaluation of human life. Monsanto's behavior to date has done nothing to diminish the impression that they are more interested in creating a monopoly by forcing all farming to use their products and by default force everyone to have a diet based on their technology. Frankly, I'm stunned that people would practically cheer on this type of practice, seemingly out of spite for those they disagree with.

Since Monsanto is tampering with the very fundamental nature of our food supply, I think it prudent that every facet of the enterprise be fully examined, both short term and long term. Who is to say that twenty years down the road that there are irreversible negative consequences? Are we to take Monsanto's 'unbiased' word on the safety of their products?

Obviously the study was sparked by a pretty reasonable question. Do GE crops really reduce the use of RR? I think the doctor did a good job of analyzing the data. And the answer in this case is that RR GE crops do not decrease the use of RR.

We can question the hypothesis certainly. But, if in the end there is solid evidence to support the initial question, why vilify they person who conducted the study?

Greg, I'm standing by the analogy, but I will accept a slight change in it. An alternate that may satisfy the people were talking about would probably be if human civilization were to regress to a non fire wielding spot somewhere far down the food chain. Seriously, if humans are responsible for killing the planet so many different ways, the only logical way to protect it from us is to eliminate us, right? Sounds a bit like a movie I watched recently...

I completely disagree with the premise that the earth is a worse place now than it was at any point in the past, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument involving forestry and fisheries. They also stand as a good point as to the wandering of this thread away from anything that Monsanto has anything to do with. If it doesn't specifically pertain to a chemical known by its brand name of Roundup, or it's common name of glyphosate, of to the GMO trait "Roundup Ready", it bears no relevance to this discussion, and supports my point of an attempt to find a boogyman.

As to the life span not being relevant, what other thing could be more relevant??? Of course all factors play into lifespan increases, but if we were killing ourselves sooner with glyphosate, it'd certainly show up.

As to the doctor's studies that you mentioned, any lame brained farmer on the planet could have answered that question. Think about it, its a ridiculous study and a completely idiotic premise to have one. Of course Roundup Ready crops didn't decrease Roundup use. It'd be pretty darn stupid to plant RR crops, and then not use the technology.

One last thing, Monsanto isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It is still possible to buy and use non RR seed. Because RR Ready works so well though, it'd be a very poor business decision to not use a better technology. Like Jared and I have said, there are many benefits to this technology.

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood... ;)

[Greg Peterson]

Greg, I'm standing by the analogy, but I will accept a slight change in it. An alternate that may satisfy the people were talking about would probably be if human civilization were to regress to a non fire wielding spot somewhere far down the food chain. Seriously, if humans are responsible for killing the planet so many different ways, the only logical way to protect it from us is to eliminate us, right? Sounds a bit like a movie I watched recently...

I completely disagree with the premise that the earth is a worse place now than it was at any point in the past, so I fundamentally disagree with your argument involving forestry and fisheries. They also stand as a good point as to the wandering of this thread away from anything that Monsanto has anything to do with. If it doesn't specifically pertain to a chemical known by its brand name of Roundup, or it's common name of glyphosate, of to the GMO trait "Roundup Ready", it bears no relevance to this discussion, and supports my point of an attempt to find a boogyman.

As to the life span not being relevant, what other thing could be more relevant??? Of course all factors play into lifespan increases, but if we were killing ourselves sooner with glyphosate, it'd certainly show up.

As to the doctor's studies that you mentioned, any lame brained farmer on the planet could have answered that question. Think about it, its a ridiculous study and a completely idiotic premise to have one. Of course Roundup Ready crops didn't decrease Roundup use. It'd be pretty darn stupid to plant RR crops, and then not use the technology.

One last thing, Monsanto isn't forcing anyone to do anything. It is still possible to buy and use non RR seed. Because RR Ready works so well though, it'd be a very poor business decision to not use a better technology. Like Jared and I have said, there are many benefits to this technology.

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood... ;)

I think we have over stressed the resources of the planet. We certainly don't have a very good track record of being good stewards of the planet.

You seem to be comfortable picking and choosing what is germane to the OP. Case in point, Monsanto has nothing to do with the growth in life spans. Life spans saw their relatively quick rise before Monsanto entered the picture. Introducing increased life span as a function of Monsanto is a stretch.

I don't think glyphosate has been in our food chain long enough to determine if it has any effect on human health. But there exists information outside the control of Monsanto that suggests that it is not the panacea we think it is. How many times have we been told this such and such is the miracle potion only to find out that it's the exact opposite? Asbestos was the wonder material in its day.

The study revealed that the use of roundup increased each year, not because of more GE crops were planted, but because the efficacy of roundup is diminishing. I don't think calling farmers names or misstating the findings of the study is constructive. It's an less convincing argument.

[David Weaver]

I think the page I provided describes the half life in soil. I think we're also confusing whether glyphosate is killing plants vs whether it is still in the soil being taken up by them.

The study I showed mentioned 3.7 pounds per acre 1 year prior. I agree the ld50 is very high, but it is again an issue of whether or not the consequences of an ongoing moderate dose has problems other than being immediately lethal.

[David Weaver]

On a lighter note, there is another GMO trait out there known as BT. It is a corn borer resistance in corn, and it has the effect of making the stalks a lot stronger because of less pests. I think that the BT corn stalk has serious potential as our next domestically produced hardwood... ;)

Probably developed by a joint venture with combine tire manufacturers.

[Ole Anderson]

To those that decry the use of Roundup, what do you propose as an alternate that will solve the world's problem of providing an economical solution to feeding the world's population and also deal with the issue of massive runoff of topsoil into our rivers? To criticize without offering a plausible solution is an easy out.

It is like criticizing modern state of the art nuclear energy because of a "what if" when we know for a fact the massive impact fossil fuel energy continues to have on our planet.

[David Weaver]

Ole, when there is a problem with a medical procedure, who is expected to offer an alternative procedure - doctors or the average person walking down the street?

[Scott Shepherd]

I think we have over stressed the resources of the planet. We certainly don't have a very good track record of being good stewards of the planet.



Care to define the "we" in your statement? Is that the "we" that have planted more trees than any other time in history? Is that the "we" that are responsible for there being more tress today than 100 years ago? Is that the "we" that have cleaned up some of the filthiest waterways? Is that the "we" that are responsible for fish coming back and people being able to get in the water for the first time in decades? Is that the "we" that have the lowest emission vehicles since they were invented? Is that the "we" that have more energy efficient appliances than any other time in our history?

Are we perfect? No. Are "we" a lot better off and taking a lot better care of this planet than we were 40 years ago? Without a doubt. Do we have work to do? Sure. Always will, but I won't be part of thinking that it's "us" that aren't doing anything. We're doing a lot and have done a lot. A LOT more than China or India, the 2 biggest polluters on the planet.

[Greg Peterson]

Care to define the "we" in your statement? Is that the "we" that have planted more trees than any other time in history?

The US is has addressed issues as they come up. However, we do consume far more resources as a nation than any other nation, per capita. If the rest of the world were to consume resources like the US, well, there simply are not enough resources to go around in that scenario.


Is that the "we" that are responsible for there being more tress today than 100 years ago?

When did 'we' start planting trees? What is the average age of these trees versus the average age of trees 100 years ago? Once the timber industry realized they were going to run out of crop in a several generations, yeah, they started planting trees. Those clear cuts were not just a scar on the landscape, they polluted streams and rivers with eroded soil and raised the temperatures of streams and rivers. This affected fishermen as salmon spawning habitat was being destroyed.



Is that the "we" that have cleaned up some of the filthiest waterways?

Yeah, thanks to the super fund. The tax payers are left to clean up the mess for entities that refuse to step up and claim personal responsibility. When sensible regulations are created to protect the commons (air, water, radio spectrum....) you can count on the anti-regulation chorus to start singing.


Is that the "we" that are responsible for fish coming back and people being able to get in the water for the first time in decades?

And yet we have people decrying the EPA. The polluters did not clean up these resources. They complained and still complain mightily about being required to not damage the commons.


Is that the "we" that have the lowest emission vehicles since they were invented?[/qoute]

Now, sure. although I don't know for sure, I'll take your word for it. I suspect Europe is generally cleaner on this front, but I'm just assuming. It wasn't all that long ago that we had lead in our fuel, and the vested interests were quiet opposed to moving to unleaded fuel.

[QUOTE=Scott Shepherd;2271339]Is that the "we" that have more energy efficient appliances than any other time in our history?

Of course. But we aren't the only nation that recognizes the need to reduce energy consumption. In the big picture, we've only recently required energy efficiency. Again, this was not industry leading the way. It was mandated.


Are we perfect? No. Are "we" a lot better off and taking a lot better care of this planet than we were 40 years ago? Without a doubt. Do we have work to do? Sure. Always will, but I won't be part of thinking that it's "us" that aren't doing anything. We're doing a lot and have done a lot. A LOT more than China or India, the 2 biggest polluters on the planet.

I have in no way suggested that current practices are inferior to past practices, hence my reference to the 20th century when we went through most of that century with little or not concern for future generations. We have improved many practices. China and India have a long way to go, but they have a valid argument against adapting higher cost efficiencies. We can not control their actions, all we can do is make sure that we (individuals and as a nation) hold to a standard that treats the environment better than we did yesterday, last year, last decade, last century.

Monsanto may have a sustainable product in GE crops and roundup. Then again, they may not. Several peer reviewed studies suggest the science isn't complete on the matter. And before we get so far down the path that we can not return, I think it would be prudent to have a closer look at these findings. I would no more trust Monsanto to affirm the safety of their product than I would Lee Iacoca telling me the Pinto is perfectly safe to drive. Or that red dye No. 5 does not cause cancer, or that cigarette smoke is actually healthy. Or that seat belts won't save lives. Or the safe dosage of Tylenol (http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/505/use-only-as-directed) (listen to the personal tragedies of parents who followed the label instructions and industries response. Nothing less than criminal negligence, IMO.)

Monsanto has demonstrated a heavy handed legal approach to 'protecting' their patents. Going so far as to sue farmers whose crop was pollinated by their bastardized plants. Where is the farmers right to not have his crop contaminated by Monsanto's GE crop? That right does not exist.

What happens a generation from now if it is discovered that Monsanto's products have polluted the soil beyond repair and diminishing yields are the standard? What recourse would be fair at that point? We're playing with the future of the human race and many seem to have forgotten how time again we could have averted serious situations with a little fore thought. Unintended consequences. I have no children, yet I do not want to doom their future because we need to trust Monsanto today.

All I ask for is a little due diligence. Is that to onerous?

[Scott Shepherd]

I never said we shouldn't have regulations or controls on things. I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense. Like saying how great battery powered cars are for the world, when they are made using conventional manufacturing techniques to make the cars. Then there's no mention of how we have to go to some other country and clear cut their forest to dig deep into the earth to mine out the materials used to make that battery, copper for the electric motors, etc. You can't have it both ways. If you want to save the planet, you can't pillage other countries and their resources where there are no regulations and controls, in order to "feel good" about driving around in the USA. That makes no sense. It seems to only be a good idea if it's not hurting our environment in the USA. If you want to solve the issue, then put something in place that works and works all over the world, not just something that makes people in one country feel good while they zip into Starbucks and then people on the other side of the world are having their water polluted by the strip mining to get the materials to build that electric car.

On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm) (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

[george wilson]

I am not going to blame America for having the greatest standard of living.

[David Weaver]

Well, almost. If you define it by GDP (adjusted for purchasing power), we're close to the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

Of course, after that, people can complain about income disparity, etc. and make up any measure they want for "standard of living". We have it awfully good here. The local Englishman (who was type cast in england in his youth because he wanted to be an engineer but his dad was a carpenter) tells me that often. "You have no idea how good you have it here". Our other (younger) English and Scottish friends take every opportunity to tell us everything is better in the UK aside from clothing prices, though. Never got the two differing opinions together. The Englishman left the UK for places with better economic opportunities, and eventually landed here and dropped anchor.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm) (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

Now if they would allow logging instead of an irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground, we may actually have access to affordable high quality domestic lumber products!

[Pat Barry]

I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense.
How do you distinguish "MOST of the nonsense" from "pure nonsense".


With regard to Monsanto - I don't think anyone here has enough actual facts in front of them to base a decision on. Who is to say what they do is good or bad in the long term?

[Pat Barry]

Now if they would allow logging instead of an irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground, we may actually have access to affordable high quality domestic lumber products!
Even if the forest growth is increasing, its got an awful long ways to go to get to where it was before modern humans ruined it all. Logging is not going to help. The best thing would be for all of us to let nature take its course.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Unless you have traveled internationally, you can't begin to truly appreciate how well off we are in this country from a standard of living point of view.

Having returned on March 21 of this year from 34 days in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, we experienced the price of food in foreign countries. Regularly in Australia and New Zealand, a breakfast buffet that included, several juices, toast, scrambled eggs, roasted tomatoes, a variety of fresh fruits, juices, milk, hash brown potato patties, bacon, link sausage, 2 or3 types of pastries and (Yuck!) instant coffee from a machine cost us $42 per person. In Australia I finally learned to ask for "filter coffee" but wasn't that lucky in NZ.

Caught in Cyclone Lusi in Paihia, Northland, NZ one evening, the weather was so bad we couldn't walk to another hotel or restaurant to eat dinner, we paid $80 per person for a buffet that was good, wasn't great, not an exceptionally wide variety or quality and would have cost a small fraction of that price here at home.

I am not bad mouthing the counties, merely reporting what we experienced. This was our 2nd trip to NZ and first to Australia & Fiji and we would return in a flash if you'll pay for it.

Food in general in the grocery stores cost 2.5-4 times what we pay.

Gasoline in Australia and New Zealand costs as much per liter as we pay per gallon in the US.

And Fiji? Beautiful beaches! Bula! The food was equally expensive but.....

All the resorts on Fiji are gated and have their own security forces.

Imagine staying in a resort and finding a note in the "mail box" outside your room informing you that hotel security will be having a security drill during a 2 hour period on Friday morning.

You are picked up by a driver at the airport who for her safety, escorts your wife into a local grocery store while she shops for some bottled water. Oh did I mention at the airport and at the resort they recommend drinking only bottled water for your own safety? The resort provides escorted shopping trips into town twice daily.

In the 1 hour 20 minute pitch black night drive from the airport to the resort you can see the worn paths along the highway and periodically see people walking in the dark on those paths without the aid of any lights. Did you notice that very nearly every house either has a tall fence around it, often topped with barbed or razor wire or 4" wire mesh nailed over the windows?

2 days later, in the early morning light, the return drive to the airport confirms the absolute poverty and squalor you observed previously in the dark ride.

I didn't see any evidence of RoundUp being used in Fiji......but you still were advised to not drink the tap water......sanitation with the lack of treatment plants and high ground water tables presents a problem due to human wastes....but...it's kind of "back to nature".

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Even if the forest growth is increasing, its got an awful long ways to go to get to where it was before modern humans ruined it all. Logging is not going to help. The best thing would be for all of us to let nature take its course.

Pat, as an advocate of eliminating logging....letting nature take it's course....when are you planning to sell your woodworking tools?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I believe man is part of nature.

25 years ago or so, I was quite active as true a "conservationist"...meaning "wise use" I am not a preservationist. There is a difference. I was quite active in the forest service planning process locally for several years. In fact, while serving as vice president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, dressed in a suit and tie, at the famous Sun Valley Resort, I got on my hands and knees to beg a doctor and convince the membership we as a sportsman group did not want to back a Sierra Club proposal for a large increase in wilderness in the State of Idaho. 61% of the State of Idaho is federally owned and 18% is wilderness. Certain areas do deserve wilderness designation but there has to be a reasonable limit. After spending thousands of dollars annually out of my own pocket, I finally realized the extremist at both ends of the spectrum when it comes to use of the land don't want to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Both prefer to fight, to hold out and IMHO mistakenly believe, self-righteously they will win if they can just hold out.

The reason big clear cuts are no longer allowed is because of pocket gophers. It's not necessarily that attempts weren't made to reforest old clear cuts but rather what science found was that once a clear cut got beyond a certain size, nature got involved. There is a couple year span after young trees are planted during which the roots are prime feed for pocket gophers. Once a clear cut got over a certain acreage size, it was replanted and the pocket gopher population would increase so quickly and to such a population, that they would consume all of the young replanted trees roots before the roots grew to a less desirable size. The same pocket gopher population explosion doesn't occur with smaller clear cuts. Also, larger clear cuts resulted in more run off damage to streams.

While smaller clear cuts aren't as efficient or as economical, it is the right and reasonable thing to do IMO.

After being involved on the ground from the very early planning process, actually spending several weekends touring forests with the FS foresters, and FS biologists we then helped develop civilian input to the plans. I was the lone moderate conservative among 6 of us who elk hunted together for 18 years. One Sunday on our way back from setting our tents before the upcoming opening elk season, the guy who had hunted the area for over 50 years, a long time liberal, owned the mules we used for packing and ran our camp, pulled his pickup off the road. We looked at the selective logging going on just a couple miles from our camp. He, too, was active in the planning and input on this forest's plan. He said "You know Fitz.....it is the right thing to do....but seeing it this close to home kind of makes you want to flinch!" We laughed. He was a union man and I am not. We disagreed on a lot of subjects. We spent hours arguing and yet had a tremendous amount of respect for each other. He died 2 years after we quit hunting. I miss him!

[Greg Peterson]

I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense.

Reminds me of the time Tim Cook was testifying before a congressional panel on overseas declared income not be repatriated. His argument was essentially that the tax code is too complicated. Two thoughts I had on this were, who do you think gets the tax code written and speaking of complicated, have you ever read a Apple EULA? Corporate tax codes are designed by and for corporations.

One mans nonsense is another mans sense. In a country with over 300 billion people, there are going to be rules that don't make sense.



Like saying how great battery powered cars are for the world, when they are made using conventional manufacturing techniques to make the cars. Then there's no mention of how we have to go to some other country and clear cut their forest to dig deep into the earth to mine out the materials used to make that battery, copper for the electric motors, etc. You can't have it both ways.

I don't own a hybrid, I car pool to work, all of 7 miles. Not asking to have it both ways.


If you want to save the planet, you can't pillage other countries and their resources where there are no regulations and controls, in order to "feel good" about driving around in the USA. That makes no sense.

Haven't been off the continent. You must have me confused with someone else. :)


It seems to only be a good idea if it's not hurting our environment in the USA. If you want to solve the issue, then put something in place that works and works all over the world, not just something that makes people in one country feel good while they zip into Starbucks and then people on the other side of the world are having their water polluted by the strip mining to get the materials to build that electric car.

I agree. But we can certainly start at home. Europe certainly isn't waiting for us to lead on the GMO issue. However, one doesn't need to go beyond the US to experience polluted water from mining. Or from tar sands. Or from chemicals. Or, for that matter to have a fertilizer plant to blow up itself and half the town.


On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm) (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

Here is a stat from your link:

After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.


Then I got to your part about volume. I was momentarily confused and kept bouncing between the 1920 figure and the 380% figure. Then I saw it. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.

Don't get me wrong, more trees are good. And most of the new trees are broad leaf and deciduous. Great news for us wood workers.

But forest land has not increased, just the density of the forested areas.

Again I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I was really stumped on how volume could be so much greater than it was 94 years ago. As for construction grade timber, douglas fir I believe, I did not see a mention of that species relative health.

We agree on most things. Matter of fact, our points of disagreement are quiet few, as if usually the case.

[Greg Peterson]

The most expensive meals I ever had were in hotels or at sporting events. Oh, and don't get me started on movie theater concessions pricing.

I understand that we enjoy relatively low costs here in the US. And I'm sure that GE crops have contributed significantly to lower cost produce and food. But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? What if it turns out that GMO's and roundup are harming the fields? What if superweeds over power conventional herbicides?

When it comes to our food supply, I think it reasonable and logical to question the inventors technology. "Trust us" doesn't work for me. Trust but verify.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

In the grocery stores foods were 2.5-4 times as expensive but you will be happy to know I noticed in New Zealand...they label for GMOs.

Without Round Up and RR crops, we might already know the answers to your "what ifs".

Farmers are in the business to plant crops, harvest crops, feed people, raise animals and make a profit.

Prior to passing the draft physical in 1968, I was living in central Illinois. I don't remember seeing a single field that used the "No Til" method. Now, it's the accepted practice. Why? It was finally shown to increase profits and dramatically reduced soil erosion. Farmers are the biggest gamblers among small businesses. They shoot craps with mother nature, her weather, all her pests (insects, weeds, micro-organisms) and market prices for their crops. Even the small farmers of today have expenses that most of us would not even begin to consider engaging.

When it is proven that organic farming is equally or more profitable than commercial farming, then they will make the switch.

[Mike Henderson]

Now if they would allow logging instead of an irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground, we may actually have access to affordable high quality domestic lumber products!
I'll point out that almost all the hardwood forest on the east coast (certainly all the privately owned forests) is harvested on a regular basis, and has been since almost the founding of the country. People buy cut over forest land, hold on to it for years, and then either sell it for timber, or have it logged, sell the timber and then sell the land again. It can be a retirement investment.

I believe that forests are crops, just like corn or wheat. It's just that it takes a lot more years to produce a crop. If the land is privately owned, the owners are invested in protecting the forest.

This is not to say that all forests should be logged, but a lot of it could be. And if it was, we'd get value from it, and reduce the cost of wild-land fires. Much better than seeing it go up in smoke, taking homes with it.

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Mike,

In New Zealand you see tree farms all over the flat Canterbury Plains, large square fenced tree farms. This trip we spent 14 days touring both islands of NZ by train, regular intercity buses and a ferry between the two islands. In steep mountains where they have harvested trees, when they replant it's done with staggered planting in contoured rows. Of course these types of "crops" are a long term expense and investment.


We have them in Central Washington except the types grown are primarily fast growing hybrids grown to produce paper pulp.

[Ole Anderson]

Ole, when there is a problem with a medical procedure, who is expected to offer an alternative procedure - doctors or the average person walking down the street?

I thought this discussion was about farming, not brain surgery.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Steve,

I would argue that fire and forest management is intelligent farming.

A casual friend of mine was a forest service supervisor on a nearby national forest and was responsible in the development of the procedures used for the controlled burning of underbrush in the mountainous forests. Though he is retired now, when he was still employed, he traveled to Canada and New Zealand to teach the most recent techniques used. It is both an art and a science because weather, tinder and humidity are some pretty independent, constantly changing factors.

Trees in the diameter of 6"-10" inches don't provide much in the way of useable board feet of lumber. After a forest is clear cut for a number years the types and size of brush that grows back while the newly planted young trees are growing, is very valuable to deer and elk for feed. Once the replanted trees reach a certain height and size, they shade the other plants. The usefulness of the remaining brushes/plants for wildlife feed decreases dramatically and there after the brush becomes of a type that is almost useless to animals. Eventually before the trees become of a desirable harvest diameter, the brush underneath becomes a fire hazard. The options then are remove the brush or take a chance on losing the entire forest to a very hot brush fire. If you get a particularly wet year, the amount of brush can increase big time.

By timing the burning with certain factors like current relative humidity, the average ground moisture, incoming weather fronts, predicted wind directions and speeds, the underbrush can be safely burned while removing the potential for extremely hot fires that would rage out of control and possibly kill the trees. It's similar to removing grown weeds from bean fields as we did in the 60s except instead of hiring a bunch of kids to pull the weeds, you are burning them out to protect and allow the forest crop to mature completely before harvesting.

It makes sense but occasionally it can get out of control but how often does a farmer burn a fence row to have it get out of control? Some times things happen either due to poor planning or just bad karma.

If you ever have the opportunity to tour a national forest with the USFS foresters and biologists, by all means take the opportunity. While I was active with the IWF, the forest planning process was already beginning. My casual friend scheduled a 3 day program for those of us interested to tour the forest with him and his crew. We had to pay our own expenses which cost us about $100 for the 3 days but that included a place to sleep, meals and transportation. The day before the event started, he got a call from forest in Canada to help with a controlled burn. They were waiting for the exact conditions and the conditions had arrived. He flew Canada but gave his entire crew free rein with about 30 of us. We slept at some private homes and at a commercial hunting camp within the forest so we maximize our time in the forest. They showed and explained things to the Nth degree. It was so enlightening. Mind you of the 30 people there were members from a wide spectrum of interested people...from the Sierra Club to forest product industries personnel. We had an educational, interesting and enjoyable experience. Tom had so much confidence in his direct reports, he turned us loose with them. I was lucky enough to have this kind of opportunity on 2 or 3 different occasions. Check with your local USFS national forests. On the ground with the professionals can be a very interesting experience!

[Art Mann]

i
I'll point out that almost all the hardwood forest on the east coast (certainly all the privately owned forests) is harvested on a regular basis, and has been since almost the founding of the country. People buy cut over forest land, hold on to it for years, and then either sell it for timber, or have it logged, sell the timber and then sell the land again. It can be a retirement investment.

I believe that forests are crops, just like corn or wheat. It's just that it takes a lot more years to produce a crop. If the land is privately owned, the owners are invested in protecting the forest.

This is not to say that all forests should be logged, but a lot of it could be. And if it was, we'd get value from it, and reduce the cost of wild-land fires. Much better than seeing it go up in smoke, taking homes with it.

Mike

Mike, You are absolutely rght. We have a family farm that is mostly planted in trees and the land serves multiple purposes. The low lands are set aside for wildlife habitat. As far as I know, our wildlife pond, which was purpose built, is about the southern most point that Canada geese will spend the winter. We also have long leaf pine forests that were planted pretty much as a timber crop and we have quite a large area of native hardwoods that is selectively harvested. The thing for people to realize is that the area where I live has never been populated with several hundred year old trees. Natural wildfires, in effect, clear cut vast areas periodically when the Indians were the only residents.

[David Weaver]

I thought this discussion was about farming, not brain surgery.

It's about chemistry, and I don't think that non-chemists are going to provide an answer. At least not if it's a chemical substitution.

Your suggestion is like telling someone who doesn't like their transaction fees at a bank to redesign the digital transaction system so that it's cheaper.

[Pat Barry]

Pat, as an advocate of eliminating logging....letting nature take it's course....when are you planning to sell your woodworking tools?



Of course, you have exaggerated my point Ken. My comment had to do with a previous comment made "irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground". I did not relate that I was an advocate for eliminating logging as you have concluded so erroneously. My point was that we humans have only destroyed the forests and replaced them with "crops" as some have termed them. I believe that if we care and want things to get back to where they rightfully belong, as nature, not man, intends, that we all ought to admit we have messed up and can't fix it and let nature do her job. I love the beauty of the wood itself and obviously to use it for furniture requires some cutting, so I am not opposed to logging. I just wish that the loggers were more responsible and less like rapists.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Pat....I believe we are part of nature. I would suggest that nobody knows what "nature" had or has planned. As the population "naturally" expanded man's imprint on the land has expanded too. I am not defending past practices merely saying current practices are improving.


Even nature has and is constantly changing. The only thing guaranteed in life and death is "change". In 1964 on the first day of a geology class at the University of Idaho, a professor said "We coming to the end of an ice age of which there has been several." Some geologist think there are geological proof that the earth has warmed up and refroze several times.

While the forests in years past were pretty much trashed, it's not the case any more. Selective clearing cutting is a good example of how the logging processes have improved.

On private land, logging can be conducted any way they want within the limits of certain protective guidelines.

On federal land, they do have to meet standards. Calling loggers rapists? That's a little harsh!

Let me guess....you aren't a logger. You wouldn't be affected financially if they stopped all commercial logging. It is easy to be a critic of the other man's game.

What is or was your profession?

[Greg Peterson]

Pat....I believe we are part of nature.

Our practices have improved. They haven't been perfected. I think the biggest step was realizing that we are a part of nature, that we do not exist outside the natural order.

Monsanto is playing with the very foundation of our food supply. There are some credible questions raised by persons, not unlike the forest worker you mentioned, that have spent much of their professional lives working with agriculture. They are not some pie eyed graduate student with not boots on the ground experience. I see no harm in further investing their claims. I hope their analysis are incorrect because the alternative is disturbing. But I am not willing to take Monsanto's word on the matter. They've demonstrated a passion for seeing their interests protected.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg.....this may be the first time both of us can acknowledge we agree on something. I think I will grab a Scotch ale out of the refrigerator and celebrate! LOL!:D


I won't automatically buy into the attacks on Monsanto either.

I worked for 2 of the most recognizable corporations in the US. Corporations are made up of people who live in your community, their kids attend the same schools as your kids, they attend the same churches and pay the same taxes. They have moral scruples. Having recently gotten out of the US Navy, working for company, after 20 months I was promoted to management. Due to a dramatic drop in the market due to a new law passed by the US Congress, we were saved from bankruptcy by the first large corporation. 12 months later in an effort to secure his job the VP of Service handed down an edict that was incredible. He gave managers like me a choice of breaking contractual obligations with our customers or break employment laws/regulations with the engineers that worked for me. Other managers were calling me suggesting a mutiny. I called a meeting, had all my engineers come to Chicago and we discussed the situation. We came up with a reasonable compromise. The VP refused the compromise the next day when I presented it to him the following day. The next day I flew to Cleveland and resigned. A couple days later the regional manager called me at home and offered me a systems engineer position which I accepted. 7 years later we were sold to a larger corporation. My point. Monsanto is made up of people who I bet buy and eat the same food as you and I do. If there was some significant known dangers, I don't think it would be kept a secret. They live here too.

Now to the Scotch ale.

[Ole Anderson]

It's about chemistry, and I don't think that non-chemists are going to provide an answer. At least not if it's a chemical substitution. I thought it was about Round Up vs non-chemical farming. No wait, it was about Monsanto strong arming farmers. No wait...

[David Weaver]

Ole, switching the subject and not discussing the point doesn't really do anything.

Specifically, the issue is you criticized anyone who identifies a problem and doesn't offer a solution that essentially a trade expert or a chemist would need to offer. There is no rule in the natural world that you must have an alternative to identify a problem.

It is, like I said, asking a lay person to offer a medical solution to a medical procedure that's been identified (through outcomes) as not being very successful. Or telling someone living downstream from Vermont Yankee that they need to offer another energy solution if they say they feel uncomfortable about tritium contamination that's made its way outside of the plant.

[Andrew Kertesz]

I think I'll go fishing with the can of worms this thread opened up.....

[Greg Peterson]

Greg.....this may be the first time both of us can acknowledge we agree on something. I think I will grab a Scotch ale out of the refrigerator and celebrate! LOL!:D

I'm flabbergased. While I do not always agree with you, I understand the foundation of your opinion and rarely find fault in your conclusions. It's hard to not respect your opinion, but emotions can get in the way and clutter things up. Internet forums are a clumsy way of interacting on a subject as complex as this. Too many facets, too many variables, too many personal experiences to convey in a timely manner. I can only imagine what Stephen Hawkings or others like him go through trying to engage in a debate.



I won't automatically buy into the attacks on Monsanto either.

I've nothing against corporations. I do think the pendulum has swung too far in their favor. Corporations seem to enjoy a place of honor and respect in our culture while at the same time they are engaged in practices that are counter to the best interest of the people outside the board room. I understand corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to share holders, and that a corporation's sole purpose is to create a profit. But we are witnessing a race to the bottom, profits at regardless the cost to a society. Hit the next quarter numbers, get the bonus, nevermind how those numbers were achieved.


My point. Monsanto is made up of people who I bet buy and eat the same food as you and I do. If there was some significant known dangers, I don't think it would be kept a secret. They live here too.

Here I have to disagree. We don't have to look back very far for examples. Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Moodys, Goldman Sachs are just some of the players that knew full and well that their activities were going to create a crisis. The rank and file of those corporations may not have been aware of the scale or breadth, they may have had some idea, but they did their jobs and trusted the captains steer the ship

All those workers, from the farmers that grew tobacco to the people manning the assembly line to the sales staff that sold the cigarettes had a vested interest in believing the company line that cigarettes were safe. Who were they to disagree with their leaders?

Regardless of what Monsanto knows or doesn't know, I think the questions raised by credible sources deserve further investigation. There is too much at stake to ignore their concerns. If it turns out their studies are wrong, no damage was done. If they are right, then we need to start examining solutions. Unlike a financial crisis, when the food supply suddenly starts declining, life is at risk.

[David Weaver]

I would have to agree about whether the rank and file would find out anything if they discovered longer term issues with consuming glyphosate (or whatever the next whiz bang combination will be since their patent ran out).

There's not way they'd tell them (it would instantly get leaked to the public) and they may not tell anyone who wasn't part of any study coming up with the results, because even an executive would be an earnings threat, and a liability threat if there was a later lawsuit.

I'd expect that their rational (from a business sense) action would be to try to develop something else and make a quiet replacement.

[Pat Barry]

Pat....I believe we are part of nature. I would suggest that nobody knows what "nature" had or has planned. As the population "naturally" expanded man's imprint on the land has expanded too. I am not defending past practices merely saying current practices are improving.


Even nature has and is constantly changing. The only thing guaranteed in life and death is "change". In 1964 on the first day of a geology class at the University of Idaho, a professor said "We coming to the end of an ice age of which there has been several." Some geologist think there are geological proof that the earth has warmed up and refroze several times.

While the forests in years past were pretty much trashed, it's not the case any more. Selective clearing cutting is a good example of how the logging processes have improved.

On private land, logging can be conducted any way they want within the limits of certain protective guidelines.

On federal land, they do have to meet standards. Calling loggers rapists? That's a little harsh!

Let me guess....you aren't a logger. You wouldn't be affected financially if they stopped all commercial logging. It is easy to be a critic of the other man's game.

What is or was your profession?
Starting from the last and working toward the first of your questions / comments
I am an engineer, not a logger.
I would not be directly affected financially if they stopped all commercial logging, but why do you jump to such an extreme point?
I will take pictures my next trip to the cabin, although now that spring is here the real damage won't be so easy to assess but the thought that does come to my mind is rape as to a good description of the logging practices I have seen recently - up close and personal. I wish it were federal land because maybe the rules would keep the loggers in line. Basically they whack down any tree in their path, then toss aside the ones they don't plan to sell. They cut off all the branches and leave the stumps and leave the unneeded trees piled up (not exactly the way nature would have it). Its an eyesore and it makes me sick to see the way they treat the forest in pursuit of a few lousy dollars profit per tree. The loggers are hired hands and I guess we could blame the property owners but all they do is own the property, they don't live on or near it. Seriously, if you think these are good practices or acceptable because that's what it takes to make a living from the forest, then go find a job where your destruction has less impact.
The idea that modern man is part of nature is so comical as to be the plot of a new comedy series (summer only). Where exactly do you equate 4 wheelers by the dozens tearing up the earth, and the loggers with their power equipment raping the forests willy nilly, and hugely overpowered fishing and pleasure boats tearing up the lakes as being part of nature? In my opinion, as valid as yours by the way, they are the antitheses of nature, not part of it. They are the cancer on nature.
Now I can see you are very passionate about forestry and I am not saying you didn't practice proper conservation and care for nature - its just not all folks out there are like you. Most tend to do more net damage than you may have, some its nothing but damage.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I'll point out that almost all the hardwood forest on the east coast (certainly all the privately owned forests) is harvested on a regular basis, and has been since almost the founding of the country. People buy cut over forest land, hold on to it for years, and then either sell it for timber, or have it logged, sell the timber and then sell the land again. It can be a retirement investment.

I believe that forests are crops, just like corn or wheat. It's just that it takes a lot more years to produce a crop. If the land is privately owned, the owners are invested in protecting the forest.

This is not to say that all forests should be logged, but a lot of it could be. And if it was, we'd get value from it, and reduce the cost of wild-land fires. Much better than seeing it go up in smoke, taking homes with it.

Mike

I agree Mike.

I live close to the Black Hills of South Dakota, and the Colorado and Wyoming Rockies, so with that frame of reference, I was specifically thinking of the pine bark beetle epidemic and the various approaches that I've seen in dealing with it. In Rocky Mountain national park, they seem to have take the ignore it, it'll go away, as they also have in the Norbeck wilderness of the Black Hills. All this has done is make a tinderbox, which won't be good for anything. Some careful logging would have at least helped manage the inevitable fire. It's not much of a forest when all the trees are dead, so all the delicate management strategies that I hear about are pretty irrelevant to manage it.

Ken, I agree, a well executed controlled burn is a useful tool. They did one in Wind Cave national park a couple years ago, and it's recovering, although I don't see what on earth they were trying to fix in that instance. Trouble is, all the bureaucracies that be, federal, state, NGO, and personal property owners are all fighting each other, and each insisting that their way is right. I doubt any one solution is, and usually the locals have the best answers. The result is inaction, and the cost is massive horrible fires that permanently hurt people, property and nature.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

When it is proven that organic farming is equally or more profitable than commercial farming, then they will make the switch.

Bingo. And that will take 2 to 4 times higher food prices, at least. It will also take a loyal base of customers, it's not possible to switch back and forth quickly from organic to not, so if farmers start going broke because demand slows, it's over. Because it's a global market, this also has to happen on a global level. If someone can import and undermine the prices, and hence demand, game over there too. Basically, it ain't happening.

[David Weaver]

Well, it depends on the food for organic cost. There are some things that don't cost much more. I don't think the per capita beef consumption is going to be going anywhere but down in the future. Same with milk. The old line about milk being "good for you" is not true, and the fitness and food fanatics have been telling everyone to avoid it for almost 75 years. Those two things are very inefficient ways to turn feedstock energy into calories for people, especially beef. (my grandparents on both sides raised beef, and one of my relatives just got out of the dairy business not long ago - I understand why they were staples in an older less diversified food system). Jack lalanne made a big deal out of staying away from milk ("what are you, a baby?"), and I remember someone asking schwarzenegger in pumping iron or one of those films back in the 60s when a reporter asked "boy, you must drink a lot of milk!!", and he said "no...no milk, I don't drink any milk".

I don't love organic for everything, either, it's just a specification and I doubt that all of the specification necessarily makes food safer.

The thing that I would be fine with, which most people are not, is food that does not look perfect. Organic food that had but damage wouldn't be that expensive to grow in a lot of cases, but making it look perfect is another story.

Either way, a lot of people say they want one thing, but when it comes time to buy, they buy whatever is cheapest and whatever tastes the best (which is rarely the healthiest). The average person will not put their money where their mouth is.

A decade ago, I would've never thought we could've eliminated beef, but at this point in my household we don't eat it, and we have more fish than I would've ever dreamed of having. I don't miss the beef - nothing good (for males) comes from eating it after it's past your tongue. And for women, iron can be gotten elsewhere.

[Larry Frank]

I think that it is fine to point out a problem.....The problem really is that the world population is over 7 billion and still growing. If we need to feed this many people, then we need to have very efficient farmers like in the US. While it might be desirable to grow all crops without chemicals and genetic modification, there is no way that we could produce sufficient food.
Given the choice of some (how much???) chemicals in the food stream and genetic modifcation or having huge starvation problems...it is an easy answer for me. Maybe, someone in the future will find a way to reduce the use of chemicals but until then, I think that we need to produce food/crops at the highest possible level to help feed the world.

[Jason Roehl]

A decade ago, I would've never thought we could've eliminated beef, but at this point in my household we don't eat it, and we have more fish than I would've ever dreamed of having. I don't miss the beef - nothing good (for males) comes from eating it after it's past your tongue. And for women, iron can be gotten elsewhere..

Grass-fed beef is an excellent source of vitamin B12. Excessive amounts of beef are certainly bad for you, particularly if eaten in hamburger form most of the time, but a steak every now and then makes life worth living. (Full disclosure: my in-laws farm beef cattle...I almost can't eat store-bought beef any more.) I'd be open to eating more fish, but the rest of my family are not big fans, I don't have time (or the gear) to go fishing, and the good fish is pretty expensive here. I also don't like to eat soy anything for protein, so my options are somewhat limited.

I'm with Larry--the U.S. farmer feeds the world, and it's not the organic farmer, it's the farmer who uses hybrids and breeds of grains that are developed in an expensive laboratory. Is it the best? Maybe not, but until there's an alternative, let's not cut ourselves off at the knees.

[David Weaver]

.

Grass-fed beef is an excellent source of vitamin B12. Excessive amounts of beef are certainly bad for you, particularly if eaten in hamburger form most of the time, but a steak every now and then makes life worth living. (Full disclosure: my in-laws farm beef cattle...I almost can't eat store-bought beef any more.) I'd be open to eating more fish, but the rest of my family are not big fans, I don't have time (or the gear) to go fishing, and the good fish is pretty expensive here. I also don't like to eat soy anything for protein, so my options are somewhat limited.

I'm with Larry--the U.S. farmer feeds the world, and it's not the organic farmer, it's the farmer who uses hybrids and breeds of grains that are developed in an expensive laboratory. Is it the best? Maybe not, but until there's an alternative, let's not cut ourselves off at the knees.

The feed the world thing is a good slogan, but there are a lot of other regions in the world that grow food without a problem. Unfortunately, we waste more and more of the "food" on non-food uses where they are really inappropriately and wastefully used. That demand from non-food and non-livestock users puts an artificial burden on acre production to grow stuff that really has little value other than caloric quantity (corn).

Grass fed beef is better than corn, though I do think corn fed beef tastes better. When we've had grass fed beef in the last couple of years, I get flashbacks to childhood when every cow we got was mostly pastured and not feedlot fed. I guess once the feedlots and corn feeders came along, along with the USDA's ridiculous butchering requirements for small growers, we stopped buying relatives' cows and having them butchered locally and started getting beef at the grocery store. But the grass fed and pastured beef tastes the same as I remember it.

One thing that strikes me as interesting is when euros come visit us, they are used to grass fed beef, especially the UK and scottish folks. They think the beef over here is fantastic, but I've never gotten into why that is. It might be because of the way corn fed beef is finished. I've talked to more than one midwest farmer who says they won't eat grass fed beef and their customers don't like it either.

And then there was my grandfather who really had little tolerance for any meat other than beef. If he shot a crop damage deer (which he did often), he threw the carcass out and if it had large antlers, he hacksawed the skull off and gave them to my dad (:)) who I suppose had plans to mount them and pretend that he'd gotten them himself - until my mother decided she didn't like hanging animal bits in the house.

Anyway, I think we have a problem with quality of food, not quantity. And I don't necessarily mean quality in terms of pesticides, I mean quality in terms of a lot of the stuff that we process into food is pretty much worthless as food. But it's cheap to process and make, and if you put it in a big flashy wrapper as "prepared food", I guess people buy it.

[Jason Roehl]

I suppose I should clarify that my inlaws' beef is not entirely grass-fed, but it is pastured most of the time. My FIL does supplement with grain, and in recent years, corn gluten because he could get it for something like 1/4 the price that he could sell his corn. He said the first time the cows ate it, they laid down next to the feed trough, just happy as clams--the corn gluten is the leftovers from ethanol processing, and there is some residual ethanol in it. The next time he turned on the feed trough conveyor, the cows came running. At any rate, it tastes better to me. Who knows, maybe that we haven't paid much more than processing costs (and sometimes not even that) over the nearly 19 years I've been in the family has an effect... A couple years ago, my wife and my MIL had worked out a deal on a half, and my FIL about blew a gasket when he found out we had paid them for beef. I took that as a good sign.

I'm with you on the processed garbage. I still eat some because it tastes good and is convenient if I'm busy, but we're making our yard smaller and smaller in favor of food production, and our church has a colossal garden as well (5 40'x100' plots we all work on together).

[David Weaver]

health stuff notwithstanding, I wouldn't mind going back to what my mom was feeding me 30 years ago. That was our pastured beef, local chicken (back then, it took longer for chickens to grow, they didn't grow them in the dark, and I'll admit they were smaller and didn't taste quite as good), local vegetables. We pay through the nose now (because of my wife, i'm cheap, I'd buy the low quality food where there's a big price difference and save organic for stuff like wheat to make bread where it only costs a buck or buck fifty a pound or so) to get foods that aren't just a bunch of cheap feedstock with a lot of flavoring to make them taste like something.

I'd love for an "ugly food" store to show up with no process food that was too ugly to be sold to the main line grocery stores when it shows up at the fruit and veggie terminal here. I have no idea where it goes. Presume a lot of the scratch and dent gets culled before it ever gets in a box, and ends up in things like canned or diced tomatoes where you can't tell whether the fruit was nice to start with.

We drank a LOT of whole milk, though, when I was a kid. I could do without that.

Excellent if you can identify exactly where your beef is coming from. The "diversified" farms around here (the ones that had animals and row crops) are about gone. A relative of mine still raises feeders, but they are someone else's cows and we wouldn't have access to them anyway. As he put it to me, he's "treading water" pasturing feeders because he doesn't want to sit around.

[Jerry Thompson]

Jon Entine of the Genetic Literacy Project responds: “We’ve eaten about 7 trillion meals in the 18 years since GMOs first came on the market. There’s not one documented instance of someone getting so much as a sniffle.”

[David Weaver]

That's a good storyline, but I don't think anyone has concerns about people catching a cold from GMOs. I think they're more concerned about whether or not it affects things at the DNA/RNA level.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Funny how people remenisce about their childhood, I do too. Grandparents place and the food they made are a big part of it. Honestly though, grandmas chicken noodle soup was just plain scary. You could find any part of a chicken in there. David, I think you are in the very small minority in your acceptance of odd looking food. The folks who grew up around it, and the attitude that you eat what isn't making money, would be ok with it, but most not really.

The edible bean industry sells splits for about 1/3 of the price of canners. They usually go to prisons and school lunch programs. I don't think there is much wasted food being produced, it just goes to some other food process then the store shelf. Another example is molasses from the sugar industry. Most of it gets turned into animal feed, and eventually ends up on the store shelf. Ag turns energy into matter, that matter all gets used someplace, even if it is just to grow more matter.

[David Weaver]

Burning corn with almost no net gain in energy from just burning the energy stocks that are required to turn it into ethanol are what I was referring to as a waste of food, though I see what you're saying about the uglies of the bean industry going to prisons. the entire biomass energy movement is a waste of energy, and via exemption, a way to put far more particulate and pollution into the air than is allowed with something like natural gas or liquid fossil fuels, and it makes no economic sense. It also wastes acreage that could be used to grow better quality food than yellow dent corn, which is basically trash. However, the economics of the scheme set up make it so that I can't tell you or anyone else something easy that takes little involvement from people (other than planting spraying and harvesting) and makes as much money per acre. I'd like to see all of the mangling of the market taken away, but it's a little too late because the subsidizing of the cost of building liquid fuel makers have already set the mechanism in place to keep consuming the feed stock.

What I didn't say directly is that I'd rather eat bug damaged food with no pesticides on it than food with no damage and a lot of pesticide use. Most people wouldn't tolerate that, though, because they have no concept of anything other than that they connect something looking good with being good.

(I did see some scary things as a kid, and one that was not scary that I wouldn't want to have a lot of now was cow tongue. We had that at least several times per year. And a friend's grandparents seemed to have liver all the time - which I'm not a great fan of. Chicken hearts and necks weren't uncommon there, either)

[Prashun Patel]

Didn't anyone see Jurassic Park? Jeff Goldblum accurately predicted that humans cannot accurately predict what happens when we manipulate nature. IMHO, the real issue is overpopulation, and humanity's basic nature to conquer nature.

Manipulation is nothing new. Today's GMO is yesterday's grafting/splicing. Shoot, basic agriculture is manipulation in the form of selective propagation of crops that are food to humans. Once we consume any of it in great enough abundance, other flora and fauna will necessarily be crowded out. We will have no choice but to seek more technology to squeeze more out of less and solve new diseases and problems.

Saying GMO's are evil is like saying blood pressure medication is evil. Don't blame the medicine, blame the illness.

[Ole Anderson]

Manipulation is nothing new. Today's GMO is yesterday's grafting/splicing. Shoot, basic agriculture is manipulation in the form of selective propagation of crops that are food to humans. Once we consume any of it in great enough abundance, other flora and fauna will necessarily be crowded out. We will have no choice but to seek more technology to squeeze more out of less and solve new diseases and problems.

Saying GMO's are evil is like saying blood pressure medication is evil. Don't blame the medicine, blame the illness.

I agree. Frankly I feel safer eating GMO food than I do taking all the meds I do, all of which, including the lowly aspirin, come with warnings that people have died from the same meds I now take. Can anyone say the same about GMO food? How many have died (GMO related) from eating those seven trillion meals. Do the med warnings keep you from taking something that addresses a serious medical condition?

The sky is falling, the sky is falling...

[David Weaver]

I agree. Frankly I feel safer eating GMO food than I do taking all the meds I do,

I would, too. I don't take any meds, though, aside from midrin about 3 times a year. Your last comment is very inconsiderate on an otherwise factual and considerate (from other posters) discussion.

[Jason Roehl]

I'll definitely agree that the prevalence of medications and processed foods are probably far bigger fish to fry than GMO food. I remain a skeptic about the danger claims of the GMO food, as our (healthy) digestive systems do some pretty amazing things. Don't forget that when food hits the stomach, it's dropping into hydrochloric acid at a pH of less than 2.0 usually. For balance, I am also somewhat skeptical that Monsanto has everyone's best interests in mind, and there's certainly at least some anecdotal evidence of their heavy-handedness. That's a long, roundabout way of saying I ride the fence on this one. ;)

I also wonder why on earth people put ethanol into their vehicles when they could be making it at home and drinking it. :D

[David Weaver]

I don't know which way it will shake out, either. I just think it's worth an honest look. I still eat GMO food, but really don't love the attempts to deter package labeling.

[Greg Peterson]

GMO's and Roundup, for purposes of this thread, are separate issues. Admittedly my concerns about GMO's are not founded on any science, I just think when man starts fiddling with the DNA of the food supply, we need to be 100% certain there are no negative ramifications.

At issue is whether or not Roundup ready GE crops maintain their yields. Several factors that are of concern are 1) Decreased yields season over season (16 year study as provided earlier in this thread) 2) Decreased efficacy of Roundup which requires more frequent and higher application rates 3) Weeds developing resistance to Roundup AKA Superweeds 4) Roundup bonds to nutrients in the soil, preventing the 'good' fungus from breaking down the nutrients for the plants and allowing the 'bad' fungus to destroy the 'good fungus.

All of these factors appear to be interconnected. And at least two peer reviewed studies have supported the decreased efficacy of roundup and the harm to the soil. One scientists, whose primary responsibility is advising large scale growers of corn and soy beans, crop yields predictions have been on a steady decline season over season. Another scientist admits that micro nutrient starvation is an issue but feels that super weeds are a more pressing concern.

All of these guys are highly educated and have spent decades accruing and analyzing the data. Some folks may dispute their claims, but no one has offered any credentials that indicate they are as qualified as these persons. Some folks say pish-posh, they haven't seen this problem. I wholeheartedly believe anyone whose personal experience counters the data. These scientists are not examining one farm or a couple of farms. They are working on a much larger data set, from regional to national, so it is quiet likely farmers personal experiences are different.

Science is ringing the alarm. I think it prudent to commit more resources into determining if what the science has observed is accurate or all of the observations are flawed and therefore invalid. We should not leave it to those whose have a conflict of interest to tell us there isn't a problem.

If the science is proven inaccurate or flat out wrong, then it can be said due diligence was done. If the science is proven accurate or at least partly accurate, then Monsanto and others can begin work on a solution before we put our food supply in jeopardy.

As for GMO's, I'm reminded of those margarine commercials in the 70's. "It's not nice to fool mother nature!".

[Scott Shepherd]

Science is ringing the alarm. I think it prudent to commit more resources into determining if what the science has observed is accurate or all of the observations are flawed and therefore invalid. We should not leave it to those whose have a conflict of interest to tell us there isn't a problem.

If the science is proven inaccurate or flat out wrong, then it can be said due diligence was done. If the science is proven accurate or at least partly accurate, then Monsanto and others can begin work on a solution before we put our food supply in jeopardy.

So are we supposed to eat eggs this month, or are eggs bad? What about Pork? That was good, "the other white meat" campaign, then it's bad for you. Beef- oh, that's bad for you. No wait, that's good and needed in your diet. Bread? Been the staple in every food chart since the 50's. Nope, can't eat white bread now. How about some alar on your apples? Or the hole in the ozone layer that's going to melt us all?

Science is a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG way from being right all the time.

[Jerry Thompson]

The man did not mean catching a cold. Sniffle was used to reference that nothing has turned up in all of the exposure.

[BOB OLINGER]

I am also a commercial farmer in nw Iowa. I make my living growing corn and soybeans. Every acre of crop that I have is either corn or soybeans that have the roundup ready gene in the seed. I pay a royalty that is included in the price of the seed that goes directly to Monsanto. The advent of roundup ready crops has made life much easier, safer, better for the environment and by the way more profitable. Every acre I have is farmed by the notill method meaning I just plant in to last years crop residue with no mechanical tillage. This method has cut my fuel usage by about 75% per acre. I use less than 2 gallons of diesel fuel per acre to grow the crop compared to about 8 gallons per acre in the past. The roundup technology allows me to use roundup, one of the least toxic chemicals, to control weeds as opposed to atrazine and a host of other products that were dangerous to the applicator and also to the environment and wildlife. I apply 22 to 40 oz per acre of roundup per acre compared to several times that amount of other chemicals popular in the past. Roundup has made the transition to notill farming much easier. The notill methods have cut soil erosion on my land drastically from what it use d to be when land was tilled several times each year. The organic matter of my soil has increased about 25% since I have adopted roundup technology and notill farming. The yield per acre I have has increased every year basically since I have started farming due to better technology, genetics and farming methods. I can grow more grain per acre with less chemical use and safer methods, a lot of this is directly traced back to Monsanto and their products.

That is not to say that Monsanto is lily white on any of this. They have good product that is dependable and safe for me to use. They have their faults I am sure but they have made my world better. I would not use their products if I felt it was unsafe to me or the environment.

One poster mentioned the huge increase in the amount of roundup used from sometime in the 90s until now. the insertion of the round up gene into commercial crops did not exist in 1990 so to compare that amount of gallons per year to what is used now is like comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps similar to comparing I phone usage in 1990 to what it is now.

I was the first farmer in my community to plant roundup beans, I don't remember what year it was, but I did it and never looked back. I do dislike paying a royalty to them on every bag of seed every year but that is the way the world works. If anyone has any questions I would be glad to answer them Jared Herbert

Thanks, Jared, for posting - you are right on!

[Pat Barry]

I am also a commercial farmer in nw Iowa. I make my living growing corn and soybeans. Every acre of crop that I have is either corn or soybeans that have the roundup ready gene in the seed. I pay a royalty that is included in the price of the seed that goes directly to Monsanto. The advent of roundup ready crops has made life much easier, safer, better for the environment and by the way more profitable. Every acre I have is farmed by the notill method meaning I just plant in to last years crop residue with no mechanical tillage. This method has cut my fuel usage by about 75% per acre. I use less than 2 gallons of diesel fuel per acre to grow the crop compared to about 8 gallons per acre in the past. The roundup technology allows me to use roundup, one of the least toxic chemicals, to control weeds as opposed to atrazine and a host of other products that were dangerous to the applicator and also to the environment and wildlife. I apply 22 to 40 oz per acre of roundup per acre compared to several times that amount of other chemicals popular in the past. Roundup has made the transition to notill farming much easier. The notill methods have cut soil erosion on my land drastically from what it use d to be when land was tilled several times each year. The organic matter of my soil has increased about 25% since I have adopted roundup technology and notill farming. The yield per acre I have has increased every year basically since I have started farming due to better technology, genetics and farming methods. I can grow more grain per acre with less chemical use and safer methods, a lot of this is directly traced back to Monsanto and their products.

That is not to say that Monsanto is lily white on any of this. They have good product that is dependable and safe for me to use. They have their faults I am sure but they have made my world better. I would not use their products if I felt it was unsafe to me or the environment.

One poster mentioned the huge increase in the amount of roundup used from sometime in the 90s until now. the insertion of the round up gene into commercial crops did not exist in 1990 so to compare that amount of gallons per year to what is used now is like comparing apples to oranges, or perhaps similar to comparing I phone usage in 1990 to what it is now.

I was the first farmer in my community to plant roundup beans, I don't remember what year it was, but I did it and never looked back. I do dislike paying a royalty to them on every bag of seed every year but that is the way the world works. If anyone has any questions I would be glad to answer them Jared Herbert
Jared,
I wish I had not overlooked your posting earlier. Its very interesting. I have a question about what you term as round-up ready. Can you explain what that means because frankly, the things that come to my mind regarding that seems frightening. Is this what folks are referring to as GMO?

[Raymond Fries]

This is a great discussion and I am glad to read "all" points of view. Some of them have given me new things to think about. I still stand against Monsanto GMO foods. There have been many studies to say they are bad for us. Many cast them aside as being biased or not with merit. I ask to see all of the studies that "prove" Monsanto GMO foods will not cause us any harm for the years to come. I just think natural foods are better and messing with plant DNA is dangerous.

In addition, I just cannot resolve eating poison in any concentration. It was pointed out by Steve that Roundup Ready crops are not direct to human consumption; they are fed to cattle. Show me the lab tests that prove that none of the roundup poison remains in the beef that we eat. People are exposed to so many toxic chemicals that I believe it is very difficult to associate any form of cancer or any other health problem to a specific chemical from any manufacturing process.

This is a complicated issue and there are no easy or clear cut answers. People seem to accept Monsanto telling us GMO food is better and accept the chemical safety risk in lieu of more profitable farming methods. Monsanto chemicals reduces fuel consumption and increases yield.

We try to make the best food choices we can afford and move on. I believe that natural foods and the less chemicals that are in those foods are better for us.

[Mel Fulks]

So many foods have been altered by crossing breeding. Modern tomatoes are real different from old species plants. Dog
breeds are mainly the result of people attempting to get an animal for a specific purpose. My sincere question is:How is the modern scientific tweaking different or worse? Even people are being modified to avoid a genetic fault,choose sex,eye color
.....but I read nothing about cannibals saying they wouldn't eat them!

[Greg Peterson]

Science is a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG way from being right all the time.

I can not think of a rational reply.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Peer reviews, vetting and publication are of little value without knowing the bias and intent of the reviewing organization. If those things including professional licenses, and board certifications were assurances of accuracy, and integrity, we would not see the number of stories in the news about medical doctors being prosecuted for Medicare fraud nor would we see as many successfully prosecuted malpractice lawsuits
.
The very mission statement of one of the funding organizations for the linked study states its’ mission is to research and promote organic farming and as Greg pointed out, Dr. Benbrook in his biography, lists himself as the Chief Research Scientist at that organization. It would seem reasonable to believe he has a bias regarding organic farming.

In today’s society, with regards to organizations, even those with mission statements that“appear” to have good intentions one needs to be aware of “the end justifies the means” attitude coupled with a bias can result in less than 100% open and honest actions.

Here are a couple questions to consider about that study to consider. Why was the study submitted and reviewed by a European organization? Isn’t the European community known to be unfriendly towards glyophosates and somewhat anti-GMO? Why was it not submitted to a comparable American organization where it could have been reviewed, vetted and published? Is there a bias at Environmental Sciences of Europe of which the author wanted to take advantage to insure his study’s reception and publication? Would an equivalent US organization be more "Roundup friendly" and therefore have had a differing review of the article, it’s content and the resultant conclusion?

If I was to perform a study about a given pistol submitting it for review to Handgun Control, Inc and the NRA, you can bet its’ acceptance, rejection or any review and publication would have a totally different outcome from both institutions. You might say this is an exaggerated example but in fact it points out the importance of knowing the bias of the reviewing organization.

Quite regularly, generally accepted, published, peer reviewed, medical studies are refuted when a new study has provided a completely different result. I would seldom bet the house on a single study.

Furthermore, data and statistics based on data can be filtered, skewed and the results of the study can be slanted due to a personally biased interpretation. You have to know not only the source of the date, the accuracy of the data, the scope of the data included in the study, the scope of the data excluded from the study, but also the individual and their preconceived biases or theories, to determine the accuracy and truth of the results of a study. Frankly I am not knowledgeable enough to make a determination in this case. I would also argue that a lot of others at SMC aren't knowledgeable enough to argue or discuss this study intelligently either.

We live in a capitalistic society where professional opinions are bought daily. Highly educated, respected “authorities” whose professional opinions, based on analysis of the same data or evidence, strongly disagree, testify in court regularly disputing the other’s opinion.

Educational institutions are as much a part of the capitalistic society in which we live in as any business. At most colleges and universities one of the requirements for professors to be tenured, is that they regularly perform research that is accepted, peer reviewed and published. It’s a matter of both esteem and generating income for the institution and the researcher. While student tuitions generate income for educational institutions, so does other institutional programs like college sports and yes, the revered research studies which can generate more income than just the expense of performing the study, itself.

There is no reason to believe that the integrity of research professors is better than their counterpart industrial researchers. Both groups are intelligent, educated, have a curiosity, need income and have an ego.

There is just as much reason to question college research studies,to scrutinize their conclusions, methods and reasoning as there is to do the same about industrial researchers.

With the number of people, in this country and around the world living at poverty levels or on limited incomes, food price increases of 2-4 times higher, would put a severe change in their lives.

When it’s as profitable and efficient to practice organic farming, it will become the accepted manner used.

[Greg Peterson]

So many foods have been altered by crossing breeding. Modern tomatoes are real different from old species plants. Dog
breeds are mainly the result of people attempting to get an animal for a specific purpose. My sincere question is:How is the modern scientific tweaking different or worse? Even people are being modified to avoid a genetic fault,choose sex,eye color
.....but I read nothing about cannibals saying they wouldn't eat them!

In short, cross breeding is just that, cross breeding. GMO, genetically modified organism, have had genes from one species inserted into their DNA. Splicing a apple tree or cross pollinating a plant is not splicing genes. Taking a gene from a fish and inserting it into plant to make the plant more resistant to frost is considered genetically modifying the plant.

[Scott Shepherd]

I can not think of a rational reply.

Greg, I'm just pointing out that science is wrong on food products a lot. Take my examples, is it good to eat eggs now or not? Is it good to eat pork now or not? Those are all things "Science" as some point has said was bad for you. Then they said they were good for you, then bad for you. If it's so "fixed" and "scientific", how come the outcome keeps changing?

I'm not suggesting you don't believe scientific theories, but if you go around taking everything science says as settled fact, you're going to look pretty silly when they change their outcomes 2 years from now.

Sweet & Low has been said to cause cancer for decades. It's been around for 40 years or more than I can recall (I think), but yet there's not one scientific study in 40 years to prove it. So who's right? The facts or the people that say it causes cancer? 40 years and not one proven case of it.

[Greg Peterson]

Peer reviews, vetting and publication are of little value without knowing the bias and intent of the reviewing organization. If those things including professional licenses, and board certifications were assurances of accuracy, and integrity, we would not see the number of stories in the news about medical doctors being prosecuted for Medicare fraud nor would we see as many successfully prosecuted malpractice lawsuits
.
The very mission statement of one of the funding organizations for the linked study states its’ mission is to research and promote organic farming and as Greg pointed out, Dr. Benbrook in his biography, lists himself as the Chief Research Scientist at that organization. It would seem reasonable to believe he has a bias regarding organic farming.

In today’s society, with regards to organizations, even those with mission statements that“appear” to have good intentions one needs to be aware of “the end justifies the means” attitude coupled with a bias can result in less than 100% open and honest actions.

Here are a couple questions to consider about that study to consider. Why was the study submitted and reviewed by a European organization? Isn’t the European community known to be unfriendly towards glyophosates and somewhat anti-GMO? Why was it not submitted to a comparable American organization where it could have been reviewed, vetted and published? Is there a bias at Environmental Sciences of Europe of which the author wanted to take advantage to insure his study’s reception and publication? Would an equivalent US organization be more "Roundup friendly" and therefore have had a differing review of the article, it’s content and the resultant conclusion?

If I was to perform a study about a given pistol submitting it for review to Handgun Control, Inc and the NRA, you can bet its’ acceptance, rejection or any review and publication would have a totally different outcome from both institutions. You might say this is an exaggerated example but in fact it points out the importance of knowing the bias of the reviewing organization.

Quite regularly, generally accepted, published, peer reviewed, medical studies are refuted when a new study has provided a completely different result. I would seldom bet the house on a single study.

Furthermore, data and statistics based on data can be filtered, skewed and the results of the study can be slanted due to personally biased interpretation. You have to know not only the source of the date, the accuracy of the data, the scope of the data included in the study, the scope of the data excluded from the study, but also the individual and their preconceived biases or theories, to determine the accuracy and truth of the results of a study. Frankly I am not knowledgeable enough to make a determination in this case. I would also argue that a lot of others at SMC aren't knowledgeable enough to argue or discuss intelligently either.

We live in a capitalistic society where professional opinions are bought daily. Highly educated, respected “authorities” whose professional opinions, based on analysis of the same data or evidence, strongly disagree and testify in court regularly disputing the other’s opinion.

Educational institutions are as much a part of the capitalistic society in which we live in as any business. At most colleges and universities one of the requirements for professors to be tenured, is that they perform research that is accepted, peer reviewed and published. It’s a matter of both esteem and generating income for the institution and the researcher. While student tuitions generate income for educational institutions, so does other institutional programs like college sports and yes, the revered research studies which can pay more than just the cost of performing the study, itself.

There is no reason to believe that the integrity of research professors is better than their counterpart industrial researchers. Both groups are intelligent, educated, have a curiosity, need income and have an ego.

There is just as much reason to question college research studies,to scrutinize their conclusions, methods and reasoning as there is to do the same about industrial researchers.

With the number of people, in this country and around the world living at poverty levels or on limited incomes, food price increases of 2-4 times higher, would put a severe change in their lives.

When it’s as profitable to practice organicfarming, it will become the accepted manner used.

All good points Ken.

Europe does not have an un-friendly view on GMO's. They are adamantly opposed to them. It would be accurate to say they have a very conservative stance on GMO's. The science is not settled and rather than endanger their food supply, they are simply refusing to allow GMO's to enter their system.

But, does Monsanto also not possess a bias? Where are their peer reviewed studies supporting the safety they claim their products possess? And what governing bodies reviewed them? Who do those scientists work for? It can cut both ways. In recent years we have come to project political attributes onto our science community to the point where there now exists a significant population that is anti-science. Today, when science presents a fact, the other side, regardless how insignificant their number, is given equal voice. Case in point, global warming. Even at a ratio of 97-3, global warming deniers get equal billing in any discussion. And funny enough, their ties to funding are never questioned. Should we follow the money on the deniers too?

GMO's are essentially a non regulated practice. Who knows what kind of genie they may be letting out of the bottle.

Questioning a dissenting study is fine, but there are a few studies that reveal potential problems. And who is going to counter the study and what are their ties to industry? Who are they beholden to or what are their inherit biases? I'm surprised by the libertarian or Laissez-faire attitude towards GMO's expressed by many. IMO, there is too much at risk to trust those who stand to gain most from GMO's. Food safety and sustainability is not a matter to leave to the market.

[Mel Fulks]

Greg, thanks for clarification. In my googling I don't see anything that says the changes are always cross species. I can't help but wonder if it is the accurate control itself ,as opposed to random luck, that some find unnatural or scary.

[Greg Peterson]

Greg, I'm just pointing out that science is wrong on food products a lot. Take my examples, is it good to eat eggs now or not? Is it good to eat pork now or not? Those are all things "Science" as some point has said was bad for you. Then they said they were good for you, then bad for you. If it's so "fixed" and "scientific", how come the outcome keeps changing?

I'm not suggesting you don't believe scientific theories, but if you go around taking everything science says as settled fact, you're going to look pretty silly when they change their outcomes 2 years from now.

Sweet & Low has been said to cause cancer for decades. It's been around for 40 years or more than I can recall (I think), but yet there's not one scientific study in 40 years to prove it. So who's right? The facts or the people that say it causes cancer? 40 years and not one proven case of it.

I understood you the first time. Yes, many if not most of those were studies that were never peer reviewed and just released to the press. There was a study that said bread crust caused cancer. It was poorly researched and was not even peer reviewed, yet the press got it and ran with it.

IMO, I feel these scientists that have raised these questions, are credible. Each having decades in their respective professions, have conducted studies or have advised large scale growers based on the numbers. Their careers are in agriculture and I have to assume they have a passion, interest or concern for the professional farmer. Their observations are not based on one or two anecdotal experiences. They have tremendous responsibilities. Much like Ken's forest ranger story.

Ken discounts the studies I cited for a variety of reasons. To which I say there is no value in any peer reviewed study as every organization can be found to have a bias. Peer review has been rendered useless because the authors motives are now fair game. "Why did he question Roundup?". "Why does he tell corn and soy bean growers that yields down so plan your crops accordingly". "Why did he look at the ecosystem of the soil?".

I'm not saying that GMO's are bad or Roundup needs to go away. But I'm not going to take Monsanto's word that everything is all right.

[Scott Shepherd]

I understood you the first time. IMO, I feel the scientists that have raised serious questions, are credible. Each having decades in their respective professions have conducted studies or have advised large scale growers based on the numbers. Their careers are in agriculture and I have to assume they have a passion, interest or concern for the professional farmer. Their observations are not based on one or two anecdotal experiences.

Yeah, and so were the scientist that told is all the things I listed were bad for you. They all came from credible, career scientists, not some fly by night hack. They were all peer reviewed and the conclusions reached as well. It's not different than what you're saying.

You might be 100% right. I have no idea. I'm only saying that you are giving people a lot of credit, when in the past, those same types of people have been VERY wrong about a lot of things as well. I used to think science was close to 100% right, not I think they are closer to 50/50 on most things.

[Greg Peterson]

Yeah, and so were the scientist that told is all the things I listed were bad for you. They all came from credible, career scientists, not some fly by night hack. They were all peer reviewed and the conclusions reached as well. It's not different than what you're saying.

You might be 100% right. I have no idea. I'm only saying that you are giving people a lot of credit, when in the past, those same types of people have been VERY wrong about a lot of things as well. I used to think science was close to 100% right, not I think they are closer to 50/50 on most things.


I think they are being honest, as many before them were being honest. But the scientific process ultimately decides who is right and who is wrong.

I do not believe the scientific process has been fully applied to GMO's or RR crops.

[Frank Drew]

I don't think there is much wasted food being produced, it just goes to some other food process then the store shelf.

Steve,

There is a huge amount of food waste in this country, a really shocking amount. FWIW, I don't consider it wasted if the food is re-purposed, fed to animals, composted, etc. I mean waste as in thrown in the trash, mostly at the end-user location.

I'm pretty much agnostic on the GMO issue; I don't know enough about the science to have an informed position. But in this highly surprising thread (for this board), Greg, Pat, David and some others have kept their cool and calmly argued their respective positions, while a few posters have thrown around such seemingly pejorative (and political) terms as left leaning, radicals, enviros, etc.

Just my observation.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I think they are being honest, as many before them were being honest. But the scientific process ultimately decides who is right and who is wrong.

I do not believe the scientific process has been fully applied to GMO's or RR crops.

Unless you were there involved in the research process at Monsanto, you can't prove this. Thus this is purely wild speculation.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Forestry practices during the 20th century included clear cutting g and indiscriminate harvesting. To be fair, the industry started smplkykng sustainable practices in the 90's.

Clear cutting was cost effective but damaged fish habitat and caused extensive soil erosion.

OK. I'm back for a minute.

20th century - yeah. Early on, go for the low hanging fruit. Clear cut the stuff if it was in your way. Drop the old-growth trees - the monsters with unbelievable yields. Michigan's old-growth pine forests were cleared to fuel the furniture industry in Grand Rapids area, and the construction boom - beginning with the rebuilding of Chicago after Mrs. O'Leary's cow. The fabulous Southern Yellow Pine old-growth forests were cleared and gone.

But then - 2d half of the century, they started the plantations of trees. They are on the 3d or 4th generation of SYP farms - the stuff is basically a weed. The acreage in the S Georgia region is stunning - all different phases of growth: I regularly see acreage being harvested. Along hte same road are plantations in all stages of growth.

Somewhere, recently, [lousy source for fact-checking, I acknowledge] I read that in the SYP region that the current forests are some multiple of the old-growth forests from the 19th C. Like twice the acreage, or something.

I don't dispute your basic argument. I just think you got a bit carried away on this particular analogy, that's all.

The fisheries - I got that one.

But the GMOs seem - to me - to be the antithesis of those over-harvesting problems. Improve yields. Reduce time and fuel spent on the crops. Reduce total herbicide usage. Use a degradable herbicide.

With all due respect to the people that are opposed to the GMO crops: I am more concerned with the latent time-bomb of single-strain crops. Setting aside the GMO issue, there are many staples of the human diet that have been cross-bred for improved yields, insect resistance, harvest-to-market viability, etc., resulting in loss of the traits of the heirlooms from which they were bred. And, with which we are now in the position of "what if there is a disease that wipes out that single strain"?

[Frank Drew]

Ken

You've suggested that we should view any "scientific" findings with skepticism before we find out who was behind the studies, who might benefit from them, what biases preceded the studies... follow the money, in other words.

But you don't seem to apply the same healthy skepticism towards Monsanto, with their obvious self-interest in this issue; why is that?

[Chris Kennedy]

Ken,

Your comments show that you don't know or understand how peer review works.

Chris

[Kev Williams]

Just yesterday I was listening to a local talk radio host, who mentioned that some study was just released about drinking diet soda...

Seems this host, and many others of late, believe (thru 'science'?) that diet soda is NOT an acceptable substitute for water, and is more detrimental to sustaining a diet than drinking water or even regular sugared soda. In short, drink sugared soda and leave diet soda alone...

Well, this new study states (in short) that THAT theory is bunk...

So what's the first thing the host does? Calls his 'personal scientist' on the phone to have HIM debunk this new study. My personal opinion as to why he called his guy? He doesn't want to admit to his listeners he may be wrong.

What's this mean? First, I haven't read all nine pages of this thread ( ;) ) -second, in my 60 years on this planet, it seems to ME, that "scientific evidence" is about 30% "science" and 70% "personal opinion"...

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Ken,

Your comments show that you don't know or understand how peer review works.

Chris

Kindly explain Chris. Enlighten me.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Frank,

You are wrong.

I am saying on both sides of the GMO arguments, both sides have bias and both could serve you Kool-Aid.


In my opinion, scientists in both commercial and educational institutions have a financial interest which can effect an outcome, that both types of researchers can have personal beliefs before they perform research than could effect their research. I believe neither group is better morally and has more integrity.


As a result, both camps when they produce a study, the study should be scrutinized equally.

I will also state, I doubt seriously anybody who has posted in this thread so far, is honestly qualified with the knowledge to intelligently explain, discuss or debate the subject.

[Chris Kennedy]

Peer reviews, vetting and publication are of little value without knowing the bias and intent of the reviewing organization.
.

(My emphasis added.)

Ken,

Peer reviewers do not work for journals. They are asked by the editorial board to review the article -- for no remuneration. You have been talking about "following the money." Peer review has no money to follow. They do this for the sake of ensuring research is as accurate as possible.



Chris

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Personally, I don't have an opinion about GMOs and I am not defending Monsanto.

Statements were made questioning the integrity and research of researchers at a commercial organization because of financial interests. I was merely pointing out that educational institutions and their researchers have similar interests.


GMOs are really a non-issue. Even in little Lewiston, Idaho, every grocery store of significant size has an organic section. If you want to pay more for organic because you are more comfortable eating organic, do it. The organic food is available.


If you are uncomfortable with RoundUp, and RR foods, tell your organic farmer to not use them, and buy organic.

If I am not concerned, I shouldn't have to pay more just because you are willing to do so.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

(My emphasis added.)

Ken,

Peer reviewers do not work for journals. They are asked by the editorial board to review the article -- for no remuneration. You have been talking about "following the money." Peer review has no money to follow. They do this for the sake of ensuring research is as accurate as possible.



Chris

But the reviewing group can have a bias and therefore their review isn't necessarily unbiased.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Why was the study to which he linked sent to a European publication, if it is known that the EU is against strongly against GMOs, RoundUp and RR plants? Do you expect anyone to believe the article could get an unbiased review in Europe? Would the same article sent to an equivalent publication in the US have gotten the same review and resultant publication?

There is as much reason to scrutinize research, the reasons for the research etc., from educational institutions as there are from corporations.

I don't completely trust either but I don't condemn them either. I am skeptical of both and they both deserve to be scrutinized.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

(My emphasis added.)

Ken,

Peer reviewers do not work for journals. They are asked by the editorial board to review the article -- for no remuneration. You have been talking about "following the money." Peer review has no money to follow. They do this for the sake of ensuring research is as accurate as possible.



Chris

Kindly point out anywhere I have accused reviewing groups of being paid. I said they can have a bias, a joint professional opinion that will effect the reviews they give and thus taints their "publicly stated intent". When I mention "follow the money" I am referring to the money educational institutions and their researchers receive for performing the studies.

[Chris Kennedy]

Ken,

Again -- you are showing you don't know how peer review works. What is this "reviewing group" you speak of? At first it was the "reviewing organization" but the referee has no connection to the journal. The whole point of peer review is to bring an outsider, with no connections to the research and the publishing body to give an informed and non-influenced opinion. Peer reviewers are anonymous and volunteers. The reviewer can reject the research with no ill effect to them, and if you have looked at acceptance rates for journal publications, you would see how much research gets rejected.

Out of curiosity, have you ever gone through peer review? Do you have any experience with this process?

Chris

[Jason Roehl]

Chris, so are those peer reviewers just some average Joe off the street? Doubtful. While they may not get paid directly to review, they're still making or have made an income somewhere in the scientific community, and hold some level of personal and/or professional bias. True impartiality is a unicorn.

[Chris Kennedy]

Kindly point out anywhere I have accused reviewing groups of being paid. I said they can have a bias, a joint professional opinion that will effect the reviews they give and thus taints their "publicly stated intent". When I mention "follow the money" I am referring to the money educational institutions and their researchers receive for performing the studies.

As you say, "follow the money for the educational institutions and researchers receive for performing the studies." They perform the studies, which then go through anonymous, non-renumerated peer review. Peer review breaks the money chain. You haven't accused them of being paid -- the important thing is that they aren't paid. It is that reviewers are outside of the grant chain and that they are not beholden to the instigators of the grant. That is what you are missing about peer review. Getting a grant does not guarantee publication. Research journal publishers have to remain independent of corporate sponsorship otherwise they become known to be a tool. The research community knows this.

Again -- have you ever been through peer review?

Chris

[Steve Rozmiarek]

If the science is proven inaccurate or flat out wrong, then it can be said due diligence was done. If the science is proven accurate or at least partly accurate, then Monsanto and others can begin work on a solution before we put our food supply in jeopardy.

As for GMO's, I'm reminded of those margarine commercials in the 70's. "It's not nice to fool mother nature!".

Greg, I get the impression that you want the due diligence to last long enough that it obstructs the use of GMO.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Steve,

There is a huge amount of food waste in this country, a really shocking amount. FWIW, I don't consider it wasted if the food is re-purposed, fed to animals, composted, etc. I mean waste as in thrown in the trash, mostly at the end-user location.

I'm pretty much agnostic on the GMO issue; I don't know enough about the science to have an informed position. But in this highly surprising thread (for this board), Greg, Pat, David and some others have kept their cool and calmly argued their respective positions, while a few posters have thrown around such seemingly pejorative (and political) terms as left leaning, radicals, enviros, etc.

Just my observation.

Frank, if there is food waste, it's not happening on the farm or in the manufacturing processes. Probably is at the kitchen table, I guess my kids contribute to that. What are you thinking of?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I will also state, I doubt seriously anybody who has posted in this thread so far, is honestly qualified with the knowledge to intelligently explain, discuss or debate the subject.

Ken, there are several involved with this thread who do actually have a strong grasp of the original subject, but it keeps wandering all over the place and the ends up getting led off topic. No one could be fully educated on all the ground we've covered.

[Frank Drew]

peer reviewers... [are] still making or have made an income somewhere in the scientific community, and hold some level of personal and/or professional bias. True impartiality is a unicorn.

The perfect is the enemy of the good; if you're going to implicitly reject all scientific findings or opinions then we'll never get anywhere. I might have a bias towards an acceptance of the theory of gravity, but I'm ok with that.

Also, there actually are people in the scientific community who simply want to find the best answers to a question, whose egos are divorced from what they consider "facts", who really believe that there are no failures in their work, just more data.

[Frank Drew]

Frank, if there is food waste, it's not happening on the farm or in the manufacturing processes. Probably is at the kitchen table, I guess my kids contribute to that. What are you thinking of?

Steve,

Most but not all of the waste occurs at or near the end user -- at homes, grocery stores, schools, other food purveyors. It would probably break a farmer's heart to see how much of his fruits and vegetables ends up in school cafeteria garbage cans. A lot of perfectly good food is thrown away due to confusing or unrealistic sell-by dating, particularly on dairy products. Google "food waste in the U.S." for more links, but here are just a few:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/living-in-the-united-states-of-food-waste

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/06/16/3346605/you-can-waste-less-food-at-home.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/want-to-save-at-the-supermarket-compost-2013-06-18

[Mike Henderson]

Steve,

Most but not all of the waste occurs at or near the end user -- at homes, grocery stores, schools, other food purveyors. It would probably break a farmer's heart to see how much of his fruits and vegetables ends up in school cafeteria garbage cans. A lot of perfectly good food is thrown away due to confusing or unrealistic sell-by dating, particularly on dairy products. Google "food waste in the U.S." for more links, but here are just a few:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-01-10/living-in-the-united-states-of-food-waste

http://www.fresnobee.com/2013/06/16/3346605/you-can-waste-less-food-at-home.html

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/want-to-save-at-the-supermarket-compost-2013-06-18

For certain crops, a lot of "waste" occurs at the farm. Ever see the picking of tomatoes? A LOT of tomatoes that are not "perfect" wind up between the rows. Also, ones that are too ripe to make it through the supply chain. And then they rip out the plants while they still have quite a few tomatoes on the vine.

I guess the picking is just too costly to do more than a few times per planting.

I would guess that peaches are similar - a lot of less than perfect, or too ripe, wind up on the ground. Probably other fruit crops, also.

Mike

[Frank Drew]

I would guess that peaches are similar - a lot of less than perfect, or too ripe, wind up on the ground. Probably other fruit crops, also.


Mike,

A huge amount of ripe, sound peaches fall to the ground and are never used unless the grower has some system in place for gleaners to come through and pick them up; if done daily, the fruit would at least be ideal for value-added products like peach jam, but that would require processing facilities, etc. A local grower said his dad use to pile hay under the trees to cushion the peaches as they fell, but he (the current guy) doesn't want to deal with all the hay after the crop is in. Seems like a perfect job for a york rake, but what do I know.

We've got a great system of farm to market roads in the U.S.; in some underdeveloped countries, the road systems and overall infrastructure are so poor that lots of crops rot in the fields because they can't be transported.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

The fruit and veggies growers are all about timing markets. Everything is time sensitive orders with those, they grow more than an order to ensure it gets filled on time. The fruit that stays in the orchard to rot does turn back into nutrients and back to fruit eventually.

I get what you are saying about that being edible food that could be consumed, and agree, but the reason it isn't is the reality of shipping. I like having peaches here where I can't grow them, so I don't know what the solution is.

[Dave Sheldrake]

The title of doctor and peer reviewed studies used to denote some degree of authority on the subject at hand.

I hold a Ph.D, Masters and BsC from two of the most well respected universities on the planet, the qualifications don't make me right, being right makes me right when it occurs :)


It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong

cheers

Dave

[Dan Hintz]

I hold a Ph.D, Masters and BsC from two of the most well respected universities on the planet

You went to DeVry and University of Phoenix, too? :p

[Dave Sheldrake]

You went to DeVry and University of Phoenix, too? :p

I used to stick the Dr bit on letter heads but got too many questions about "why do I have headaches" and writing back with "Wrong type of Dr" didn't seem to slow them down ;)

cheers

Dave

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Ken,

Again -- you are showing you don't know how peer review works. What is this "reviewing group" you speak of? At first it was the "reviewing organization" but the referee has no connection to the journal. The whole point of peer review is to bring an outsider, with no connections to the research and the publishing body to give an informed and non-influenced opinion. Peer reviewers are anonymous and volunteers. The reviewer can reject the research with no ill effect to them, and if you have looked at acceptance rates for journal publications, you would see how much research gets rejected.

Out of curiosity, have you ever gone through peer review? Do you have any experience with this process?

Chris

Chris,

My apologies for using the term "group" so loosely. I realize that in scientific peer reviews the reviewers are anonymous and independent to and of each other but it's more than one reviewer performing the reveiw, so I referred to it as a "group".

The editor's of professional publications, however, know the authors and the reviewers. Potentially, an editor or editors could "potentially" have a bias for a given author or study and select reviewers that he/she feel might present a friendlier review. First they cull out those studies or articles they don't feel warrants reviews and then they select the reviewers for the manuscripts they have selected to be reviewed. I am not saying it's ever happened, I am not saying it will happen, but the potential is there and editors are human too. You can do a Google search and find a number of highly respect "researchers" and "editors" that are critical for a variety of reasons of the peer review process. Some of the worst critics are editors. The same critics generally admit after explaining their reasoning for being critical, the system is the best alternative available.

It's been decades since I last studied "good scientific research methods" but some of the most basic principles would seem to me to be investigating, scrutinizing and questioning everything. For sake of the integrity of science, I would argue the peer reviewing would need to be scrutinized too.

I am not condemning the system or those using it, merely making a statement that peer review does provide a small window of opportunity for a biased result.

Academic research doesn't have the sole license on moral values or integrity and it's simply wrong for numerous reasons to even suggest that.

But I am also not condemning Monsanto or their researchers either.

[Mike Henderson]

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong"

I heard the same thing, stated a bit differently: "A beautiful theory murdered by a gang of ugly facts."

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Steve, I respect your opinions based on your on the ground experience. I was referring to someone with a working scientific knowledge in the appropriate field who would be able to explain the Roundup and RR issues in an unbiased manner that would allow the rest of the readers to understand it enough to discuss it intelligently.

Too often these threads become a matter of emotional personal opinion with little facts, little is discussed, much is ranted resulting in tempers flaring and insults flying. I seldom see little informational value in them. You seldom see any admitted conversions of opinions based on comments posted in these type of threads.

This forum requires more moderating than nearly any other forum or most of the forums totaled. As a result a majority of the moderators would not miss this forum if it was eliminated.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Ken, I wasn't talking about myself as being one of the qualified people here, I'm just a farmer. This group of folks broad experience never ceases to amaze me. I'm sure you are right that opinions of the participants rarely change because of these conversations. We all have strong opinions on some things though, and our lack of speaking up for our opinions, right or wrong, assures that the course of history will not be influenced by us. In a silly little way, even these conversations can make a difference. Kind of like the old saying that all politics are local.

I personally appreciate your work on these issues, and the leeway that we get to talk about some pretty wild stuff. Keep up the good work please, and thankyou.

[Dan Hintz]

This forum requires more moderating than nearly any other forum or most of the forums totaled. As a result a majority of the moderators would not miss this forum if it was eliminated.

Let me know when you're ready for me to take over moderating this forum, Ken... I love a good debate ;)

[Raymond Fries]

Looks like on May 8 Vermont passed into law that GMO foods be labeled and Monsanto is going to sue the state to prevent it. I do not understand why Monsanto would put up such a big fight if their foods were safe and there was nothing for us to worry about. Can someone offer advice on why Monsanto would want to prevent people from knowing if the foods were GMO? What is to hide? I am clueless and would really like to understand this.

Thanks for your thoughts.

[Dave Sheldrake]

passed into law that GMO foods be labeled and Monsanto is going to sue the state to prevent it. I do not understand why Monsanto would put up such a big fight if their foods were safe

My guess would be due to a lot of internet hype and missinformation. Lets imagine if government health warnings from the surgeon general were suddenly put onto Ford cars but only Ford cars "You will die if you crash in this car"...I would imagine Ford would want everybody treated the same or not to be singled out.

Just my take really

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

Well, that's not really equivalent because the label doesn't say you'll die if you eat it.

I don't really understand why you can get sued for putting something true on a label, but this is the age of the shell game.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

It is easy to understand why they have to fight it in court.

It's because they feel their products are safe, because they feel there is no scientific evidence that GMOs are unsafe, the law would be based strictly on the "Chicken Little...the sky is falling" principles of emotional, internet spread misinformation, fear and would have an effect on their future business. If the law was based on proven science, they'd have a tough time standing up to scrutiny in court. You don't hear of many companies filing suit against some of the stricter environmental laws of California because they were based on generally proven science of cancer causing agents and other health hazards.

I have already stated, I'd be in favor of labeling. I am going grocery shopping shortly just a over a mile from my home, where the employee owned store has both organic fresh food section and also IIRC an organic frozen food section. As long as organics don't use GMOs, labeling won't be necessary there. Just pony up the bigger bucks if you feel it necessary.

[David Weaver]

Nobody is writing on the package that they're bad, they're writing that they're in it.

Monsanto is fighting it because they have an obligation to their shareholders to fight it, not because there is a legitimate gripe other than their shareholders.

Suing someone for saying what is, without providing an opinion on it, is ridiculous.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Without any scientific proof, based on fear-mongering it would provide discrimination against GMO foods and effect their business. It's a form of discrimination not based on scientific evidence.

Tell me what company you work for David and let me got to FaceBook and see if I can give you an example of why they can't allow this to happen.

The internet is the biggest source of MISINFORMATION in the world.

and for the record.....there's nothing wrong with having shareholders. In fact, the most recent estimates indicate that 52% of all US citizens own stocks and bonds though it's down from what it was 10 years ago.

[David Weaver]

Everyone owns stocks and bonds. There is no misinformation in stating whether or not a product has GMO origin grain in it.

It would be misinformation if someone wrote a label and said "this food is GMO Free, and GMOs are proven to cause a shorter more miserable life"

That's not what's happening.

Keep in mind that this is the same Monsanto that got a law passed in the legislature in my state to make it illegal to identify your milk as coming from cows who were not given rBST.

Fortunately, the law wasn't enforced, but it was passed. Why do you think it was passed, do you think it was to protect consumers from their own inability to understand anything? Or do you think it was passed because money changed hand and not in terms of from earnings to shareholders?

We are not talking about california stating that something in a package is known to cause cancer, it's not the same standard. It is simply stating something is in a food or not in a food and leaving it up to the consumer to learn about it.

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would advocate the viewpoint of knowing less, by law, about something you buy.

[Mike Henderson]

Everyone owns stocks and bonds. There is no misinformation in stating whether or not a product has GMO origin grain in it.

It would be misinformation if someone wrote a label and said "this food is GMO Free, and GMOs are proven to cause a shorter more miserable life"

That's not what's happening.

Keep in mind that this is the same Monsanto that got a law passed in the legislature in my state to make it illegal to identify your milk as coming from cows who were not given rBST.

Fortunately, the law wasn't enforced, but it was passed. Why do you think it was passed, do you think it was to protect consumers from their own inability to understand anything? Or do you think it was passed because money changed hand and not in terms of from earnings to shareholders?

We are not talking about california stating that something in a package is known to cause cancer, it's not the same standard. It is simply stating something is in a food or not in a food and leaving it up to the consumer to learn about it.

I cannot begin to fathom why anyone would advocate the viewpoint of knowing less, by law, about something you buy.

I haven't got a clue why the company I work for has anything to do with GMO. Are you suggesting that because people will be able to lobby companies to get what they want in a product that somehow it would prove a point to try to do something completely unrelated on facebook? Nobody here consumes anything from my employer. We all consume stuff that's been genetically altered by monsanto.
My argument against labeling food as GMO is that there is no proof that GMO is harmful to people. There are people who claim that GMO food is bad for you and they have been pushing that belief and fear to the public - and the public does not have the time or interest to really research the subject to see what the truth is. The advocates against GMO want to exploit the fear that they engendered, and they feel that labeling food is the best way to do it.

When there is a scientific consensus that GMO food is harmful, we should label the food. In the meanwhile, GMO is providing a real benefit to society in the form of more food at lower prices.

There are specific examples, such as golden rice, where GMO food is healthier than the alternative. But, again, absent any proof, there are people who are advocating against the food, just because it has the label "GMO". It's like the slippery slope argument. If you accept any of it, you'll wind up accepting all of it - so they oppose all of it.

If there's labeling to be done, it should be up to the manufacturer to label the food as "Non-GMO" if they believe it will increase their sales and possibly their profit. If having Non-GMO is important to a large enough group of people, the label will become important. That's a whole lot better than some law that forces labeling of all food just because a limited group of people want it.

Mike

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Give me the name of your employer, your company and allow me to go to FB with it. I won't tell any lies but I will merely produce misinformation, cast a little doubt that will effect your company's business. It won't be lies, it won't be factual, it will be just emotional ranting opinion. Just create a little fear-mongering.;)

Listen to me, personally, I am in favor of labeling.

As a business the labeling would be a form discrimination that would affect sales. The company's executives would be not be upholding their responsibilities of their positions within the company and to their shareholders if they didn't fight it in court.

How about the labels say "GMOs products. There is no scientific evidence indicating they are unsafe but there is a lot of emotional misinformation "......and we make organic foods be labeled indicating with what they were fertilized? My parents "organic" farmed and both sets of grandparents organic farmed, Roundup hadn't been invented yet, there were no GMOs, they couldn't afford pesticides and most people wouldn't want to know what they used as fertilizers.

Let's put up signs with big red arrows pointing up....labeled "Sky"..........;)

You aren't going to provide the name of your employer David?;)

[David Weaver]

there are two issues here - one is mandatory labeling of food. the other is voluntary. In pennsylvania, monsanto successfully got a law passed that wouldn't allow you to label milk as not having cows treated with one of their hormones. As in voluntary labeling wasn't allowed at all.

I'd rather know via label what's in a food. At this point, it really doesn't have much of an effect on what I buy, because I don't know if food that's got glyphosate processed into it or GMO origin grain is more or less safe than conventionally grown food with conventional herbicides or even absence of it.

I really would rather feed the latter to my very young kids, though, because at least there is a track record of it. That should be my choice.

I should be allowed to be able to find milk that is BST free without having to get organic milk, if for nothing else because of the lower incidence of mastitis in cows that aren't treated with it, and frankly, growing up around dairies, I never saw many cows that looked to me like they needed to carry more milk to each milking for my convenience. They could tell you right away when they wanted to be milked, and they didn't have the attitude that they'd like to be carrying a bunch more.

I'm not sure i go for the vermont mandatory labeling, I personally don't see what it hurts but I am by no means an advocate for it. Lobbying to get voluntary labeling made illegal is a big problem to me, though.

[David Weaver]

Ken, you're attempting to extrapolate again. None of the food is being labeled as having a ranting opinion on it. It's a label that states what it is. That's it, no more no less.

There are a lot of products I use in the shop at levels that are not proven to cause any long term health effects at the levels that i use them. They even have warnings, but I buy them, anyway. Some of them could be toxic if I ate them or breathed them indefinitely, just like it would probably be toxic if I drank a pint of roundup.

[Mike Henderson]

I view labeling of GMO as similar to organic and non-organic. We don't ask the non-organic producers to include on the label the name of every pesticide and herbicide that was ever applied to the crop. What we ask is that the regulators set a standard for what's safe in food, and we test the food on a statistical basis for that safety. And there has not been any indication that GMO food is unsafe for consumption.

There are people who believe that the residue of any pesticide or herbicide is bad for you and for them we have the organic food.

The best approach that we could take is to subsume the Non-GMO into the Organic label - so that when people buy Organic they know that they're getting food that does not contain any GMO crops and no pesticides or herbicides. For the rest of us, we can depend on the scientific consensus that the food we buy is safe to eat.

Mike

[I'll bet that you can find food labeled "non-GMO" in certain specialty stores, if not in general supermarkets. If there's a market, people will buy it and producers will make more of it.]

[David Weaver]

Stuff here is labeled non-GMO in supermarkets. the milk here now will say that it has no BST in it, but it is required to say "no significant difference" exists between genetically modified milk and regular milk. there is, however, a difference in the level of hormones in the two types. Whether or not that's significant is really the issue, and it has to do with whether or not the hormones can be absorbed and I think that still isn't settled.

Would it keep me from drinking bST milk if I was out somewhere? No. Sort of a different issue here in PA, we have minimum milk prices so everything other than organic pretty much costs the same. I'll get it without if I can, and I really don't appreciate the efforts to make it illegal to know. This is a fairly fresh issue here, the gov. overrode the secretary of agricultures decision to make it illegal to label milk as BST free. Most of the dairies around here said the desire for labeling was customer demand driven, and not their idea.

[Mike Henderson]

the milk here now will say that it has no BST in it, but it is required to say "no significant difference" exists between genetically modified milk and regular milk.
I hope you realize that BST is a growth hormone (bovine somatotrophin)for cattle and has nothing to do with GMO. Dairy cows that are treated with BST are not genetically modified, the milk is not genetically modified, nor is the BST genetically modified. It is produced by genetically modified bacteria (I think- don't remember)

The issue of milk from BST free cows is a completely separate issue from GMO foods. I see it as a hormone issue - whether the residual hormone in the milk is bad for people. But again, people can buy organic milk that comes from BST free cows. I think producers who want to label their milk as BST free should be able to do it.

Mike

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Without any scientific proof, based on fear-mongering it would provide discrimination against GMO foods and effect their business. It's a form of discrimination not based on scientific evidence.

Tell me what company you work for David and let me got to FaceBook and see if I can give you an example of why they can't allow this to happen.

The internet is the biggest source of MISINFORMATION in the world.

and for the record.....there's nothing wrong with having shareholders. In fact, the most recent estimates indicate that 52% of all US citizens own stocks and bonds though it's down from what it was 10 years ago.

Ken is right, but it's deeper. First, the law is unenforceable because there is no way to police it. There is no test that will verify BT or not beyond the raw grain level, so will it be an honor system? Second, there would be no teeth to the law except for local or at least US companies. US food is easily the safest produced food out there already because of our food safety systems that other countries don't have, so to force US companies to label something GMO hamstrings US food when competing with foreign manufacturers. It would encourage the uneducated masses to buy something that is actually far riskier because the labeling can't possibly be universal. Third, follow the money. Monsanto's customers are people like me who this law would potentially hurt, so it's in Monsanto's interest to side against it.

Remember the high fructose corn syrup scare several years ago? There was exactly zero rational reason that that industry took a beating, but the uneducated masses don't care or care to become educated consumers. Laws like this, while they may feel good, actually hurt the US grown food industry most.

Don't remember who posted, but Non-GMO isn't organic. It's possible to have organically grown GMO, and non organic non GMO. GMO only applies to very few traits, non of which are in plants that directly get into the human food chain. I won't bore with the details of it all unless someone really wants to hear it.

[Pat Barry]

The concern is that we don't know what we need to know and with regards complex things like GMO it will likely take a very long time to understand the downside, if in fact there is a downside. In the meantime, give the consumer the ability to discriminate on their own and make the decision - its just that simple - a simple label is all it takes. Perhaps Monsanto is afraid that the consumer will react negatively to the GMO label. Well so be it. Then its in their own interest to provide the information and do additional research and testing - due diligence - to ensure their product safety. Who is to say that GMO won't have some horrible side effect for the next generation? How have they tested to prove it is safe. Maybe GMO is like red dye number 2, DDT, PCB's, cigarette smoke and countless other products that are no longer deemed safe but were once accepted as harmless?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Pat, give me an example of some food that would be labeled GMO. Like I said in the previous post, there are no Monsanto GMO trait crops that go directly to human consumption, so what would be labeled? I think there is confusion on the basic definition of GMO.

Monsanto sells three traits, RR (Roundup herbicide tolerance), BT (corn borer resistance) and RW (root worm resistance). None of these apply to human food. Other companies are developing traits, there is an apple that won't brown going through that approval process, and a tomato that kept fresh longer has been tried. People didn't want it I guess, so it's not produced any more. Other lab uses include a carrot that is grown to make a drug used to treat a disease.

My point all along has been that Monsanto has been used as the poster child for peoples distrust of GMO. It's perfectly fine to not buy GMO if you so choose, but as this thread illustrates, the waters have been muddyed.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Like I said in the previous post, there are no Monsanto GMO trait crops that go directly to human consumption, so what would be labeled?

Monsanto sells three traits, RR (Roundup herbicide tolerance), BT (corn borer resistance) and RW (root worm resistance). None of these apply to human food. Other companies are developing traits, there is an apple that won't brown going through that approval process, and a tomato that kept fresh longer has been tried. People didn't want it I guess, so it's not produced any more. Other lab uses include a carrot that is grown to make a drug used to treat a disease.

My point all along has been that Monsanto has been used as the poster child for peoples distrust of GMO. It's perfectly fine to not buy GMO if you so choose, but as this thread illustrates, the waters have been muddyed.

Steve....I can't believe you would be against ME having the ability to decide if the sky is falling! I am astonished! I can't make that decision if the food isn't labeled! Besides, I read it on the internet or heard it on television.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

LOL, thanks Ken, I needed chuckle this morning!

[David Weaver]

My point all along has been that Monsanto has been used as the poster child for peoples distrust of GMO.

Well, they didn't do themselves any favor the way they handled the whole posilac thing (sending someone to testify in our legislature that people are misled by themselves when they are given differentiating labels). "confused", like uncle leo in seinfeld.

I know a lot of farmers, my relatives are all farmers. Some dairy men, some with the now nearly defunct "diversified operations" and some row croppers. Any time this has ever come up with any of them, I guess they have been coached to say "it's just a hormone, a protein, like the hormones and proteins that are already in milk". That's true. Steroids are hormones and proteins, so is growth hormone. There are observable effects from it, and the early notion (and still is the case with users now) is that the steroid effect is nil because they don't have the effects of it (enlarged heart, etc) until decades later.

I don't advocate banning, but I do advocate the free flow of information and honest publication of information. I'm not personally confused at all about bst/bgh in milk, and like to be able to choose on the label. Some people might be, but limiting my rights to know what I'm buying based on the lowest common denominator? LCD law-writing should be saved for politicians.

I think the think that makes monsanto a target is not GMOs necessarily. If apple computer had developed them, they'd probably be more well received, because there isn't such a long history of issues like there is with monsanto (dioxins in agent orange, legal finagling with posilac, suing the wrong farmer in RR trait suits and then not offering to reimburse for legal costs once they realize they're suing the wrong person....the list is long. To some extent probably because they're large, but they certainly aren't forthright when they do something wrong. that's what makes people not trust them).

[Jason Roehl]

Let's also look at where labeling requirements make things MORE difficult for people. Those who are allergic to certain food items (nuts, milk, wheat, etc.) have to read labels religiously. I believe it was California decided to help these folks, so they introduced labeling that included if the food was processed on machines that processed other foods containing those allergens. Pretty soon, many packaged foods had wording along the lines of "May contain x, y, z..." just so the companies could cover their legal rear ends--and making those labels virtually useless for the people trying to find allergen-free food.

[David Weaver]

Not being allergic to any of those nuts, etc, and knowing people who are severely allergic, is it possible to have a reaction if something contained a hundredth of a percent of nut residue or oil?

[Greg Peterson]

Ken - whose scientific study would you consider authoritative and non-biased? You have essentially disqualified all scientific studies as biased - 'Follow the money'.

I don't think a study would answer any questions.

Others have chimed in that peer reviewed studies are flawed and can not be trusted, for a number of different reasons.

The scientific method has summarily been discharged, so what method/resource do we rely on to make informed decisions?

[Pat Barry]

Pat, give me an example of some food that would be labeled GMO. Like I said in the previous post, there are no Monsanto GMO trait crops that go directly to human consumption, so what would be labeled?.
You are correct, Steve, I don't personally know of any - I willl go by your explanation. I do think, however, that the concern is valid none the less. For example, if the cows we are feeding the RR or BT, or RW corn or grain to start developing an extra head or are born 3 legged then I suspect more people would be concerned although I do suspect that some here, not naming names, would probably say they still taste the same (or better maybe) so whats the big deal.

[Mike Henderson]

Not being allergic to any of those nuts, etc, and knowing people who are severely allergic, is it possible to have a reaction if something contained a hundredth of a percent of nut residue or oil?

People may or may not react to that low a level. The problem is liability. If you were a company, wouldn't you prefer to put the warning on your food just in case someone had a reaction? It would provide some protection to a suit.

And that's the problem with positive labeling. It's likely that every company would put the label on just to protect themselves, and by doing that, they remove the real information from the customers - as the earlier poster indicated about peanuts.

Much better would be labels that specified that a product was free of whatever you're worried about. For example, if a product would state that it did not contain nuts and had not been processed on equipment that also processed nuts. But it's highly unlikely that a company would put that on their product because of liability.

An example of a product which specified that it was free of something would be milk that specified it came from BST free cows.

Mike

[David Weaver]

Even then on the milk, they're relying on the farmer to make a pledge. Who knows what they actually do, but some of the dairies who supply most of their own milk are probably more honest about it than the average truck that collects from around the smaller places and says "yeah, sure, it's....uh....bst free".

When I was in elementary school, I recall someone having a reaction (or saying they did) from touching a ball that had peanut butter on it because another kid touched it. Other than that, I don't remember many kids having nut allergies back then, but I can name at least half a dozen now (and I'm not even a kid).

The pre-school my daughter goes to doesn't allow *any* kids to pack nuts or nut butters of any type in their lunches.

[Dave Sheldrake]

The pre-school my daughter goes to doesn't allow *any* kids to pack nuts or nut butters of any type in their lunches.

Same here David at my kids schools, I have an allergy to Water Melon, if I smell it I start throwing up and if I tried to eat it my mouth blisters and I go into shock pretty quickly :(

cheers

Dave

[Jake Helmboldt]

Citing Jon Entine is absurd. He is hardly unbiased. Affiliated with AEI and having had Monsanto as a client pretty much tells you that he is hardly impartial, and it belies the supposed mission of the GLP. His quote also belies that, for it shows that he is either disingenuous or stupid. Nobody (rational) has asserted that GMOs will suddenly make people ill; it is about the uncertainty of long-term impacts on human health. Just as BPA and other chemicals that are now known endocrine disruptors and similar health impacts from various products are being discovered after being assumed safe or beneficial, GMO foods are being questioned as the possible source of various health maladies. There has been a significant increase in a variety of auto-immune disorders and related maladies, and we should rightfully be suspicious of our food supply as the culprit.

Monsanto bought Searle which invented NutraSweet. In 1996 I drank a diet Coke (the only thing in the cooler after moving into our new home) and shortly after had adverse neurological effects. I was able to single out aspartame (and reproduce the effects) as the source and have since avoided it. I found many friends that had similar issues, but when I contacted Monsanto I got the corporate propaganda; a tiny percentage of people have adverse effects, it's been tested, yada yada. So I must be surrounded by a disproportionate number of this tiny affected class. I began having other issues with my thyroid a couple years later and discovered that a sports recovery product I was using had aspartame. I stopped using it, and never had any problems thereafter. Of course Monsanto and their shills deny the many claims online that aspartame is linked to thyroid issues.

I don't know if GMO is as bad as some people say, but as a consumer I want the right to know what I'm consuming and make an informed choice. The very fact that Monsanto won't even allow that speaks volumes.

[Stephen Musial]

Interestingly I just looked at my LinkedIn profile and I had a visit from an attorney at Dow Agribusiness. Things that make you go hmmmm...

[Greg Peterson]

BPA did have a regulated limited. The problem is that the accumulative affect of BPA was never regulated. A single dose of BPA is not harmful. Steady exposure/consumption over many years is another matter all together.

In 1939, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller discovered that DDT was an effective insecticide. It was used during WWII to control malaria and typhus. In 1948, Müller received the Nobel Peace Prize for his discovery of DDT as a contact poison on several arthropods. By 1962, there were concerns that DDT may be harmful. It took another 10 years to ban its use in agriculture. DDT was in use for 33 years, all the while its effectiveness was diminishing.

There is evidence that super weeds have invaded regions, that roundup loses its effectiveness on existing weeds, that it prevents fungus in the soil from breaking down nutrients for the plants and that crop yields are diminishing.

Granted, these studies and observations are not from Monsanto. They are from scientists either teaching in academia (one) or scientists that are involved in advising large scale growers or work for the USDA.

I'm not sure why one would be resistant to investigating whether or not GMO's and roundup are sustainable practices.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Citing Jon Entine is absurd. He is hardly unbiased.

Everyone is biased, even the people you agree with.

How in the world would you have expected Monsanto to take a call from you accusing them of causing your headache or whatever other neurological distress, what did you want them to do?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

BPA did have a regulated limited. The problem is that the accumulative affect of BPA was never regulated. A single dose of BPA is not harmful. Steady exposure/consumption over many years is another matter all together.

In 1939, Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller discovered that DDT was an effective insecticide. It was used during WWII to control malaria and typhus. In 1948, Müller received the Nobel Peace Prize for his discovery of DDT as a contact poison on several arthropods. By 1962, there were concerns that DDT may be harmful. It took another 10 years to ban its use in agriculture. DDT was in use for 33 years, all the while its effectiveness was diminishing.

There is evidence that super weeds have invaded regions, that roundup loses its effectiveness on existing weeds, that it prevents fungus in the soil from breaking down nutrients for the plants and that crop yields are diminishing.

Granted, these studies and observations are not from Monsanto. They are from scientists either teaching in academia (one) or scientists that are involved in advising large scale growers or work for the USDA.

I'm not sure why one would be resistant to investigating whether or not GMO's and roundup are sustainable practices.

Greg, that theory of yours about super weeds thriving on Roundup is still bogus. There are no giant mutant predatory ragweeds lurking in the darkest corners of your neighbors corn field, just waiting for an unsuspecting environmentalist to unleash untold allergic devastation on. Shockingly enough, farmers are pretty efficient at killing weeds, and this is a ridiculous theory. Some weeds, like marestail and kochia can be notoriously tough to kill, generally because of climatic or anatomical reasons. We don't want survivors in the fields, so we use two or three modes of actions to stop them, not just RR.

Your last sentence sums the insanity up. This has been researched to the limits of absurdity, but because the conclusions don't match people with your bias' goals, you ask for more research but on some ephemeral "sustainable" scale. At some point, hopefully for you, someone will find some tiny little "problem" to use as ammunition to attempt to destroy this technology. It may take the endangered species declaration of Asian carp, who develop a slight headache when they swim in pure roundup to start the lawsuit, but inevitably the assault on Monsanto will continue. Why? Money and power. Just like al gore became rich off scaring people to following him, others seek to follow his template. They need willful participants to follow them and fill the busses to the march against the "great evils" of our time, while they run the puppet strings of their masses minds to their own objectives. Like Ken said many posts ago, follow the money. You are being used.

I'm not going to convince you or anyone else hell bent of finding a conspiracy theory to worry about today, but when perhaps when a very bored rational person reads all the way through this thread, he will see that there is another side to consider to the debate.

[Greg Peterson]

Greg, that theory of yours about super weeds thriving on Roundup is still bogus. There are no giant mutant predatory ragweeds lurking in the darkest corners of your neighbors corn field, just waiting for an unsuspecting environmentalist to unleash untold allergic devastation on. Shockingly enough, farmers are pretty efficient at killing weeds, and this is a ridiculous theory. Some weeds, like marestail and kochia can be notoriously tough to kill, generally because of climatic or anatomical reasons. We don't want survivors in the fields, so we use two or three modes of actions to stop them, not just RR.

Your last sentence sums the insanity up. This has been researched to the limits of absurdity, but because the conclusions don't match people with your bias' goals, you ask for more research but on some ephemeral "sustainable" scale. At some point, hopefully for you, someone will find some tiny little "problem" to use as ammunition to attempt to destroy this technology. It may take the endangered species declaration of Asian carp, who develop a slight headache when they swim in pure roundup to start the lawsuit, but inevitably the assault on Monsanto will continue. Why? Money and power. Just like al gore became rich off scaring people to following him, others seek to follow his template. They need willful participants to follow them and fill the busses to the march against the "great evils" of our time, while they run the puppet strings of their masses minds to their own objectives. Like Ken said many posts ago, follow the money. You are being used.

I'm not going to convince you or anyone else hell bent of finding a conspiracy theory to worry about today, but when perhaps when a very bored rational person reads all the way through this thread, he will see that there is another side to consider to the debate.

Super weeds is not a theory, dispite your attempt to mischaracterize them as some 1950's era mutant. The entirety of your post is disrespectful and purposely distorted. I have provided links to in previous posts on this thread. If you want to summarily dismiss them and the studies and statements by experts on the subject as biased, conspiracy theories, then so be it, I can not help you.

Once again, for your convenience, here is link for the super weeds (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), of course it's from 2010, and the farmer has only been practicing no till soybean farming for the previous 15 years.

And another. (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/superweeds-a-long-predicted-problem-for-gm-crops-has-arrived/257187/)

Here's one from an investors point of view. (http://www.4-traders.com/MONSANTO-COMPANY-13589/news/Monsanto-Company--Superweeds-shine-spotlight-on-GMOs-17813638/) Quote: Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent. Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

You call this sustainable? Sounds like a problem to me.

[Raymond Fries]

There have been reports of roundup showing up in urine and breast milk. More studies are planned for this year but at the end of this article it says that last year the EPA raised the levels or roundup allowed in our food because it was tested it and it is safe. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/27/us-monsanto-roundup-epa-idUSKBN0E72IH20140527

The article says that roundup is sprayed on most of the corn, soybeans, sugar beets, canola, and other crops in this country, That is contrary to an earlier post stating that roundup is only used on crops to feed animals.

[David Weaver]

Super weeds is not a theory, dispite your attempt to mischaracterize them as some 1950's era mutant. The entirety of your post is disrespectful and purposely distorted. I have provided links to in previous posts on this thread. If you want to summarily dismiss them and the studies and statements by experts on the subject as biased, conspiracy theories, then so be it, I can not help you.

Once again, for your convenience, here is link for the super weeds (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), of course it's from 2010, and the farmer has only been practicing no till soybean farming for the previous 15 years.

And another. (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/superweeds-a-long-predicted-problem-for-gm-crops-has-arrived/257187/)

Here's one from an investors point of view. (http://www.4-traders.com/MONSANTO-COMPANY-13589/news/Monsanto-Company--Superweeds-shine-spotlight-on-GMOs-17813638/) Quote: Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent. Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

You call this sustainable? Sounds like a problem to me.


Those weeds are ideal from a patent prospect. You've noticed that monsanto is pushing combination herbicides now instead of glyphosate, right? It's to their benefit that generics and nonpatent stuff will be behind glyphosate by itself because other folks will be able to freely put the modification in, but probably not the combinations that monsanto will be marketing. They have a distribution system and a market/customers set up, too, so if a generic group came up with a combination, it would have to be an awful lot better than monsanto's offering.

[David Weaver]

Everyone is biased, even the people you agree with.

How in the world would you have expected Monsanto to take a call from you accusing them of causing your headache or whatever other neurological distress, what did you want them to do?

I'm sure they're aware of a percentage of people having headaches after drinking aspartame. They increase my complex migraine incidence to the point that I had to stop drinking any diet sodas, and I know at least two other people, one of which gets a migraine with with 100% frequency after drinking diet soda or consuming aspartame-containing food, and none when not.

They'll be uninterested in entertaining the reality of that while most of the market appears to be unaffected by it, though.

[Pat Barry]

Super weeds is not a theory, dispite your attempt to mischaracterize them as some 1950's era mutant. The entirety of your post is disrespectful and purposely distorted. I have provided links to in previous posts on this thread. If you want to summarily dismiss them and the studies and statements by experts on the subject as biased, conspiracy theories, then so be it, I can not help you.

Once again, for your convenience, here is link for the super weeds (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), of course it's from 2010, and the farmer has only been practicing no till soybean farming for the previous 15 years.

And another. (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/superweeds-a-long-predicted-problem-for-gm-crops-has-arrived/257187/)

Here's one from an investors point of view. (http://www.4-traders.com/MONSANTO-COMPANY-13589/news/Monsanto-Company--Superweeds-shine-spotlight-on-GMOs-17813638/) Quote: Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent. Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

You call this sustainable? Sounds like a problem to me.

To me the concerns are these: Genetically modifed produce such as RR will be ingested by humans as either the primary or secondary consumer. There will be NO WAY of determining the long term result of that science experiment until many generations have come and gone.

Knowing our track record, I would suppose that we are doing more long term harm than good.

This comes at a reduced product cost now which we are all grateful for, and a huge monetary reward for companies such as Monsanto and even for the farmers themselves, but secretly we all are only hoping this pans out in our favor in the long run. Given our less than stellar history - not knowing now what we really need to know - I think its a bad gamble. The fact that we are already seeing things such as plant mutation (survival of the fittest weeds for example) can only make you think that plants are just much more sensitive to the RR product than are humans, and since they have already reacted, how long before the cows, pigs, and ultimately humans do and what will those changes be. Its very scary. I don't like the game we are playing. Its really irresponsible.

[Dave Sheldrake]

I'm sure they're aware of a percentage of people having headaches after drinking aspartame. They increase my complex migraine incidence to the point that I had to stop drinking any diet sodas, and I know at least two other people, one of which gets a migraine with with 100% frequency after drinking diet soda or consuming aspartame-containing food, and none when not.

They'll be uninterested in entertaining the reality of that while most of the market appears to be unaffected by it, though.

Post Hoc Ergo Procter Hoc David unfortunately, The only way to get definitive results is by double blind testing in a lab environment, outside of that there are just too many variables and possible other causes.

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

Yes, and the sample not only has to be relatively large, but the results statistically significant. If you get enough light headed individuals in a sample where the return of positive consistent individuals is relatively small, they can blow them right out of the study. I would assume that a lot of people who think they get headaches from aspartame (but seem to get them a lot) would blow the study, but there are likely some who actually do get headaches (just as there are people who get headaches from perfectly natural food triggers - like certain cheeses).

MSG and aspartame do appear to have enough likelihood such that they are mentioned by mayo clinic in a list of food triggers, with the word "may", which is also provided for alcohol. You're just as aware as I am, I'm sure of what the connotation of the word "does" is vs "may".

Personally, aspartame in a significant dose causes me to have a sensation like both eyes won't work together at the same time on the same thing, which leads to a migraine. MSG, however, does not cause me to have any issues. I like the taste of both of them!

I'd bet the ratio of the number of people who get headaches and think they're from aspartame vs. the number of people who get headaches that are from aspartame is pretty high, though, making study difficult, and you'd also have to choose a level of use in such a study that would be enough to trigger results. Certainly like anything else, there's a lethal dose, and there's probably a dose that would cause nothing.

I've got enough from personal trials and documentation of food to avoid aspartame and eat MSG (which makes mediocre food taste so much better). I always hesitate when someone has one or two events and picks out one thing out of 500 variables and says "I just know that it was ___".

At any rate, from a business standpoint, if I'm a monsanto phone rep, I'd expect to be trained that it's only a small percentage of the population, they're lost as customers already and you can just ignore them.

[Dave Sheldrake]

well said David :)

cheers

Dave

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Super weeds is not a theory, dispite your attempt to mischaracterize them as some 1950's era mutant. The entirety of your post is disrespectful and purposely distorted. I have provided links to in previous posts on this thread. If you want to summarily dismiss them and the studies and statements by experts on the subject as biased, conspiracy theories, then so be it, I can not help you.

Once again, for your convenience, here is link for the super weeds (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), of course it's from 2010, and the farmer has only been practicing no till soybean farming for the previous 15 years.

And another. (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/superweeds-a-long-predicted-problem-for-gm-crops-has-arrived/257187/)

Here's one from an investors point of view. (http://www.4-traders.com/MONSANTO-COMPANY-13589/news/Monsanto-Company--Superweeds-shine-spotlight-on-GMOs-17813638/) Quote: Benbrook described a vicious cycle, saying "resistant weeds have become a major problem for many farmers reliant on genetically engineered crops, and are now driving up the volume of herbicide needed each year by about 25 percent. Many experts in the US are projecting that the approval of new multiple herbicide tolerant crops will lead to at least a 50 percent increase to the average application of herbicide," he added.

You call this sustainable? Sounds like a problem to me.


I'm not arguing that RR tolerant weeds exist, but as David pointed out, their existence is being used as a marketing ploy to sell more products. I added it up this morning, I have personally, as in diagnosed, prescribed and applied insecticides to several hundred thousand acres of a wide variety of farm ground. By anyones stretch of the imagination, I'd call that significant, and during that I have personally seen exactly zero RR ready weeds, not counting volunteer corn. Some weeds are hard to kill because of when and how they grow, but that doesn't make them genetically RR tolerant. I'm going to take my real world experience over a east coast newspaper every time. Those articles do two things. First they pander to a base, you, second they sell shares of chemical company stocks to combat this "scary" problem, ironically also to you probably. You said my post was offensive, I apologise, however to completely discredit what I'm telling you repeatedly can only be taken that way too.

In the real world, what we do is stack chemicals to give multiple modes of actions to kill whatever weed we are targeting. RR is rarely used alone by anyone, and this problem is simply not statistically relevant.

My take on the stories you posted links to, the first one takes an anecdotal story of one environmentally friendly farmer and proceeds to try to support the writer's objective with pretty shoddy also anecdotal "evidence". The second is doing similar, but actually even uses misdirection in quotes of actual knowledgeable people to support, and attributes other news sources as if they were actually experts. The last is more of the same, filled with outdated references, and bs.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

I'm sure they're aware of a percentage of people having headaches after drinking aspartame. They increase my complex migraine incidence to the point that I had to stop drinking any diet sodas, and I know at least two other people, one of which gets a migraine with with 100% frequency after drinking diet soda or consuming aspartame-containing food, and none when not.

They'll be uninterested in entertaining the reality of that while most of the market appears to be unaffected by it, though.

But isn't it conceivable that aspartame would have no such effect on some people? No one is being forced to eat or drink anything.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Its really irresponsible.

But Pat, saying that completely discredits the millions of hours of work done by many brilliant people who have came to the other conclusion.

[David Weaver]

Yes, correct. It doesn't appear to have any, at least acute, effects on some or most people. I certainly didn't advocate anywhere that it should be banned.

There's surprisingly little public study data available about it. The only thing I could find was a suggestion from a scientific study that people who are depressed should avoid it, and it was a study only of 40 people. Mayo clinic does suggest the same thing, though - the study is posted on the NIH website.

Other studies about cancer and such things I care a little less about, and those appear to be a lot more controversial - and are based on rats, anyway.

There is a fairly substantial difference between "doesn't have any effect" and "doesn't have any effect on most people".

[David Weaver]

But Pat, saying that completely discredits the millions of hours of work done by many brilliant people who have came to the other conclusion.

It may, but it appears that you, me, and everyone else will not really know the answer for decades or perhaps until after we're dead. You'll have trouble proving at this point that pat's incorrect. You can state that you think he is and other data proves that he probably is, but it's still pretty early in the history of GMO consumption.

There are a lot of things that don't cause acute problems but that shorten lifetimes and not observably so until a long period of time has elapsed.

[Jason Roehl]

There is pretty strong evidence that stress and worry shorten one's lifespan, so if you worry about whether what you eat is "organically grown" or not...

[Larry Edgerton]

.
the bigger problem is the stranglehold monsanto has on commercial seed production and use.


This is the part of the Monsanto business model that scares me.

Larry

[Dave Sheldrake]

There are a lot of things that don't cause acute problems but that shorten lifetimes and not observably so until a long period of time has elapsed.

Now there is somewhere we can agree David, there are a few things from my previous *life* that worry me to this day...not for me but for my Grandkids and later......

cheers

Dave

[Pat Barry]

But Pat, saying that completely discredits the millions of hours of work done by many brilliant people who have came to the other conclusion.Look, I understand the engineers and chemists and biologists and other technical people have done brilliant work and some have really put their life's work into the development of the product and doing testing to prove its efficacy to the best of their ability and to the extent that Monsanto was willing to spend. I don't mean to discredit them and I am sorry if my abbreviated response earlier gave you that interpretation. I just don't know how they could have established the long term effects that may be attributable to the product. I bet they studied mice and other living beings in an effort to understand but human testing and animal studies are not always equivalent. Therefore there is risk and therefore my concern that big money may have resulted in less than objective decisions, by the management for example, or by the EPA / governing body.. Call me skeptical tha'ts all - therefore I agree with the labeling opinions voiced earlier, and the idea of proceeding with caution. I am happy to hear that your experiences and observations give you more confidence than I have. It will take a while, perhaps longer than you and I will be on this planet to know with high confidence that the product was truly safe. It may be our grandchildren that learn the truth.

[Michael Weber]

Uh, may be time for the moderators to shut this down.

[Keith Outten]

Michael,

I have deleted a couple posts and placed a temporary ban on those who have been unfriendly in this thread.

I opened this thread for posting again. Please remember our Terms of Service are very strict concerning unfriendly behavior.
.

[Gary Yoder]

There is pretty strong evidence that stress and worry shorten one's lifespan, so if you worry about whether what you eat is "organically grown" or not...
Chuckle Chuckle

If you really are want to live a long life, you probably should stop driving a vehicle. Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, medication, inactivity, junk food, all have much more evidence of being harmful than GMO.
As pointed out before, don't call for no GMO unless there is a better solution to the food/starvation problem. I'm not saying there is no dangers, but every decision we make we accept the risk involved. Like driving a vehicle to work, I accept the risk of the road because I'd rather that danger than the risk of having no money. A poor person will risk GMO food over the risk of starvation. The only answer is to get off our platforms and get to work creating new ways of producing food.
If the problem is too many people, we can all take a personal responsibility to end our lives sooner by not worrying about this stuff, all for the greater good.

Why do we see it as a good thing for myself to populate the world for an extended amount of time, if we believe the world is overpopulated? Just a question.....

[David Weaver]

Where did we go from just wanting labeling to calling for "no gmo", which would imply a ban?

By the way, the "the world might go hungry without it" has never been a relevant argument for GMO vs. non-GMO. That argument applies to organic vs. conventional agriculture. Conventional ag without GMO has no problem with supply volume. Especially when we're burning half of our caloric value as liquid fuel.

[Gary Yoder]

Where did we go from just wanting labeling to calling for "no gmo", which would imply a ban?

By the way, the "the world might go hungry without it" has never been a relevant argument for GMO vs. non-GMO. That argument applies to organic vs. conventional agriculture. Conventional ag without GMO has no problem with supply volume. Especially when we're burning half of our caloric value as liquid fuel.

I don't necessarily believe it is an argument, but was making an observation about not needing an answer to point out problems. It's a lot easier to "jump on the band wagon" about what we perceive as evil around us than it is to actually provide answers.

Some people were saying GMO should be outlawed.....

[Dave Sheldrake]

Listen to the lecture given by the late Professor Albert Bartlett on population growth then consider why genetic manipulation IS going to happen, it's not a case of if, it's a case of when and how much.

cheers

Dave

[Greg Peterson]

I don't necessarily believe it is an argument, but was making an observation about not needing an answer to point out problems. It's a lot easier to "jump on the band wagon" about what we perceive as evil around us than it is to actually provide answers.

Some people were saying GMO should be outlawed.....

It comes down to letting the consumer choose if they want GMO's in their diet.

GMO's may or may not be harmful, hard to say. It isn't as if we have not seen this movie before. Tobacco, DDT, BPA, are just a few examples of industry having a bias against consumers.

[David Weaver]

Listen to the lecture given by the late Professor Albert Bartlett on population growth then consider why genetic manipulation IS going to happen, it's not a case of if, it's a case of when and how much.

cheers

Dave

I think the solution is legislative and not genetic. Just my opinion. If you increase food output by 25 percent, you've delayed the problem without solving it.

[Greg Peterson]

I think the solution is legislative and not genetic. Just my opinion. If you increase food output by 25 percent, you've delayed the problem without solving it.

Well stated.

[Dan Hintz]

It comes down to letting the consumer choose if they want GMO's in their diet.

GMO's may or may not be harmful, hard to say.

(Partially) Playing devil's advocate here...

What about Fluoride in the water system? Ignoring all of the conspiracy theorists who claim it's mind control, should the individual consumer be able to choose if they want Fluoride in their water? What if the jury was still out on its possible health effects?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Where did we go from just wanting labeling to calling for "no gmo", which would imply a ban?

By the way, the "the world might go hungry without it" has never been a relevant argument for GMO vs. non-GMO. That argument applies to organic vs. conventional agriculture. Conventional ag without GMO has no problem with supply volume. Especially when we're burning half of our caloric value as liquid fuel.

I disagree, because the ag sector (and most others these days) are such a global economy, the loss of the competitive edge that GMO provides by lowering input costs, and the increase in net revenues that ethanol provides nearly all domestic farmers, enables profitable domestic ag production. Take away either of those, and the American farmer, who bears much higher compliance costs due to regulatory burdens than nearly any other, quickly becomes unable to stay in business without being propped up by the American taxpayer. Do you trust any other foreign countries to feed us? The other alternative is to increase subsidies to ensure domestic production, which certainly isn't good on the economy either. It's a very plausible scenario that the loss of GMO, whether by regulatory ban, or mob inspired hysteria, could force the local farmer out of business.

Interesting tangent to that discussion, the average age of a farmer is getting older each day. It's something like 63 now. The cost to get into farming is so great, and the hurdles imposed on a young new farmer so financially impossible, that the bankrupting of even several of the current generation leaves a void that cannot be filled. The age increase has been absorbed by technology, one guy can do more now, but there is a limit. We have a domestic ag production crisis brewing because it's financially nearly impossible to have a young farmer step into the void when an old one goes away. Banking laws and tax code are the main problems.

Therefore conventional ag without gmo would have a huge supply problem without an offset somewhere else, because it's such a delicately balanced system. My point all along is that labeling is impossible to implement accurately and only hurts the American producer as it would only be enforceable domestically. So, labeling = ban.

[David Weaver]

Steve, we're not and never have been in any danger of not having enough food to feed us.

Labeling doesn't = ban. There are plenty of people who don't care, and a price difference is all it takes to keep stuff that's not favorably labeled in business. There's also nobody who cares if we waste half of our corn on ethanol and allow it to limit diversity in marketable crops, anyway, and that part of the crop will always be GMO, because who cares if you're going to burn it? The fact that it subsidizes your crop at my expense (which isn't entirely true for me, our tenant plants plenty of corn, thus even though I'm a generation removed from owning the farm, some of that money will probably end up in my hands) doesn't seem right to me. Let the planting be limited and some of the land fallow and allow the market to determine what is going to be planted rather than having mandates.

There will be no instant cutoff crisis for land, etc, as there are guys chomping at the bit for land prices to drop a little bit so that they can cash flow land. That's all it'll take for plenty of guys who are growing up now farming 3k acres or whatever as they transition to farming 10k acres. The average age of a farmer right now probably has two reasons - the price of land and the fact that you don't have to stand on a wagon pulling up bales any longer if you don't want to. Guys don't even put seed in the planters by hand any longer.

There certainly is a real case of farms being split by the estate tax, but there's no difference between your farm and my IRA. If my kids won't get a share of my IRA then neither should yours get anything other than the equivalent share of your farm. That land will go for sale and someone will buy it, and if it can't be developed, it's not going to lay fallow.

Anyway, there never has been and there never will be a crisis where we can't feed ourselves. I wonder what % of the planted caloric value even gets to people. Cut off ethanol and halve beef production and replace it with pork, fish and chicken and...well, we already have more corn than we know what to do with, so even if we had to do that...cutting off ethanol would take care of it. I can't believe there was ever a tax waiver/blenders credit on it to begin with. It was pure vote buying, and it stung the USDA on the back side by increasing the price of food and food stamps. In terms of providing energy in any useful means, it's complete nonsense. A hundredth of the effort spent instead on NG drilling would've yielded more net energy and not distorted the diversity of planting that we have so much, nor would it have created the problem that we have drawing down aquifers in places that shouldn't be in corn in the first place.

At any rate, when you start doing stuff like attempting to tell me what I can and can't read on a food label that i consume, it shouldn't be any surprise to find me and other people in an adversarial position then, offering no support to commercial ag (where I was otherwise an ardent supporter in the past - we still do have farms in the family).

[Greg Peterson]

(Partially) Playing devil's advocate here...
What about Fluoride in the water system? Ignoring all of the conspiracy theorists who claim it's mind control, should the individual consumer be able to choose if they want Fluoride in their water? What if the jury was still out on its possible health effects?

When it was discovered that the Citi Corp building in NY could topple under the right wind load, what did they do? Well, they quietly fixed the problem after hours over a period of three months. They never informed the tenants of the building or the neighboring buildings of the very real threat.

The Portland water bureau decided all by themselves to fluoridate the municipal water supply. It was a sweet heart deal for the company that would install the fluoridation system and supply the chemical. Citizens circled the wagons and got the issue put to a city wide vote. Fluoride lost. I don't live in Portland so I didn't have a horse in that race, but I was against fluoridation for numerous reasons. Why fortify the municipal water supply to benefit a small percentage of the population when there are alternative, more selective means of providing fluoride to the target demographic? Why force the population to consume an unnecessary supplement? What about industrial use? We have a significant contingent of micro brewers on Portland water. And so on.

I've heard the conspiracy theories about fluoridated water. Frankly, enough of the groups that have painted opponents as tin foil hat wearing cranks do little to convince me that the proponents are being fully transparent in their motives. Like the Citi Corp building, or GM, the Ford Pinto, Toyota, big tobacco, DDT, who is to say that fluoride doesn't have potential long term consequence? I am very suspicious of an entity that will bear little to no legal responsibility for lying to the public. We've seen this movie over and over again. 'Trust us, we have paid the finest experts to prove our product is not only safe, but good for you."

[Dave Sheldrake]

Anyway, there never has been and there never will be a crisis where we can't feed ourselves.

At current rates of popular increase the numbers say otherwise David.

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

There will be a political solution before then, I'd think. I'd imagine we'll have energy problems long before we have food problems.

We may have a shift toward a more carb and less animal based diet if there really is a caloric problem. Yours and my caloric intake could be satisfied by a fraction of an acre right now, though. But consuming beef and other calories that require several multiples of what they provide in calories expands that. IIRC, cornell did an article describing the human equivalent of feed provided to livestock, and the livestock consumption of food is probably currently around a billion people-equivalents.

And we're probably burning up half of our caloric output. That would extrapolate to something like a potential of 2.6 billion population fed just from US production if needed, less some conversion because you'd have to have some diet supplementation of lower yielding crops so that we wouldn't become multiple vitamin deficient.

But we also still have fallow acreage and idle acreage in places either due to forest or tax rates. Nobody grows anything in my county due to the tax rates.

Cost of energy is going to be a problem long before food is. There will be legislative/governmental restrictions before we get to soylent green.

[Greg Peterson]

At current rates of popular increase the numbers say otherwise David.

cheers

Dave

Perhaps the problem isn't a matter of producing enough food. Maybe there are just too many people? I know the saying is to be fruitful and multiply, but that was a rather quaint era when familial labor was a practical solution. Extinction is the norm, survival the exception. I see little reason be optimistic for our future when everything is measured by quarterly reports or year over year figures.

Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Tyson, Hormel (owned by the Chinese now) and the rest of the food chain has been monetized, not out of self preservation or national security, but for profit. If the fields were to go sterile and fallow, the executives would put on their golden parachutes and leave the rank and file employees and investors to fend for themselves.

Call me a pessimist, but Enron wrote that book. Selling energy? No, stealing money was their business model. Corporate responsibility is an oxymoron these days.

I find it irresponsible to trust the same free hand of the market that gave us Enron, big tobacco, DDT and the like, to feed our progeny.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Eventually the most powerful man on the planet, The President of the United States WILL go on TV and tell you there is a limit to how many children you can have. He / She will tell you the exact same as we decry China for these days. Before that we as a society will end up eating genetically modified products and falling to Nuclear for our power needs.

Now that's not conjecture or speculation, it's the only possible outcome of numerous data considerations.

We cannot argue with numbers

cheers

Dave

[Harold Burrell]

Eventually the most powerful man on the planet, The President of the United States ...

Of which planet do you speak??? ;)

[Dave Sheldrake]

shooosh Harold, you will upset him if he reads this ;)

[David Weaver]

Eventually the most powerful man on the planet, The President of the United States WILL go on TV and tell you there is a limit to how many children you can have. He / She will tell you the exact same as we decry China for these days. Before that we as a society will end up eating genetically modified products and falling to Nuclear for our power needs.

Now that's not conjecture or speculation, it's the only possible outcome of numerous data considerations.

We cannot argue with numbers

cheers

Dave

Those are model projections that make certain considerations about legislative needs. We will probably go to GMO because it's the cheapest and easiest solution, but not because we have to. I can't see "falling" to nuclear as a bad consideration in the long term. Who knows what reactor designs will be like in 100 years? Maybe they'll be significantly lower risk.

Maybe at some point we'll also get a lot smarter about house design and life span, and use of very easy things like thermal mass, etc. Right now everything is biggest-cheapest in the US until you get to very high-end houses.

I'd bet my health has been adversely affected by breathing vapor from coal power plants (as an asthmatic, that's almost certainly true). It probably hasn't been adversely affected by anything nuclear.

[Dave Sheldrake]

I'm a supporter of Nuclear David, coal plants give out far more radiation than nuke plants do but sadly the design that is eventually used is unlikely to be the best and is more likely to be the easiest or best ROI.

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

Of course, that's usually what wins. Anyone using something that generates less revenue will likely have trouble matching "best ROI" in campaign contributions!

If this question were asked 100 years ago, the answer would've been interesting to research.

By the time it is a crisis of numerical proportions, if it's allowed to get there by no legislation...in what...60 or 100 years? It'll be interesting again to see what the idea is about the terminal solution. Models are novel and instructive about possible cases, but in the long term, every model assumption appears to have been a version of short term because the model doesn't account for known unknowns often and almost never unknown unknowns.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Steve, we're not and never have been in any danger of not having enough food to feed us.

Labeling doesn't = ban. There are plenty of people who don't care, and a price difference is all it takes to keep stuff that's not favorably labeled in business. There's also nobody who cares if we waste half of our corn on ethanol and allow it to limit diversity in marketable crops, anyway, and that part of the crop will always be GMO, because who cares if you're going to burn it? The fact that it subsidizes your crop at my expense (which isn't entirely true for me, our tenant plants plenty of corn, thus even though I'm a generation removed from owning the farm, some of that money will probably end up in my hands) doesn't seem right to me. Let the planting be limited and some of the land fallow and allow the market to determine what is going to be planted rather than having mandates.

There will be no instant cutoff crisis for land, etc, as there are guys chomping at the bit for land prices to drop a little bit so that they can cash flow land. That's all it'll take for plenty of guys who are growing up now farming 3k acres or whatever as they transition to farming 10k acres. The average age of a farmer right now probably has two reasons - the price of land and the fact that you don't have to stand on a wagon pulling up bales any longer if you don't want to. Guys don't even put seed in the planters by hand any longer.

There certainly is a real case of farms being split by the estate tax, but there's no difference between your farm and my IRA. If my kids won't get a share of my IRA then neither should yours get anything other than the equivalent share of your farm. That land will go for sale and someone will buy it, and if it can't be developed, it's not going to lay fallow.

Anyway, there never has been and there never will be a crisis where we can't feed ourselves. I wonder what % of the planted caloric value even gets to people. Cut off ethanol and halve beef production and replace it with pork, fish and chicken and...well, we already have more corn than we know what to do with, so even if we had to do that...cutting off ethanol would take care of it. I can't believe there was ever a tax waiver/blenders credit on it to begin with. It was pure vote buying, and it stung the USDA on the back side by increasing the price of food and food stamps. In terms of providing energy in any useful means, it's complete nonsense. A hundredth of the effort spent instead on NG drilling would've yielded more net energy and not distorted the diversity of planting that we have so much, nor would it have created the problem that we have drawing down aquifers in places that shouldn't be in corn in the first place.

At any rate, when you start doing stuff like attempting to tell me what I can and can't read on a food label that i consume, it shouldn't be any surprise to find me and other people in an adversarial position then, offering no support to commercial ag (where I was otherwise an ardent supporter in the past - we still do have farms in the family).

I think we have a misunderstanding. Sure there are plenty of people scooping up farms. Most of them are not farmers though, rather investors using 1031 to their advantage, or looking for something that yields better than a bond. The problem is that the banks are requiring 30-50% down to get land, and a new farmer has no chance. In my area, it takes an investment of around 2.5 mil to get enough ground to support your family. VERY few sitting on a nest egg big enough to have the down payment in your 20's. The people able to do it are the old farmers, who accumulate, then sell off in an estate. Fine, but there is no entry point for a new young guy. It's not like a 401K where the initial investment can be extremely low. There is a government program to guarantee a loan for a beginning farmer, but it's not enough to buy enough ground to support a family. This all creates a two party system, landlords and tenants, and drives farms to grow to compete. Bigger farms have to do more faster, so no time for dealing with the little specialty crops, which drive the need for technology, like gmo. Because gmo corn can be produced cheaper, its a foundation crop in a rotation. Soy is usually the other being rotated, and both have radically benefitted from the use in fuels.

The blender credit was absurd, I agree, but it did create an ethanol industry fast and I disagree that bio fuels are a bad idea.

I've got to get to the fields, will follow up later.

[David Weaver]

Biofuels are a horrible idea. They have no ability to meet an appreciable % of our energy consumption, and as of now they are either exempt or limited in particulate enforcement. One of the pet projects around here is to put biomatter furnaces in public buildings, and they are terrible polluters compared to conventional heat and power generation. Liquid fuels and large biomass are two different things, but they both have a real problem, and that is the enormous amount of energy input to get something back out of them. We'd be far better off just burning natural gas instead, which pays for itself a whole lot better and can be used almost immediately out of the ground.

Anyway, I understand the 1031 exchange issue. That's separate from whether or not acres will get planted, its a value of assets problem and not a farming problem. If the future is a large % of acres being rented instead of owned, that's not really a big deal. Those landowners generally aren't going to run their own land, they're going to hire a renter, but they won't let land go fallow.

It's not a little guy's game any longer no matter what, unless you are going to offer something that you can market directly, and that's a rough life (seems to me). I've got a few relatives who own land, one who still does a little bit of conventional farming (in his 70s), for "fun" I'd say, and several farms that are just rented because they're too small to do anything else (250 acres and smaller). I've also got one who grows produce, and it seems like an awfully rough life compared to my relatives who had diversified operations (which don't appear to exist any longer, either).

There's no business I'm aware of that's not changing these days, and none seem to be going from something tough to being a bowl of cherries.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

Biofuels are a horrible idea. They have no ability to meet an appreciable % of our energy consumption, and as of now they are either exempt or limited in particulate enforcement. One of the pet projects around here is to put biomatter furnaces in public buildings, and they are terrible polluters compared to conventional heat and power generation. Liquid fuels and large biomass are two different things, but they both have a real problem, and that is the enormous amount of energy input to get something back out of them. We'd be far better off just burning natural gas instead, which pays for itself a whole lot better and can be used almost immediately out of the ground.

Anyway, I understand the 1031 exchange issue. That's separate from whether or not acres will get planted, its a value of assets problem and not a farming problem. If the future is a large % of acres being rented instead of owned, that's not really a big deal. Those landowners generally aren't going to run their own land, they're going to hire a renter, but they won't let land go fallow.

It's not a little guy's game any longer no matter what, unless you are going to offer something that you can market directly, and that's a rough life (seems to me). I've got a few relatives who own land, one who still does a little bit of conventional farming (in his 70s), for "fun" I'd say, and several farms that are just rented because they're too small to do anything else (250 acres and smaller). I've also got one who grows produce, and it seems like an awfully rough life compared to my relatives who had diversified operations (which don't appear to exist any longer, either).

There's no business I'm aware of that's not changing these days, and none seem to be going from something tough to being a bowl of cherries.

Just waded back into the creek for the first time in a week, so trying to catch up on all the fun here!

I agree that natural gas ought to be the core of our national energy policy. I'd argue that there has been artificial meddling in the policy for misguided reasons, and the economy has suffered for it. That being said, I am glad that my farm benefits from it however, so I am certainly not without bias. That can of worms could form a whole new thread though.

The problem with a landlord/tenant only farm business model, or as my "bank" (haha) calls them, large cash custom operations, is that the rent gets paid to the landlord to who in turn pays for the land. No equity increase is held on the tenant's balance sheet from in essence making a land payment. In fact, often it costs more to lease ground than it would to actually buy it, but because of the ridiculously high bar set for mortgages (including ag), which was instigated after the 08 crash and Dodd/Frank congressional action, half down is not uncommon. In my area, that is around a million dollars cash needed to buy enough land to make a living on.

Because the tenant route is the only road to farm for a not wealthy farmer, the fact that the inability to build balance sheet equity through land payments puts them at extreme risk in the case of a financial shock, like a hail storm. The lack of a land asset gives very little ability to absorb any bad news. To compensate for this, the tenant has to make higher margins and hold cash, which makes them not as competitive, and they loose ground or loose cash to the tax man, their choice. Either way, the balance of the equation is set so that the tenant farmer has a long row to hoe to get to a financially stable place, even without financial shocks.

Here is the rub. This situation is a new one, so the full effect of it are yet to be manifested. As I said, the problem started in 08. If this continues, you really could see ground not farmed. There are not that many people in ag, it's a finite quantity of them, and if the young ones get financially ruined early, who is going to be able to financially operate the farms? As you said, it's now "big" business, and millions of dollars are needed to farm the average farm now, each year. It's an unsustainable direction. I actually saw the first ground I have ever seen go unfarmed this year because someone went broke (another young guy like me). Good ground sat unharvested over the winter and is still today.

The fix to this is a simple capitalistic one. Get the blasted government out of the banks so they can loan money without so much fear of the feds oversight. Dodd/Franck and any other laws like it need to go away and let capitalism work. Unfortunately for me, any solution will happen too late, I'm one of the casualties of this mess.

[Greg Peterson]

The fix to this is a simple capitalistic one. Get the blasted government out of the banks so they can loan money without so much fear of the feds oversight. Dodd/Franck and any other laws like it need to go away and let capitalism work. Unfortunately for me, any solution will happen too late, I'm one of the casualties of this mess.

All they have to do is reinstate Glass-Steagall.

[Joel Goodman]

Biofuels are a horrible idea.

+1 -- The energy required to grow the corn ( and I don't mean the sun -- I mean gas for the tractors etc.) and process it into ethanol makes it a zero sum gain energy wise. And to totally go off topic -- why are we, a nation with so many obese people, giving subsidies for planting corn, we should be offering a subsidy for broccoli, to encourage veggie eating, rather than soda pop (corn syrup)!

[Dave Sheldrake]

There's quite a few like that Joel, great in their own right but dreadful when the full equation is known. Hydrogen fuel cells being one of the worst!

cheers

Dave

[Pat Barry]

+1 -- The energy required to grow the corn ( and I don't mean the sun -- I mean gas for the tractors etc.) and process it into ethanol makes it a zero sum gain energy wise. And to totally go off topic -- why the hell are we, a nation with so many obese people, giving subsidies for planting corn, we should be offering a subsidy for broccoli, to encourage veggie eating, rather than soda pop (corn syrup)!
Surely, you can't be serious.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

+1 -- The energy required to grow the corn ( and I don't mean the sun -- I mean gas for the tractors etc.) and process it into ethanol makes it a zero sum gain energy wise. (corn syrup)!

This general train of thought is not correct in my opinion. I've argued here before that it's wrong. One simple concept supports my side. Shelled corn is generally used for cattle feed. If you can take it through a fuel distillation process, and still have nearly the same food value for cattle come out of it and a tank of fuel, how is that a bad idea?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

All they have to do is reinstate Glass-Steagall.

I think that would fix it.

[David Weaver]

That's a good process if we're drinking it!

Otherwise it's a waste of energy that:
* encourages overplanting of corn and reduces diversity of food supply
* encourages multiples more need for nitrogen
* uses the same or nearly the same amount of energy input that you get as an output
* increases the cost of the food supply due to the use of feedstock for fuel, driving up the cost of anything else that would rely on the feedstock

And it doesn't really provide a significant amount of energy, especially on a net basis.

[phil harold]

No RR crops are direct to human consumption.


There is round up ready sweet corn
Seminis.com

[Joel Goodman]

What David said -- "it (ethanol) doesn't really provide a significant amount of energy, especially on a net basis".
And I wasn't joking about a broccoli subsidy. I assume the rationale for farm subsidies is that they serve some national purpose -- I would think the health of the nation and lowered medical spending would fit. If broccoli (or carrots or...) were cheaper some number of folks would serve it more often, which translates long term into less medical $.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

That's a good process if we're drinking it!

Otherwise it's a waste of energy that:
* encourages overplanting of corn and reduces diversity of food supply
* encourages multiples more need for nitrogen
* uses the same or nearly the same amount of energy input that you get as an output
* increases the cost of the food supply due to the use of feedstock for fuel, driving up the cost of anything else that would rely on the feedstock

And it doesn't really provide a significant amount of energy, especially on a net basis.

I like that, but personally prefer the use of rye to corn. :)

This thread is on the verge of rehashing an old subject, so here is a link to a thread that we discussed the ethanol subject, and I put this farmers perspective into.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?119118-gas-mileage-here-Vs-there

David, you'll probably agree that there is very little new energy created on this planet. It's a balanced system for the most part, whatever we use for fuel has turned light water and nutrients that something else has already synthesised, into a form that we can use. Coal, wood, natural gas, oil, and corn all follow that idea. Even nuclear, you have to go way back in time to see when the process that turned subatomic particles into uranium, and I am certainly no expert, but the release of energy from our splitting of atoms probably corresponds to the stars initial energy put into the creation of that uranium. My point is, what we humans do is manipulate energy and build a civilization around it. Releasing the stored energy that matter contains drives this human race. Humans have figured out how to store energy and use it. We don't make new energy, to the best of my limited knowledge.

So, I ask you, how can any energy source be a net gain? Isn't it all a zero sum game if you dig deep enough?

[Steve Rozmiarek]

There is round up ready sweet corn
Seminis.com

Sort of. I tried to buy some this year, and couldn't get any. I'm not so sure it isn't hung up in a regulatory process.

[Dave Sheldrake]

Correct Steve, energy cannot be neither created or destroyed. (First law of thermodynamics)

NO energy source is a net gain, it is simply not possible due to the second law of thermodynamics (Entropy of an isolated system always increases)

That said there are other fundamentals to consider such as Fusion that if perfected can liberate more energy than is used in the liberation process.

In laymans terms, you simply cannot make something out of nothing.

cheers

Dave

[David Weaver]

I like that, but personally prefer the use of rye to corn. :)

This thread is on the verge of rehashing an old subject, so here is a link to a thread that we discussed the ethanol subject, and I put this farmers perspective into.

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthread.php?119118-gas-mileage-here-Vs-there

David, you'll probably agree that there is very little new energy created on this planet. It's a balanced system for the most part, whatever we use for fuel has turned light water and nutrients that something else has already synthesised, into a form that we can use. Coal, wood, natural gas, oil, and corn all follow that idea. Even nuclear, you have to go way back in time to see when the process that turned subatomic particles into uranium, and I am certainly no expert, but the release of energy from our splitting of atoms probably corresponds to the stars initial energy put into the creation of that uranium. My point is, what we humans do is manipulate energy and build a civilization around it. Releasing the stored energy that matter contains drives this human race. Humans have figured out how to store energy and use it. We don't make new energy, to the best of my limited knowledge.

So, I ask you, how can any energy source be a net gain? Isn't it all a zero sum game if you dig deep enough?

I think we're getting mixed up about energy available for use vs. potential energy or stored energy. If the comparison is taking cheap saudi oil out of the ground (back when it was that easy) where it existed in large pores and refining it into gasoline, it is a far less economically involved method of making energy available for use. The idea that there is no net change in energy would allow us to argue that things with no net energy production or negative net energy production are good ideas, and I odn't agree with that.

The problem with biofuels is they are very energy intensive to raise, convert and transport, and the total potential generation of energy from them each year is abysmal. It is probably actually cheaper to make energy from solar panels, it just isn't convenient to put a solar panel on a car and turn the key at midnight and get energy from it. We've already seen that solar doesn't much benefit us locally, either, because it's going to be a long time before it's cheaper to manufacture panels or vacuum heating tubes, etc, here vs. doing so overseas.

The cost of energy is a huge deal in an economy, though, and treading water and raising the price of it is a quick way to become noncompetitive and lower the standard of living for all involved, so having a bias toward locally available energy that generates votes but not much net usable energy is not a good long term plan.

[Scott Shepherd]

In laymans terms, you simply cannot make something out of nothing.

cheers

Dave

Clearly you never met my ex-wife :D

[Dave Sheldrake]

hahahah nice one Scotty :)