Exposed: the great GM crops myth

[seven]

Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent.

Exposed: the great GM crops myth - Green Living, Environment - The Independent

[Cricket Tragic]

I liked the quote “an authoritative new study” for an article in Better Crops. Better Crops operates as a magazine for the Potash and Phosphate Industry. It carries a range of articles, commentaries and reports on conferences, etc. The articles are not peer reviewed and come in a variety of formats.

This particular paper Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate Resistant and Conventional Soybeans is more like the sort of article that would be dashed off for a farmer newspaper rather than an authoritative study. The methods are a bit weak, were any herbicides used? If not why not? The statistical analysis is lacking. Is the 7 Bu/ac difference statistically significant? Years were pooled. Were yields identical in the two years or not? If these questions were answered we might know more.

Despite this paper, you won’t find farmers rushing to ditch RR soybeans. Weed problems can lead to much bigger reductions in yields. In addition, RR soybeans allow farmers to no-till and plant earlier resulting in higher yields.

[Grandaddy]

If you really want the truth GM is just an attempt to lead humans like cattle in the wrong direction, wonder who's behind it ? A hint, the answer maybe in the question.

Two billion years of evolution the very mechanism that gave rise to every living creature, you, me and everyone else something worth preserving. You'd have to be crazy not to defend it.

Glad I'm British by birth and character, even get to help ladies with their baggage at train stations. It's cool though it's worth it for the smiles you get.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Grandaddy

If you really want the truth GM is just an attempt to lead humans like cattle in the wrong direction, wonder who's behind it ? A hint, the answer maybe in the question.

Two billion years of evolution the very mechanism that gave rise to every living creature, you, me and everyone else something worth preserving. You'd have to be crazy not to defend it.

Glad I'm British by birth and character, even get to help ladies with their baggage at train stations. It's cool though it's worth it for the smiles you get.

If by the wrong direction you mean increased food production and decreased environmental contamination then yes I completely agree with you.

And its always funny to see an opponent of GM using an altruistic justification for their opposition and then admit that they help ladies with their bags because of an intrinsic desire to mate with females. Very gentlemanly of you.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Grandaddy

If you really want the truth GM is just an attempt to lead humans like cattle in the wrong direction, wonder who's behind it ? A hint, the answer maybe in the question.

Cattle?

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Cattle?

Ticks?

[screener]

Originally Posted by UrbanFarmboy

And its always funny to see an opponent of GM using an altruistic justification for their opposition and then admit that they help ladies with their bags because of an intrinsic desire to mate with females. Very gentlemanly of you.

UrbanFarmboy I'm hoping you will edit that out because I have this feeling that people are scratching their heads at you.

[screener]

I think that the scientists at U of Nebraska and U of Kansas would not print the results of their studies unless they thought they were worth consideration. it'll be interesting to see whether their funding is gone for that kind of research as of now....

Thanks seven, sometimes it's a bitter pill one has to swallow.

This is one of the comments from further down under the story. Is there any comment here on this?
"Of course a plant designed to resist a herbicide will produce less under the same conditions! Otherwise it is manipulating the laws of physics! The plant is having to produce extra proteins to deal with the Chemical, thus it has less enery for growth."


I think this is the study mentioned at the bottom of the article, it's interesting that of the sixty countries involved only three, the US, Canada, and Australia decided not to support the findings.
2:00 PM

[deek]

A couple of the comments left on the Independent’s web page (in response to the article) struck a chord with my cynical mind: -

“…If GM is a scam that just generates profits for Monsanto and increases the unknown risk of some catastrophe happening, and they should pay a heavy price”.

“I had always suspected that the “real” advantage of GM crops was that the growers would always have to go back to the “rights owner” e.g. Monsanto, for more seed and supplies for each new crop. If this were true could there be some “connection” between the US government support of GM development, and lobbyists for Monsanto and “friends”?

If I may quote from a book written in 1992 by the highly respected biotech author Brewster Kneen;

“Biotechnology remains firmly entrenched in the service of national competitiveness, and the industry is as clear as ever that ethical issues, public concerns, and government regulation must not be permitted to stand in the way of corporate progress. Canada cannot afford to fall behind its major international trading partners in the development and commercialisation of new crop varieties, improvements to animal products and advances in food technology, warns the National Biotechnology Advisory Committee, calling for a balance to be struck, between regulation and promotion, equity and efficiency, protection of the public and the environment, as well as the furtherance of private interests and economic growth.”

It would appear that little has changed since the publication of Brewster Kneen’s book, other than the biotech corporate sponsors have changed their focus from protecting their Canadian interests to securing a world wide monopoly for their GM products by driving out all competition (Non-GM crops) along the way. In today’s modern phraseology – redundant biological technology being superseded by manmade technology.

[Cricket Tragic]

This is what Barney Gordon had to say about Lean’s article.

Seed Today - The most complete tool for marketing your business in the seed processing industry

Why is it important? It was Gordon’s work that Lean was mis-representing as the basis of the piece.

Perhaps a quote: “These statements, among other assertions in Mr. Lean’s article are ripe for clarification. This brief piece is my attempt to set the record straight before the perversion of my research findings and the resulting backlash go any further.”

screener, more correctly, this piece is a continuing part of Geoffrey Lean’s attempts to demonise the technology as part of his anti-American, anti-globalization political agenda. The fact that Lean is anti-American and anti-globalization doesn’t concern me. The fact that he feels the need to mis-represent others as part of his campaign does.