Log In | Register
CURIOUSG
Always curious, always wondering...
Articles Posted: 5; Links Seeded: 89
Member Since: 8/2006Last Seen: 2/09/2010
Member Since: 8/2006Last Seen: 2/09/2010
7 Votes
21 Comments
Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years
News Type: Event — Seeded on Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:26 PM EST
Article Source: organic-center.orgadvertisement
Genetically-engineered corn, soybeans, and cotton now account for the majority of acres planted to these three crops. A model was developed that utilizes official, U.S. Department of Agriculture pesticide use data to estimate the differences in the average pounds of pesticides applied on GE crop acres, compared to acres planted to conventional, non-GE varieties.
The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait.
GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds.
Published to:
- CuriousG's Column, All of Newsvine
- Groups: GMO Vine, Organic Life, Permaculture
- Regions: Denver
- Public Discussion (21)
- GMO Vine
- Organic Life
- Permaculture
What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user
has on the current conversation.
The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd
row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera).
Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group
is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the
left, in their corresponding group.
Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the
number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative
one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their
relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
47
8.9
{"commentId":10753638,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
Here are the links to the actual report (PDFs):
{"commentId":10753638,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 4 votes
#1 - Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:29 PM EST{"commentId":10753822,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
Some key findings from the report:
Farmers planted 941 million acres of GE HT corn, soybeans,
and cotton from 1996 through 2008. HT soybeans
accounted for two-thirds of these acres.Bt corn and cotton were grown on 357 million acres, with
corn accounting for 79% of these acres.The 318.4 million pound increase represents, on average, an
additional 0.25 pound of pesticide active ingredient for every
GE trait acre planted over the fi rst 13 years of commercial use.Recently herbicide use on GE acres has veered sharply
upward. Crop years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46% of
the increase in herbicide use over 13 years across the three
HT crops. Herbicide use on HT crops rose a remarkable
31.4% from 2007 to 2008.GE crops reduced overall pesticide use in the first three
years of commercial introduction (1996-1998) by 1.2%,
2.3%, and 2.3% per year, but increased pesticide use by
20% in 2007 and by 27% in 2008.
So, the promoted benefits of reduced pesticide use with GE crops did prove marginally correct during the first 3 years, but have shown to have been detrimental in reducing overall pesticide use.
{"commentId":10753822,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 4 votes
#2 - Wed Nov 18, 2009 2:35 PM EST{"commentId":10826144,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Sorry to get here so late and I don't know how I missed it. Who am I kidding, life gets in the way and I miss so much that I want to do and more that I was supposed to do. Glad I'm here now, but its too late to read it all so I'll bookmark and come back when more of the old brain cells are up to working with me!
{"commentId":10826144,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 4 votes
#3 - Sun Nov 22, 2009 1:06 AM EST{"commentId":10828727,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
I'm just surprised our friend PR hasn't leapt on this with some sideways attack and support of his friends.
{"commentId":10828727,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10831388,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Watching the votes that appear on PR's comments, especially in my column where there are little read pieces, its clear to me that PR uses multiple user names. Funny thing happened a few days ago after calling it out in a string of PR comments with two instant votes, suddenly the last just had one. It's the weekend so there's probably overtime and you should expect a visit later on.
I wouldn't mind if there were some legitimate discussion but being hunted and harassed is a waste of time and energy and frankly it makes me wonder how the endless CoH violations aren't ever addressed by staff. Kinda makes it seem like a corporate connection, but who knows.
{"commentId":10831388,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10834637,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
Haven't noticed other votes or suspected multiple accounts, but I just find it very interesting that he pretty much relegates his time as PR dismissing anything that puts industrial farming in a bad light.
No one as good as he is at re-framing any GE/GMO related issue in favor of industry can be as unaffiliated as he claims to be. If he doesn't work for one of the big industrial ag companies, I suspect he works for a PR firm.
{"commentId":10834637,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10838861,"authorDomain":"depantzd"}
{"commentId":10838940,"authorDomain":"rochart"}
So the therapy is not going well?
{"commentId":10838940,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"rochart"}
- 3 votes
{"commentId":10839130,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
I'm sorry you got dizzy trying to keep up with their explanation for the data.
And, last I heard extrapolating data isn't the same as making it up. There are reasonableness tests one can apply, so have at it. Which of their numbers are outrageously out of line?
Oh well, you get what you pay for, usually. In this case Benbrook Consulting took your money and shoved this silly excuse for a report deep where the sun don't shine.
Why must you always resort to these crass comments? Can't your (lack of) 'evidence' stand on it's own?
Your generalizations are right in line with the pesticide industry claims that this stuff is harmless.
All of Benbrook's sources and methodologies are footnoted, which is far more than we can say about Monsanto's food safety research. Oh, wait, there isn't any!
{"commentId":10839130,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10847983,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Publius...Not so remarkable, really, if you read page 17 of the report where Benbrook explains that there is no NASS data at all for cotton in 2008 (none for soybeans since 2005 and none for corn since 2004).
Pretty impressive and timely facts at your fingertips there Publius and yet you aren't tied to industry and you can't produce human health studies. Hmmm?
The bigger question here is why there are huge gaps in basic data recording?
We know the USDA has grandma's teeth that go on the shelf when agribusiness knocks at the door, but really are we supposed to let some annual figures get dropped so any unfavorable findings can be summarily dismissed as lacking? Heck of a plan.
Then pages 18 and 19 gently run the reader in circles explaining how the data for the missing years was made up. Probably just sheer coincidence that's when the charts "veered sharply upward", eh?
In statistics and trend data it's not uncommon to extrapolate within a range and explain the parameters used to establish some value where circumstances have left a gap. If you want to pretend to be Joe Science guy for a moment you'll see how clueless that bit of spin makes you sound.
Andrew Kimbrell did a great piece about this at Huffington Post. He explains the report, issues and arguments far better than I and unlike the comments by Publius, Kimbrell cites fact.
It turns out that far from reducing pesticides, GM crops are a major reason for the massive expansion of pesticide use in recent years. This should not be a surprise.
The majority of GE crops are "Roundup Ready," designed to survive heavy and repeated spraying with Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller. Roundup Ready crops have dramatically increased Roundup use, and spawned a growing epidemic of Roundup-resistant weeds, which now infest millions of acres of American cropland. Killing resistant weeds requires more herbicides.
How much more? Dr. Benbrook's study - based on official USDA data - shows that GE crops have increased the overall use of weedkillers in the U.S. by a massive 383 million pounds since 1996.
Even if there are two crops in two years that are scrubbed from the total Publius, how much will it reduce the total added volume of 383 million pounds of the total %$#@ used?
{"commentId":10847983,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10852254,"authorDomain":"depantzd"}
{"commentId":10856292,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
PR,
First of all, I didn't pay for this study.
Second, you didn't answer my question. Which of their numbers are outrageously out of line?
I absolutely understand the potential problem with extrapolating data, though I believe (and have no first hand knowledge) Benbrook wanted to bring the data as up-to-date as possible, and wasn't trying to deceive anyone as you were quickly able to find a way to attach the methodology when not able to attack the data.
My 'smart' comments are in response to the tone of your comments. Please, if you're going to take the time to read all of this research (only because of your personal interest), counter with facts and not innuendo.
So, in the name of science, which of his numbers are out of line? Because some of his numbers were extrapolated, is everything else false? Please point out the specific errors instead of your usual generalizations regarding conspiracies. The reality is, I believe this crap Monsanto and others have foisted on the world are harming us in ways we don't know. Why do you continue to resist providing the evidence of safety that Pamela continues to ask for?
You're obviously intelligent, interested, and knowledgeable about this subject. So, stop your adolescent dismissals and help us all with a real discussion.
{"commentId":10856292,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 6 votes
{"commentId":10858181,"authorDomain":"depantzd"}
{"commentId":10858829,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
And, you continue to annoy and persist in perpetuating the fraud of the industrial food manufacturers.
I'll ask again, where is the science demonstrating the human safety of GE crops?
{"commentId":10858829,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10862044,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
I'll ask again, where is the science demonstrating the human safety of GE crops?
Funny, with all the bravado and bluster and berating Publius lays down in the comment threads, we still can't get a link to anything that shows biotech bothered to find out if it was safe to eat.
{"commentId":10862044,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10830017,"authorDomain":"rochart"}
Good job CG.
{"commentId":10830017,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"rochart"}
- 6 votes
#4 - Sun Nov 22, 2009 11:11 AM EST{"commentId":10883051,"authorDomain":"swamijim-1"}
Quoting PR from comment 3.10--
...faithful to the available data (and he did select reasonably good datasets to work with) it turns out that he had demonstrated his point by the time he charts through year 2004. All very reasonable and defensible...
But that than actually acknowledge that the study does raise legitimate questions, we are led to focus on the extrapolated data after the case was proven, and then maintain that this invalidates the preceding results?? Very clever deflection effort... the first 9 or 10 years demonstrate there is a problem and a cause for concern, but picking holes in the 3 or 4 years after the point was already made allows dismissal of the entire study. Anyone for tossing the baby out with the bathwater here?
{"commentId":10883051,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"swamijim-1"}
- 5 votes
#5 - Tue Nov 24, 2009 11:54 PM EST{"commentId":10884467,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
Thanks for taking the time to point this out.
{"commentId":10884467,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 4 votes
{"commentId":10884858,"authorDomain":"depantzd"}
{"commentId":10887015,"authorDomain":"curiousg"}
Interesting that insecticide and herbicide volumes do, indeed, appear to increase, and at believable rates.
No "cause for concern", yet
Same data, different conclusions, then.
The larger part ofhisyour text, being composed of speculation and various redundant anti-GMOOrganic cliches intentionally identifiesthis piece your comments as just another twisted, agenda-driven screed.
Way to raise the level of debate, dufus.
{"commentId":10887015,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"curiousg"}
- 5 votes
{"commentId":10904051,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
Publius... It seems you all must jump to preposterous conclusions. You must distort and stretch an interesting trend to imply some predetermined sinister "result". You already have the lynch mob milling about brandishing the rope. Intentionally sensationalized and repulsive to any clear thinking person.
More attacks on the critics and yet no science to support your claims of safety. Where is the science and facts facts you have to show that these are safe to eat Publius?
You talk a big game about science, where is it? What science can a "thinking person" look at to see the gmo safety?
{"commentId":10904051,"threadId":"727495","contentId":"3516413","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}
- 5 votes
{"canLink":false,"threadId":"727495","isPrivate":false}
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
Start Tracking
Stop TrackingCOMPANY STUFF:
LEGAL STUFF:
- © 2005-2010 Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
- Newsvine is a property of
