Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops - New York Times

[womanofthehills]

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.
One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html?_r=1

[enough]

1. A long article worth reading in depth. Thanks for posting this. (nt)

[womanofthehills]

2. Actually, I like the part about Monsanto's industry mantra not being true

Monsanto will feed the world. (nt)

[Achilleaze]

14. Yes. This is just another GMO corporate propaganda truth twist

Right out of the Republican-style playbook.

[Achilleaze]

3. Pope Francis Slams GMOs and Pesticides for Environmental and Social Damage

Wow. A well-deserved double ass-kick for the GMO multinational Citizens United, Inc. and their mutant industrialization of nature.

http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/06/16/pope-francis-slams-gmos-and-pesticides-for-environmental-and-social-damage/#.WBYNrDKZNgc

[Achilleaze]

4. The GMO corporate cocktail of choice, glyphosate, is in your food, beer, wine and tampons

Well over 80% of GMO crops suck up glyphosate, and then deliver residue of the weed killer into just about everything industrial food product or beverage you consume.

The chemical-GMO corporate combine keeps claiming that's cool - no problem to have your body tissues tainted with the weed killer. But their "claims" continue to be the subject of well-deserved controversy:

Oct. 25, 2016
Science Committee Chair: EPA Gave Misleading Testimony on Herbicide Study

House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) on Tuesday accused Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy of giving misleading testimony on an international study on the safety of the widely used herbicide glyphosate.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer released a report in March 2015 saying glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic.” Other international organizations, including the United Nations and World Health Organization, have published reports that conflict with IARC’s findings. In September, the EPA published a paper that said glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic and scheduled a Scientific Advisory Panel meeting for Oct. 18-21. Then, a few days ahead of the meeting, the agency postponed it for later this year...

...In light of these contradictions, recent actions taken by EPA to further delay the Science Advisory Panel review for glyphosate do not instill confidence that EPA will fairly assess glyphosate based on sound science,” Smith wrote in the letter to McCarthy.

https://morningconsult.com/alert/science-committee-chair-epa-gave-misleading-testimony-herbicide-study/

[womanofthehills]

5. And from internal FDA memos - could not find honey without glyphosate

In examining honey samples from various locations in the United States, the FDA has found fresh evidence that residues of the weed killer called glyphosate can be pervasive - found even in a food that is not produced with the use of glyphosate. All of the samples the FDA tested in a recent examination contained glyphosate residues, and some of the honey showed residue levels double the limit allowed in the European Union, according to documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. There is no legal tolerance level for glyphosate in honey in the United States.

n the records released by the FDA, one internal email describes trouble locating honey that doesn’t contain glyphosate: “It is difficult to find blank honey that does not contain residue. I collect about 10 samples of honey in the market and they all contain glyphosate,” states an FDA researcher. Even “organic mountain honey” contained low concentrations of glyphosate, the FDA documents show.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/fda-finds-monsantos-weed_b_12008680.html

[Achilleaze]

6. An avoidable GMO-chemical corporate tragedy foisted on bees, honey & human beings

[airplaneman]

7. one of the more disturbing things I read about glyphosate

Is that it is now widespread practice in the USA to kill all grain plants two weeks prior to harvest with a massive dose of glyphosate. This increases yield and also makes the use of glyphosate climb to ever new higher quantities.
-Airplane

[Major Nikon]

12. Believe it or not, farmers are now routinely spraying their fields with hydric acid

...which is also routinely used as an industrial solvent and can be fatal even in small doses. Andy Warhol died from it.

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

[Achilleaze]

8. Cutting Through the Hype on GMOs - Mother Jones

"...Hakim compared US yields of crops like corn and sugar beets with the same crops grown in Europe (charts here), where GMOs aren't widely used. He also compared pesticide-use rates. The result: "The United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields—food per acre—when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany."

The result, he notes, is consistent with a recent National Academy of Sciences report that found that "there was little evidence that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops."

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/10/new-york-times-cuts-through-hype-gmos

[Major Nikon]

9. Non-peer reviewed "research"

Both using non-specific trends far removed from empirical study.

Meanwhile the NYT seems to have conveniently missed this part from their own source:

They did not segregate their results by crop, but in aggregate they found that yields of maize and cotton were 22 percent greater when a Bt trait was present (n=353).

Meanwhile Actual peer-reviewed analysis has this to say:

Results

On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

[Achilleaze]

10. Corporate-funded "science" sold out a long time ago

This twisted practice has destroyed the public's ability to trust what so-called corporate "science" says about the so-called "safety" of GMOs, and the obvious damage to soil and water caused by vast industrial-scale GMO monocropping and the lakes of chemicals that are involved.

Me? I like clean food with no mutant chemicalized industrial crap in it. Thank you very much.

http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/columnists/tainted-studies-shaking-our-faith-in-research/article_63b36c6e-ee69-5953-8b6b-31a2782f67ee.html

[Major Nikon]

11. Sure, so let's just disregard everything peer reviewed and rely on internet rumors instead

[Achilleaze]

13. You can continue to do that if you want

But most folks prefer to use common sense. So when it becomes apparent, as it does in the OP, that Multinational GMO Chemical corporations have been systematically promoting bullshit for decades, people with common sense note that and they factor it into their evaluations not just of the "claims" the corporations are making about their Strange New Crops, but also the corporately funded attacks on clean farms and food.

[Major Nikon]

15. Sure, "common sense" dictates all peer reviewed science is null and void