Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

[ratto]

This morning I watched NHK about news of some small US farmers protest against GM crops and some other environmental issues in the Occupiers movement. I was a little shocked by hearing that in US, the percentages of corns and soy beans being GMed are 80% and 90%. I went to Wikipedia, and their figures are 86% and 93% respectively.

This reminded me of an eye opener PBS documentary, "King Corn" (not "King Kong"), which is about two young men's curiosity in their body chemical composition led their decision to plant and tender one acre of corn in Iowa. I also remember there was a WSJ article not long time ago about some root bugs developed strong resistance to Mondanto's GMed corn and all of sudden these bugs have no archrivals. Of course, GM industries will keep coming up with something new to counter and this will put them perpetually in business. Cross-pollination is another big concern.

There have been a lot research about safety of GM food, especially on potential gene transfer and allergies. In one excerpt from Wikipedia: "As of January 2009 there has only been one human feeding study conducted on the effects of genetically modified foods. The study involved seven human volunteers who had previously had their large intestines removed. These volunteers were to eat GM soy to see if the DNA of the GM soy transferred to the bacteria that naturally lives in the human gut. Researchers identified that three of the seven volunteers had transgenes from GM soya transferred into the bacteria living in their gut before the start of the feeding experiment. As this low-frequency transfer did not increase after the consumption of GM Soy, the researchers concluded that gene transfer did not occur during the experiment. In volunteers with complete digestive tracts, the transgene did not survive passage through intact gastrointestinal tract.". This sounds to me more or less like the classic statement: "The conclusive finding of this investigation is inconclusive.".

To be fair, GM technology does serve special purposes and achieve something good. But with such high penetration rate in US, shouldn't we be more concerned? Even if we can exclude GM food safety from consideration for the time being, how about the monopoly of GM crops over non-GM ones? He who controls your breadbasket controls your destiny. I would like to hear what you think about this.

p.s. This topic is not meant to be politically provocative. Let's try to keep the discussion focused on GM crops/food itself. Moderator, please move this thread to another forum if deemed inappropriate. Thanks in advance.

 

[ERD50]

I am concerned about mono-cultures, but that concern exists whether GM or not.

As far as the root worms (or anything else) becoming tolerant of the GM crop, that happens with just about any form of pesticide, whether 'natural', GRAS, or synthesized in a lab. Crop rotations and less concentration of single crops are really key to help break a cycle of any particular 'bug' gaining a stronghold. That has some short term economic issues, but I fear the long-term issues could be worse.

I've never understood the fear of GM genetic material transferring to the person/animal that eats it. Cows have been fed corn, rabbits have been fed carrots, and I have yet to see a tassel sprout out of a cow's head, or a rabbit with a carrot top.

There are pesticides that have been in use for decades, that will kill 'broadleaf' plants, but have no effect on grass/corn. The genetic material in the grass and broadleaf plants has not crossed in all that time to make one susceptible or the other tolerant. I don't get why people think they would.

As far as cross-pollinating being a 'big concern' - why? Farmers have been using specially bred plants for hundreds of years. Why would a GM crop be any more concern than any other selectively breed plant?

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

As far as cross-pollinating being a 'big concern' - why? Farmers have been using specially bred plants for hundreds of years. Why would a GM crop be any more concern than any other selectively breed plant?

-ERD50

Actually I think farmers have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years. What other reason would people have been paying huge stud fees to breed two champion race horses together if not to alter the genes of their offspring? Scientist have found improvements in wheat from Egyptian tombs from various centuries.

The opposition to GMO pisses me off because what it really does is prevent farmers in Africa from growing crops on marginal farmland and then exporting them to places like Europe. Thus keeping them in a cycle of poverty and dependency. Now admittedly there are a lot of other factors including governmental farm policy and some dubious business practice by agricultural firms. Still if you want to make sure that people in Africa die in great numbers banning GMOs is more effective them bombing them.

 

[ratto]

ERD50, you made a very good point about crop rotation and less concentration of mono crops. These good practices should be religiously observed by farmers.

Regarding the possibility of gene transfer, there have been a lot of researches funded by different parties to support or against the hypothesis. For the sake of long term health, IMO, it hurts nothing for us as consumers be vigilant about what we eat, where our food comes from and how. After all, we are what we eat.

About cross-pollinating, yes farmers have been using this practice for hundreds if not thousands years. That's not the problem at all. The key concern is the deliberate terminator gene. Once they get cross-pollinated with non-GM crops, the non-GM crops' seeds can not germinate anymore. This could potentially create a very serious situation in which a few big GM companies can dictate our food source supply. Even worse, if those seeds with terminator gene were exported, unintended or deliberately, to some other countries, the subsequent consequences would be dire. People could die from famine in that scenario. Of course, as of now, based on what I read, Monsanto pledges not to commercialize terminator gene yet. However, any one buying seeds from them must sign agreement that no seeds harvested from GM crops can be saved, sold for further cross-breeding, planting. This doesn't sound encouraging at all, at least to me.

 

[ratto]

The opposition to GMO pisses me off because what it really does is prevent farmers in Africa from growing crops on marginal farmland and then exporting them to places like Europe.

This is an unintended consequence which I haven't thought about. Your point is well taken. Fundamentally, I'm not totally opposing GM. It does reduce pesticide usage and boost crop yields in some cases. I just hope this technology could be treated and adopted more cautiously, further independently analyzed and examined.

 

[clifp]

Actually we aren't as far apart as I thought. I think it is important to differentiate the benefits of genetic modification which I think are huge and probably especially so for poor farmers, from the current business practice of companies like Monsanto regarding GM seeds.

I am no expert but I think that famine etc. risk are probably pretty small and reasonable oversight is sufficient. On the other hand the risk that Monsanto, ADM have a lock on future food source is significant and is worth being concerned about. I am pretty sure that they have really good lobbyist and they have gotten some great laws (from there point of view) passed which prevent farmers from making their own seed crops. Monopolies are bad enough, but government assisted monopolies are truly awful.

I wish the opposition to GMO focused on the corporate welfare aspect instead of GMO foods is going to cause your children to have 1 hand and 3 feet variety.

 

[LOL!]

I eat tomatoes and fish at the same time. Thus the tomato DNA and the fish DNA mix in my digestive track. Is that bad for me?

I eat soybeans, rice, and fish at the same time. What does the naturally occurring soybean trypsin inhibitor do to me?

 

[FIRE2022]

GMO Info Website

Here is a great website run by Plant Genetics scientists, professors and undergraduate students. I think it might put your mind at ease regarding the safety of genetically engineered/modified foods.

What scares you about GE foods? « Biofortified

 

[ERD50]

However, any one buying seeds from them must sign agreement that no seeds harvested from GM crops can be saved, sold for further cross-breeding, planting. This doesn't sound encouraging at all, at least to me.

This is straight economics, and many people miss the background on it. I spent some years on a family farm, so I do have a little insight, or just exposure to this stuff.

The background: Prior to GM, corn seed companies sold what are called F1 Hybrid seeds to farmers. F1 hybrids are a cross pollination between two different varieties. The seed produced has a desired mix of traits from the two varieties. However, the seed produced from that plant will not produce a plant like itself (you need the two different varieties as parents), and are often sterile. A mule is an example of an F1 hybrid, with horse & donkey the parents.

So..... the seed companies had a built in protection for their F1 product. If the seeds were saved they would not give the desired results, so farmers did not do that. And the effort required to produce the hybrid seed was better left to the big companies.

Now, GM seed does produce a plant exactly like the parent. So farmers would WANT to save the seed to save money, but the seed companies would go out of business after all their R&D. So if the farmer wants the advantages of GM crops, he signs the agreement. Or he is free to buy F1 hybrid seed, or grow his own (non-GM).


-ERD50

 

[ratto]

I think it is important to differentiate the benefits of genetic modification which I think are huge and probably especially so for poor farmers, from the current business practice of companies like Monsanto regarding GM seeds.

Absolutely. In long term, poor farmers in developing countries probably will be better off with help from GM to boost yields, but without dependencies from big companies like Monsanto.

What scares you about GE foods? « Biofortified

Thanks for the link.

The background: Prior to GM, corn seed companies sold what are called F1 Hybrid seeds to farmers. F1 hybrids are a cross pollination between two different varieties. The seed produced has a desired mix of traits from the two varieties. However, the seed produced from that plant will not produce a plant like itself (you need the two different varieties as parents), and are often sterile.

Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative background information, and I learn something new from this forum everyday. This reminds me of some bush/pole bean and tomato seeds I ordered for my garden which are labeled as hybrid disease resistant.

So if I want to be a self sufficient farmer after I retire, I might even have difficulty to secure some traditional corn seeds then.

 

[grasshopper]

This is an unintended consequence which I haven't thought about. Your point is well taken. Fundamentally, I'm not totally opposing GM. It does reduce pesticide usage and boost crop yields in some cases. I just hope this technology could be treated and adopted more cautiously, further independently analyzed and examined.

Say what, look up Roundup ready soybeans, spray the whole field with a herbicide but the soybean plant survives. Just what I want on my tofu.

 

[ratto]

Say what, look up Roundup ready soybeans, spray the whole field with a herbicide but the soybean plant survives. Just what I want on my tofu.

Hey, I also eat tofu and we probably can only be counted as the minority consuming food directly made out of Roundup ready soybeans. I heard there is a new kind of super weed now which is immune to Roundup. Sigh, a never ending battle.

When I visited Mountain Saint Helen, the tour guide told us that after the volcano eruption, to restore the local forest cover, a lot of herbicide was sprayed from airplanes to kill everything on ground before getting tree saplings down. Personally, I would love to see Roundup ready trees. Well, any decision/action bears unintended consequences, so I'd better to be careful what I wish for.

 

[HFWR]

Without brazillions of acres of mono-culture - corn, wheat, rice, soybeans, we'd have mass starvation, so we're stuck with it, even as we should probably try to increase genetic diversity in food crops.

Anyone who has planted a garden plot knows that weeds and bugs can be difficult to control. Now multiply that by 1000 or 10000 or 100000, and the magnitude of the problem becomes clear.

 

[ERD50]

Say what, look up Roundup ready soybeans, spray the whole field with a herbicide but the soybean plant survives. Just what I want on my tofu.

And what do you think they used before they had GM 'Round-Up Ready' soybeans? I'll leave the research up to you, but I think you'll find that the stuff they used was something with worse effects on the environment than Round-Up.

Round Up (glyphosate) is really pretty benign. I've become more comfortable using it (carefully, in limited amounts) around my house, and yes, even around the fruit trees (you can't get it on the leaves or thin bark, but I'm not spraying anywhere near the top, just around the base, and away from the trunk). It breaks down pretty quickly/easily - never makes it into the root system of the tree.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

So if I want to be a self sufficient farmer after I retire, I might even have difficulty to secure some traditional corn seeds then.

I think you can find some 'heritage' crops that are not F1 hybrids (seed is true to parent), and have very good characteristics. Taste may be exceptional - in the goal to breed F1s with other desirable traits (disease and drought resistance, ripening at one time, shipping tolerance), taste may take a back seat.

Which may make crop and variety rotation even more important, but that's easier to manage on a small farm.

-ERD50

 

[toofrugalformycat]

And what do you think they used before they had GM 'Round-Up Ready' soybeans? I'll leave the research up to you, but I think you'll find that the stuff they used was something with worse effects on the environment than Round-Up.

Round Up (glyphosate) is really pretty benign. I've become more comfortable using it (carefully, in limited amounts) around my house, and yes, even around the fruit trees (you can't get it on the leaves or thin bark, but I'm not spraying anywhere near the top, just around the base, and away from the trunk). It breaks down pretty quickly/easily - never makes it into the root system of the tree.

-ERD50

If you have to use poison on plants on land, glyphosate is reportedly one of the least toxic. In water, it's deadly. Unfortunately, Roundup is more than just glyphosate. Wiki has a good summary.
In large applications it often gets oversprayed into water, or is washed into water. Infertile and mutated frogs and fishes, anyone?
Starting my education as a biologist and lover of fishes and amphibians as well as terrestrial critters including myself and my family, I choose to have a poison-free garden, so there are weeds. If I want contaminated produce, I can get that at the store.
But I do understand that if you're trying to make money growing food, you're going to use poison to make a bigger profit, unless you go to the greater trouble and usually lower profit of going organic.
We humans as a population seem to be reproducing ourselves just fine with GM crops and Roundup. It's the other critters that aren't doing so well.

 

[ERD50]

In water, it's (glyphosate) deadly. Unfortunately, Roundup is more than just glyphosate. Wiki has a good summary.

'Deadly' is a rather imprecise and inflammatory term. Reminds me of the typical level of journalism today, rather than a comment I would expect from someone educated in any field of science, especially biology.

Practically everything is deadly, depending on concentration and application. Without some frame of reference, 'deadly' is almost meaningless.

..., I choose to have a poison-free garden, so there are weeds. If I want contaminated produce, I can get that at the store.

But I do understand that if you're trying to make money growing food, you're going to use poison to make a bigger profit, unless you go to the greater trouble and usually lower profit of going organic.

I'm not sure it's simply a matter of making money - could we even feed our population without some of these technologies? Can the poor afford 'organic'? And I'm sure we've discussed it before, but 'organic' has significant drawbacks too. In some cases, fields are worked, watered to sprout the weeds, then worked again to kill the weeds before planting. All of that uses more fuel and water, there is more erosion, less time for crops to grow, so even more land must be worked to make up the difference, resulting in even more fuel, water use, erosion, etc. It isn't all gravy.

We humans as a population seem to be reproducing ourselves just fine with GM crops and Roundup. It's the other critters that aren't doing so well.

I'm pretty sure that is an allegation, not a fact (but I could be wrong). Any reliable links to confirm actual damage to critters (not lab studies of the possibility of damage)?

-ERD50

 

[kyounge1956]

(snip)
Thanks for sharing this interesting and informative background information, and I learn something new from this forum everyday. This reminds me of some bush/pole bean and tomato seeds I ordered for my garden which are labeled as hybrid disease resistant.

So if I want to be a self sufficient farmer after I retire, I might even have difficulty to secure some traditional corn seeds then.

I think you can find some 'heritage' crops that are not F1 hybrids (seed is true to parent), and have very good characteristics. Taste may be exceptional - in the goal to breed F1s with other desirable traits (disease and drought resistance, ripening at one time, shipping tolerance), taste may take a back seat.

Which may make crop and variety rotation even more important, but that's easier to manage on a small farm.

-ERD50

They are also called "heirloom" or "open pollinated" varieties. There are some specialist seed companies where you can buy them. Also investigate an organization called the Seed Savers' Exchange (that may not be the exact name). There are also books available about how to grow and save your own vegetable (or flower) seed, with selection for the ones that do best in the conditions of your specific garden. I think some of the books may also describe how to develop a new variety of open pollinated vegetable.

 

[toofrugalformycat]

'Deadly' is a rather imprecise and inflammatory term. Reminds me of the typical level of journalism today, rather than a comment I would expect from someone educated in any field of science, especially biology.
...
I'm not sure it's simply a matter of making money - could we even feed our population without some of these technologies? ...

'organic' has significant drawbacks too. In some cases, fields are worked, watered to sprout the weeds, then worked again to kill the weeds before planting. All of that uses more fuel and water...

I'm pretty sure that is an allegation, not a fact (but I could be wrong). Any reliable links to confirm actual damage to critters (not lab studies of the possibility of damage)?

-ERD50

Well, no one would accuse me of being a professional ecologist. I just read Science magazine, and not every issue.
So any aquatic ecologists out there, please do chime in.
I'm pretty sure Monsanto is in the business of making money. Can we feed our population without using this stuff? I do not know.
I'm not a professional organic farmer, either, but I believe the newer no-till methods use much less energy.

As to allegation, not fact, here's just one abstract of a commonly cited author and study:

ESA Online Journals - THE IMPACT OF INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES ON THE BIODIVERSITY AND PRODUCTIVITY OF AQUATIC COMMUNITIES

"...However, Roundup completely eliminated two species of tadpoles and nearly exterminated a third species, resulting in a 70% decline in the species richness of tadpoles"



and a discussion of his study aimed at a lay person (which I pretty much am these days, having ERed 10 years ago)

Common Herbicide Lethal to Wetland Species | Conservation Magazine

"Monsanto also argues that Relyea’s application rate was too high. However, Relyea disagrees, saying that the concentration of Roundup in the meso-cosms was the same as the maximum that other studies have estimated can occur in natural shallow wetlands after application in surrounding areas (3.8 vs. 3.7 milligrams active ingredient per liter). He has since shown that using just one-third as much Roundup can still kill two-fifths of the amphibians."

One reason I'm tuned in to Roundup abuse is that this is happening in my neck of the woods. The Alaska Railroad wants to and has been spraying herbicides on the tracks, rather than use mechanical removal of plants. One of my neighbors allegedly (meaning I haven't seen it but his word is impeccable) has video of the AKRR spraying on streams and bogs along the tracks, in violation of their permit. It would take a lot of careful work for them NOT to violate their permit, because their tracks run along rivers and through wetlands. To hell with the critters, no one will notice, they're in a hurry.

I sound very negative, I know, it's just that every use of poison has positives and negatives. It doesn't mean they should never be used, it's just that I felt the "other side" needed to be represented. I don't mean to be inflammatory. I'm working on that.

 

[ERD50]

... and a discussion of his study aimed at a lay person (which I pretty much am these days, having ERed 10 years ago)

Common Herbicide Lethal to Wetland Species | Conservation Magazine.

Thanks for the links. While it is interesting that he saw these death rates from Round-Up, I really have to wonder about how this relates to real word use. Hopefully, this was just due to editing in the article, but I saw no mention of a control group. I know that when I try to simulate an aquatic environment at home (an aquarium), I don't add any pesticides, and most of my fish still die

And this study was all based on 'simulated aquatic environments' (250 gallon tanks), not a study from actual damage to critters in the wild. I really doubt you can provide a truly balanced ecosystem in a 250 gallon tank. Nature is more complex than that

Relyea simulated wetland ecosystems by collecting plankton, plants, and animals from wetlands in northwestern Pennsylvania and putting them into 1,000-liter cattle tanks at natural densities. The animals included snails, spotted salamanders, and five species of tadpoles as well as beetle and dragonfly larvae. He then treated the mesocosms with four pesticides: two insecticides (carbaryl and malathion) and two herbicides (2,4-D and Roundup), applying them at the manufacturers’ recommended maximum application rates to simulate direct overspray on a wetland. After about two weeks, Relyea assessed how the pesticides had affected the species in the mesocosms.

So he applied the maximum rate for dry land directly to his 'wetland'. As noted, this stuff isn't for use on wetlands. Now, anything can be misused. We can't rule out its use based on that, or we need to eliminate organic farming since we've had e-coli breakouts in organic spinach. But, if the cow manure was handled properly, there would be no problem.


Further, these are tanks - so what he sprayed on there would remain, there would be no dilution. So this would be like spraying an entire wetland, not just having some of the edges sprayed. His study (from what we can tell) doesn't sound very representative of even a misuse of the product.

From your ref (my emph):

"Monsanto also argues that Relyea’s application rate was too high. However, Relyea disagrees, saying that the concentration of Roundup in the meso-cosms was the same as the maximum that other studies have estimated can occur in natural shallow wetlands after application in surrounding areas...

Again, have they ever actually measured these levels in any wetland, anywhere? If so, why not report on those levels? How did they come by these estimates?

I'm certainly not going to defend anyone for (allegedly) misusing the product (the AKRR you mention) - they should follow all the restrictions. But in reality, if there was some over-spray, and it did kill some critters in some of the wetland area near the tracks, isn't that going to be a small, small % of what is in that wetland? I'm not trying to rationalize their alleged misuse, but we have to be realistic. If we have zero tolerance, than neither of us should be alive, we impact the environment - we certainly shouldn't be typing on computers. And there are some forms of RoundUp designed for use near water - does your friend know for a fact that they were not using that type? Also from wiki:

Other glyphosate formulations registered for aquatic use have been found to have negligible adverse effects on sensitive amphibians.

I sound very negative, I know, it's just that every use of poison has positives and negatives. It doesn't mean they should never be used, it's just that I felt the "other side" needed to be represented. I don't mean to be inflammatory. I'm working on that.

Fair enough. I just get on edge when I see negatives piled on something w/o considering the overall net gain/loss, or whether the alternatives are worse.

I'm not a professional organic farmer, either, but I believe the newer no-till methods use much less energy.

No-till (and/or minimal till) is in wide use among non-organic farmers also. So that is a wash. If the organic farmers need to do an extra till to kill the weeds that sprouted, it's still an extra till. No/Low-Till is now the norm here in Corn Country. When I was a kid, we disked (to break up the corn stalks so they would not plug the plow), maybe did a fall plowing, then a spring plowing, then another disking and harrowing (sometimes combined) to make the field smooth enough for the corn planters of the day. Now, they might chisel plow in the fall, and the planters have chisel and disk built in and are designed to plant right through the stubble and all. Fewer trips through the field, much less erosion, and it saves money. Making a profit and reducing the environmental impact are not always mutually exclusive.

-ERD50

 

[toofrugalformycat]

I hadn't read up on this lately. Thanks for prodding me. There is something that can be done - license the better version of Roundup for the U.S.

: Roundup Is Killing Off Amphibians, Ecologist Says
(St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2005)

"In 1993, the EPA renewed its permit for Roundup. It noted that glyphosate itself is not toxic to aquatic life. The problem was with one of its common surfactants, which is toxic. A surfactant is a soapy additive used so glyphosate can stick to and penetrate plants.
In Australia and Europe, Monsanto sells Roundup Biactive, a version with a different surfactant that doesn't harm amphibians.
"Why don't we have the other surfactant?" Relyea asked. "Either it's less effective at killing weeds or it's more expensive to make."
Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer said the surfactant in Roundup Biactive was less effective on North American weeds and also would be subject to a cumbersome EPA approval process."

Oh yeah, and just for those interested in people as well as frogs, here is an article that knocked my socks off. It's not a link because I got it from a library database - maybe your library has a journal archive online too.

Roundup Revelation By: Bonn, Dorothy. Environmental Health Perspectives, Jun2005, Vol. 113 Issue 6, pA403-A404, 2p;

"... exposure of male farmers to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with an increase in miscarriage and premature birth in farm families."

Here's the abstract:
"Abstract The article discusses that researchers at France’s Universite de Caen investigated the effects of the full Roundup formulation and glyphosate alone on cultured human placental cells. The herbicide, they found, killed the cells at concentrations far below those used in agricultural practice. Surprisingly, they also found that Roundup was at least twice as toxic as glyphosate alone. Virtually all previous testing of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than on the full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40 percent The remainder consists of inactive ingredients including adjuvants, chemicals that are added to improve the performance of the active ingredient. Roundup’s main adjuvant is the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine, which helps glyphosate penetrate plant cells.; "

 

[ERD50]

toofrugalformycat, please help me out in decoding this, I'm not sure if I can access that at my library or not (I'll check later):

"... exposure of male farmers to glyphosate-based herbicides was associated with an increase in miscarriage and premature birth in farm families."

Now how does that relate to the following that you quoted (underline mine):

"The article discusses that researchers at France’s Universite de Caen investigated the effects of the full Roundup formulation and glyphosate alone on cultured human placental cells. The herbicide, they found, killed the cells at concentrations far below those used in agricultural practice.

Are they saying that they applied diluted RoundUp (how far below is 'far'?) that farmers would spray on their fields directly to 'cultured human placental cells'? If so, how does that relate to any real world effects of agricultural spraying? Are farmers spraying RoundUp directly into the wombs of pregnant women? If so, they should stop it! I imagine if I applied Jack Daniels to 'cultured human placental cells', there would be problems. Does that mean that a father drinking an occasional JD would harm their unborn children?

Or...

Did they actually do a study on male farmers and miscarriage in their families (controlled against farmers not using RoundUp or using alternative herbicides/procedures)?

Or...

is that Petri dish experiment the 'association' they speak of?

This sounds a lot like your earlier study - no real wetlands looked at, but 250 gallon cattle tanks filled with simulated wetlands, and then sprayed like a corn field. Maybe it tells us something, but does it really tell us what happens in the real world?

Surprisingly, they also found that Roundup was at least twice as toxic as glyphosate alone.

Why would this be 'surprising'? They added surfactants to create a more efficient delivery system. Of course it could be more toxic with the surfactant. If they didn't add a surfactant, farmers would have to use a lot more glyphosate to get the job done, and that might cause even more problems. And I get the sense that the greenies would then accuse Monsanto of eliminating the surfactant as a ploy to sell more glyphosate.

Virtually all previous testing of Roundup for long-term health damage has been done on glyphosate rather than on the full herbicide formulation, of which glyphosate makes up only around 40 percent The remainder consists of inactive ingredients including adjuvants, chemicals that are added to improve the performance of the active ingredient. Roundup’s main adjuvant is the surfactant polyethoxylated tallowamine, which helps glyphosate penetrate plant cells.; "

I can't help but think that if this was turned around, the greenies would be complaining that 'virtually all previous testing of glyphosate for long-term health damage has been done on a form diluted with surfactants rather than on the full strength formulation of glyphosate.'

So, IF the above study on farmer's families is actually a controlled study, I'd be interested. I'd also be interested in what effects the alternative methods have. In the real world, we don't want to eliminate something that creates 0.0X% problems, if the alternative creates more problems.

Don't get me wrong, we should be investigating and questioning and understanding the effects of these things we spray on our crops. But, if it isn't put into context, and compared to other practices, and looked at big-picture-wise, it can lead to bad decisions (like banning DDT which led to needless suffering in malaria stricken areas).

Another bit of perspective. Farming is a dangerous occupation. When a group of old farmers got together, I would notice fingers missing, arms missing. It was common, even among a small group. My own father lost a couple fingers to a farming accident, my uncle almost died from a hayhook that went through his ankle. A friend of mine lost an eye to a hay mower that kicked up a stone. Tractors tipping over kill farmers. I had a tractor come close to tipping over on me, I was lucky. I'll wager that tractor tip-overs have caused more deaths/injuries than pesticide exposure. But the greenies would rather see another pass over a field with a tractor, than to have a 'chemical' sprayed on a field, if some petri-dish study showed that the 'chemical' has some effect on some living thing under some conditions. Gimme a break.

-ERD50

 

[clifp]

t
Another bit of perspective. Farming is a dangerous occupation. When a group of old farmers got together, I would notice fingers missing, arms missing. It was common, even among a small group. My own father lost a couple fingers to a farming accident, my uncle almost died from a hayhook that went through his ankle. A friend of mine lost an eye to a hay mower that kicked up a stone. Tractors tipping over kill farmers. I had a tractor come close to tipping over on me, I was lucky. I'll wager that tractor tip-overs have caused more deaths/injuries than pesticide exposure. But the greenies would rather see another pass over a field with a tractor, than to have a 'chemical' sprayed on a field, if some petri-dish study showed that the 'chemical' has some effect on some living thing under some conditions. Gimme a break.

-ERD50

Interesting discussion (as I aside I would have never guess that ERD was raised a farm). I do think it is always really important to look at the big picture when doing risk assessment. As ERD say farming is a very dangerous occupation #4 in the US with 42 farmers dying on the job per 100,000 farmers, twice the rate of cops.

I'd also point while I haven't seen any hard data, most of the recent E coli outbreaks have been from organic farms in Europe in June, or pesticide free farms in the case of the Colorado cantaloupes.

I'll take my chances with cancer rather die of an E. Coli infection from untreated agricultural products.

 

[toofrugalformycat]

toofrugalformycat, please help me out in decoding this, I'm not sure if I can access that at my library or not (I'll check later):
...
Did they actually do a study on male farmers and miscarriage in their families (controlled against farmers not using RoundUp or using alternative herbicides/procedures)?
This sounds a lot like your earlier study - no real wetlands looked at, but 250 gallon cattle tanks filled with simulated wetlands, and then sprayed like a corn field. Maybe it tells us something, but does it really tell us what happens in the real world?

Why would this be 'surprising'? They added surfactants to create a more efficient delivery system. Of course it could be more toxic with the surfactant. If they didn't add a surfactant, farmers would have to use a lot more glyphosate to get the job done, and that might cause even more problems. And I get the sense that the greenies would then accuse Monsanto of eliminating the surfactant as a ploy to sell more glyphosate.

I can't help but think that if this was turned around, the greenies would be complaining that 'virtually all previous testing of glyphosate for long-term health damage has been done on a form diluted with surfactants rather than on the full strength formulation of glyphosate.'

Another bit of perspective. Farming is a dangerous occupation. When a group of old farmers got together, I would notice fingers missing, arms missing. It was common, even among a small group. My own father lost a couple fingers to a farming accident, my uncle almost died from a hayhook that went through his ankle. A friend of mine lost an eye to a hay mower that kicked up a stone. Tractors tipping over kill farmers. I had a tractor come close to tipping over on me, I was lucky. I'll wager that tractor tip-overs have caused more deaths/injuries than pesticide exposure. But the greenies would rather see another pass over a field with a tractor, than to have a 'chemical' sprayed on a field, if some petri-dish study showed that the 'chemical' has some effect on some living thing under some conditions. Gimme a break.

-ERD50

ERD50, I'm just doing a quickie search on the Internet this evening, because I remembered reading in the past of the global die-off of amphibians, and some (probably not the majority) of their deaths caused by man-made pollutants including herbicides, and also because the AKRR has tried in the past to use Roundup and other herbicides.

I'll try to answer your questions, but really, I'm not going to produce an authoritative verdict in one evening, even if I had the credentials to do so, which I do not.

I just find it fascinating that it's apparently not the glyphosate in Roundup that is the worst problem, it's the surfactant, and we use a more toxic surfactant than other countries do. That was news to me. Don't you find that interesting and peculiar and disturbing? We could have our Roundup without the toxicity to critters, if we lived somewhere else?

That particular issue,
Environmental Health Perspectives, Jun2005, Vol. 113 Issue 6,
has several articles and letters regarding Roundup, including letters arguing back an forth about its toxicity. I'm sure there have been many studies before and since then.

The human reproductive study mentioned in the article is from the paper
Savitz D A, Arbuckle T, ... 1997. Male pesticide exposure and pregnancy outcome. Am J Epidemiol 146:1025-1036.

I don't have my hands on that paper.

I don't know why you are completely skeptical of any and all knowledge gained in laboratory work, but believe me, that's not MY problem.

I'm glad you can get together with groups of old farmers. I'm sorry you've lost friends farm accidents, that's horrible. I haven't lost any that way. Many of my farmer friends and relatives died young, of cancer. But apparently probably not cancer caused by Roundup, because it seems to be more of an endocrine disruptor rather than a carcinogen, from my limited reading tonight. Of the others, most lived, or are still living, into their 80's and 90's, bless'm.

But because you've created an imaginary group called "the greenies" of everyone who disagrees with you, and "the greenies" are out to harm farmers, I somehow don't think you're really interested in entertaining any new ideas, so I'm finished with this thread.

And I'm writing my Congressman about Roundup and adjuvants.

 

[ERD50]

I'll try to answer your questions, but really, I'm not going to produce an authoritative verdict in one evening, even if I had the credentials to do so, which I do not.

And of course, I'm in the same position. I'm actually not that interested in debating these fine points of one study versus the other. Even if we both had the proper credentials and time and motivation, we might disagree on what they mean.

My larger point is, one should not look at these issues in such isolation. The effect of the alternatives and the 'big-picture' must be considered, including 'unintended consequences'. Doesn't an extra watering and tilling of an 'organic' field kill some frogs/critters (yes)? What about the diesel fumes from those tractors and irrigation pumps? I could quote studies about diesel fumes, right? The proper question is not, 'is it possible that xyz might do some harm?', the proper question is, 'if there is significant harm, can we find a less harmful method for the stuff we need to do?' and 'does the good outweigh the harm?'

It is this perspective that I find lacking in your posts.

I just find it fascinating that it's apparently not the glyphosate in Roundup that is the worst problem, it's the surfactant, and we use a more toxic surfactant than other countries do. That was news to me. Don't you find that interesting and peculiar and disturbing? We could have our Roundup without the toxicity to critters, if we lived somewhere else?

Well, I'd need to read those studies in more detail, and probably know the history better to comment on that. But in general, sure, if we find better/safer stuff, we ought to use it. It appears to me that RoundUp is better/safer than what was used in the past. Not perfect, but better.

Also (sorry, can't find the link at the moment), I read that one of the reasons we don't have that alleged safer surfactant is that it was developed later on, and it is simply too burdensome to go through EPA approval again for a new formulation - so there's another example of 'unintended consequences'. The EPA bureaucracy intended to keep us safe, may actually be keeping safer alternatives from us. If the real-world difference really is so great, the EPA should be proactive on the matter. Personally, I'd rather see the effort go towards farm safety standards - I think we'd see more tangible benefit from that, if done properly.

I don't know why you are completely skeptical of any and all knowledge gained in laboratory work, but believe me, that's not MY problem.

I'm skeptical of everything - I think we need to be. But as I said earlier, that's not really my issue, my issue is looking at the 'big-picture'.

I'm glad you can get together with groups of old farmers. I'm sorry you've lost friends farm accidents, that's horrible. I haven't lost any that way. Many of my farmer friends and relatives died young, of cancer. But apparently probably not cancer caused by Roundup, because it seems to be more of an endocrine disruptor rather than a carcinogen, from my limited reading tonight. Of the others, most lived, or are still living, into their 80's and 90's, bless'm.

I was not intending my stories to form any sort of anecdotal evidence, but merely to highlight the fact that farming is demonstrably dangerous (see clifp's #'s, I assume from the BLS), and provide a little 'color' to a discussion filled with references to dry reports. We don't need to go to a laboratory and create a scenario to see that farming is dangerous and draw implications from that. We have hard, cold numbers and facts. We have hard, cold limbs and bodies. We need to consider those dangers compared to these somewhat theoretical and largely implied risks from some of these pesticides.

OK, one more dry fact/figure (from wiki, bold/UL mine):

For example, if hospitalization were used as a measure of the severity of pesticide related incidents, then glyphosate would be considered relatively safe, since, over a 13-year period in California, none of the 515 pesticide-related hospitalizations recorded were attributed to glyphosate.[45]

So in relative terms (all that really matters), that sounds pretty good to me.

But because you've created an imaginary group called "the greenies" of everyone who disagrees with you, and "the greenies" are out to harm farmers, I somehow don't think you're really interested in entertaining any new ideas, so I'm finished with this thread.

I actually did hesitate to use that term, fearing it would be taken as inflammatory - but really, how many words should I have added to an already overly-long post to try to convey what I meant by that term? I think it was pretty clear - I use 'greenies' to describe good intentioned people, who are more interested in the perception of environmentalism and feel-good actions than they are in actual results. I'm open to suggestions for a better term, if you'll consider a different term for 'greedy capitalists' and the like - deal? And I didn't imply any of the things you attribute to the term.

I don't think 'greenies' are 'out to harm farmers', but if their actions harm them, it's a distinction w/o a difference. I'm not disagreeing with 'greenies', it is the 'greenies' that are often in disagreement with reality, you can keep me out of it. I can't fathom how you could characterize me as 'not really interested in entertaining any new ideas', I absolutely love to entertain new ideas, it's a geeky hobby of mine. To use your words, I suspect that it is you who describes everyone who disagrees with you as 'not really interested in entertaining any new ideas'.

And I'm writing my Congressman about Roundup and adjuvants.

As is your prerogative. I hope your Congressman is or has biologists on staff. And statisticians. And will look at the pros/cons of alternatives.

so I'm finished with this thread.

I hope you learned something! I did!

-ERD50