The increases come from farmers spending money on more Roundup and trading off caloric input for output and externalities.

The latest National Geographic has a cover story about why we need another Green Revolution to feed the coming billions, and it is problematic whether fossil fool inputs will be a big player in 25 years - it is likely that we will have to decide which sector gets fossil fool input cut back: transportation/heating, material, or agriculture. The rich will decide, of course, and if they decide material needs to continue, ag will be cut back and GMOs will be hurting.

Dan

When it was first available to large farm operations, RoundUp Ready corn seed did result in better production because of the weed control and availability of fertilizers no longer consumed by weeds. The farmers' profits were also greater because they spent less on weed control during the corn season.

But over the years, the weeds have grown resistant to this particular GMO seed and production is falling while costs to the farmers because of the need to weed again are rising to pre-RR days.

That's just the RR genetic modification.

Then there are GMO crops modified to carry the Bt gene in corn and cotton. I haven't seen studies on improved production because of their insecticide action, though I am sure there are those studies done. What HAS been discovered in India is that the Bt crops also kill beneficial soil micro-organisms, thus resulting in predictions that the soil will unable to grow anything after ten years of using the modified seeds.

A recent scientific study carried out by Navdanya, compared the soil of fields where Bt-cotton had been planted for 3 years with adjoining fields with non GMO cotton or other crops. The region covered included Nagpur, Amravati and Wardha of Vidharbha which accounts for highest GMO cotton planting in India, and the highest rate of farmers suicides (4000 per year).

In 3 years, Bt-cotton has reduced the population of Actinomycetes by 17%. Actinomycetes are vital for breaking down cellulose and creating humus.

Bacteria were reduced by 14%. The total microbial biomass was reduced by 8.9%.

Vital soil beneficial enzymes which make nutrients available to plants have also been drastically reduced. Acid Phosphatase which contributes to uptake of phosphates was reduced by 26.6%. Nitrogenase enzymes which help fix nitrogen were reduced by 22.6%.

At this rate, in a decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food.

The ISAAA in its recent release has stated that there are 7.6 mha of Bt-cotton in India. This means 7.6 mha of dying soils.

The impact of GMO’s on soil organisms is not commonly studied. This is a vital lacunae because Bt toxin crops such as Mon 810 corn or Bt-cotton or Bt Brinjal have serious impact on beneficial soil organisms.

Then there are studies showing that Bt in human and animal food supplies causes many health problems.

Even Jon Stewart has something to say about the problems.

On May 8th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." Their position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. AAEM states, "GM foods have not been properly tested" and "pose a serious health risk." They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." AAEM called for a moratorium, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

A second US medical association is currently drafting a similar resolution, and more and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods," says Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist. Ohio allergist John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

According to AAEM, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation" as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies." Some experts go a step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, world renowned biologist Pushpa. M. Bhargava concluded that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin." In a small follow-up feeding study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks. Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist, G. E. Seralini.

The rest at the link.

So there are tradeoffs beyond productivity that many people are no longer willing to accept, like the destruction of soil and life.

The author reports that GM crops may reduce field LOSSES but they do not increase the yield of crops, which is genetically determined.

Yield is the total bu/ac [ha]. Optimum yield is comprised of all the plants living and producing maximum fruit and all being harvested and no postharvest losses. Genetics only has part of it.

But as stated above, there are no GM crops on the market that have larger fruits.

Dan

All right, I see your point, which is correct! I'd taken my cue from this part of the article:

....let me tell you that the last time the world witnessed increases in crop yields was when the high-yielding crop varieties were evolved. That was the time when scientists were able to break through the genetic yield barrier. The double-gene and triple-gene dwarf wheat (a trait that was subsequently inducted in rice) brought in quantum jumps in yield potential. That was way back in the late 1960s. Since then, there has been no further genetic breakthrough in crop yields. Let there be no mistake about it.

What's the word for what a plant produces genetically under optimal conditions? What do you call the characteristic that can't produce more unless it's altered by genetic mutation? The author does mention "yield potential", so maybe that's more accurate.

Die younger, that's the answer!

Steve

Don't get me started on ethanol! From what I've read and IMO it uses as much fossil fool to produce and we lose the food!

At least we have a president that isn't in bed w/ oil companies and is going to insist on more alternatives.

My wife bought this for a college class, but it looks to be here in full.

Where is this listing? On sites that proponents use to dupe others and to make opponents look foolish?

Nonetheless, it is important to realize that misinformation is going to be used to further control food, as we are nowhere near another green revolution. Something must happen to feed 2.5B new mouths, many of them newly rich and demanding meat, which takes still more resources.

Dan

But that is just my opinion, believe what you want.

Michael, a concerned scientist.

Dan

I am accusing knowone of doing this but: I could count the earthworms in 1 sq meter in my garden and come to a faulty conclusion as to why there are as many as there are. Then, based on a preconceived idea about say my soil, come up with an explanation for the worm count. Then I go to the web and come up with a very professional site explaining my research but showing no details about how I came up with my conclusions. The site, in my opinion at best, is just an advertisement or simply a statement of my opinion which is fine. Because of it's appearance, others may take it to be valid research and believe it to be based in sound science when it is merely an opinion. In short, buyer beware.

And lastly, thanks for not taking me at my word about being a concerned scientist who is concerned about what is often passed off as true scientific investigation (wink). I think it is just wonderful that in this world where scientific investigation truely can help that so often personal beliefs formed in an uneducated vacuum, dogma, repeated lies amd deceptions, political careers and corporate misdeeds often lead the way to discovery instead.

OK enough of the soapbox.

Sincerely, Michael

The greatest danger to Americans is a failure of the US government to require testing of genetically modified foods and techniques. Now something like 70% of consumer foods sold include GM foods.

This is not to say that we don't need much more testing and slower rolling out of these things. But blanket conclusions such as those above cannot be supported (because we don't test for them. Just because we don't test doesn't guarantee their occurrence.).

Dan

As I'm sure you know, the US government doesn't require thorough testing or labeling of GMO crops but other countries do require the tests or they won't allow their use, with some notable exceptions. So until those tests are required by the US government, alarms will continue to be broadcast about their potential risks.

Of course, agribusiness could stop all this dead in its tracks if they'd just test their GMO products and publicize the results.

Of course. But one should be able to look at these alarms, deconstruct their argumentation and scrutinize them for logical fallacies, specious rhetorical tactics, incomplete scholarship, etc.

I don't purchase products that I suspect contain GMOs - not because they contain unknown human health risks, but because of their likely ecological impact and the corporate tactics involved to control the food chain (Chapela, Andura Smetacek, etc).

These alone are good enough reasons, and there is no need to make up anything else based on questionable rhetoric, which is effective for the opposition to show that people make shhhhh...tuff up in opposition; this fear-based rhetoric that counts on the ends justifying the means is potentially more harmful as many understand this as bad acting.

Dan

I think the answer is thorough testing of the GMO products before they're released, not discounting various alarms about them after their release. It's true that anybody can broadcast alarms whether anything is alarming or not. But I say it's up to agribusiness and the government to require and release results of tests specifically designed to test the criticisms, not for people to discount the alarms if they're unwilling to do that. We've already been through more than one disaster of believing agribusiness-chemical companies about other incompletely tested miracle advances for all humanity provided by their products.

Those of us who lived through these times aren't quite as ready to trust agribusiness first and thoroughly test later. It must be the other way around about something as critical to human and other life in the food supply.

No one is doing this per se per your implication.

The purported 'alarms' you linked to above, however, are full of logical fallacy, hyperbole, etc. So if you want to believe alarms based on logical fallacy, and fear-based rhetoric, have at it.

It is your choice to choose what to believe. There are plenty of lessons from philosophy, rhetoric, and psychology that instruct us why this choice is problematic at best.

Dan

I don't know that I believe anything except that agribusiness refuses to thoroughly test and release the results of those tests to the public, and others are raising grave concerns.

I'm only "arguing" that agribusiness has NOT tested its products to alleviate or disprove the alarms raised by people, legit or not. We simply don't know what the truth is, but we certainly know about the research and observations made by non-agribusiness agencies, including large numbers of scientists in the field. Though I think you don't disagree with that.

But without the truth, how can we possibly know what are illogical or fallacious or rhetorical alarms? The state of public consciousness could certainly be be educated by testing and transparency, and I don't CARE if those alarms are illogical, fallacious, or rhetorical. I don't think those conclusions are up to me or anybody else not involved in agribusiness. That is THEIR responsibility. What I DO care about is the refusal of agribusiness to provide sufficient information to prove or disprove those alarms.

That's MY point, not to explore or denigrate the alarms for veracity, etc. There are so many of them and some have existed for so long that agribusiness is being extremely irresponsible for not addressing them.

It's also erroneous to look at food from the aspect of output alone. What about input? What about the fertilizers that have to be applied to Roundup crops because the soil is essentially dead? The fuel that application takes? The chemicals that are in that fertilizer? It's a vicious cycle.

It also irritates me immensely that I don't have a choice in participating as one of their guinea pigs because GM foods don't have to be labeled.

Of course that will never happen, but we can always dream

1.
2.

Dan