GM crops

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
They are made to take baths in the chemical herbicide that is so dangerous for human consumption

I just happen to be highly qualified in this field (distinctions in C&G horticulture, chemistry, and several relevant science university qualification) and have studied the science of agrochemicals and I can tell you with absolute certainly and scientific authority that the chemical glyphosate, which is the active ingredient of roundup herbicide, is of such low toxicity in mammals that it can be said to be almost 'none toxic' when diluted, which it always is before spraying. Roundup itself is more toxic but that is only because it not only contains glyphosate but what is called a 'wetting agent' (needed to help the chemical to get absorbed into the leaf) consisting of a detergent which, just like your everyday detergent that you use to wash dishes, is many times more toxic than glyphosate. Glyphosate would only cause you a big problem if you drank something like a whole cup full in concentrated form as it has about the same toxicity as common table salt in concentrated form. Note that it is never sprayed in concentrated form but massively diluted and virtually impossible to absorb a dangerous dose under natural conditions. In the tiny traces we consume in our food, it would have absolutely no measurable biological effect and, contrary to the hysterical propaganda from some, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that it could cause cancer. It is also biodegradable and quite rightly considered by the well educated in the field, to be, both to people that stray it and to the consumer and to the environment, one of the most safest chemicals for agricultural use.

The environmental movement has been hijack by crazed lunatics who don't really care about the environment but rather just have purely political agenda and have constantly been using Monsanto as their object of hatred and have constantly been dishing out loads of propaganda and lies against Monsanto and they also tell loads of lies about how dangerous roundup is even though is pretty safe. You must never trust anything said against Monsanto or roundup because such talk is invariably coming from their lying mouths.

https://www.biofortified.org/2013/10/glyphosate-toxic/
"...
Of course glyphosate is toxic! It is a herbicide after all – the whole point of glyphosate (G for short in this post) is to kill unwanted plants. Like all chemicals, including water and salt, G is going to be toxic to animals (including humans) at some dose. Compared to other herbicides, though, G is a pretty safe option for killing weeds. Don’t take my word for it, check out the Glyphosate Technical Fact Sheet from the National Pesticide Information Center at Oregon State. G’s relative safety is one reason why it’s become so popular.

One interesting use of G is to dry wheat before harvest. To help reduce levels of toxic fusarium fungus on wheat, it is good to harvest the wheat as early as possible but you can’t harvest it until it’s dry. So G is used to dry (aka kill) the wheat plants so the grain can be harvested. As long as the G is sprayed after the plants have fully matured, the G won’t be moved from the plant into the seeds. Here, G is actually helping farmers prevent a legitimately scary toxin from getting into the food supply.
..."
-so glyphosate can actually be used to INCREASE how safe and healthy our food is to eat!

+ you should ignore all the many scare stories constantly going around about GM, because that is all they are, just stupid hysterical scare stories with NO scientific or rational bases whatsoever.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Scotland has been producing the best oats and barley for centuries. There is no necessity to introduce genetically modified crops ......

You might want to learn a little more about barley in Scotland as you seem to be under the delusion that there is one variety of Scotish barley that is perfect and has been grown for centuries.
Here is a database of Scottish barley varieties:
http://barley.agricrops.org/
637 varieties!

According to this article:
https://www.sasa.gov.uk/plant-variety-testing/scottish-landraces
Most traditional varieties in Scotland have been replaced by more recently bred varieties.

Clearly your Scottish farmers did believe there was a necessity to introduce new varieties.

I do not know all the political reasons for anti-GM sentiment in Scotland, but in most of Europe and Africa it is all about trying to prevent cheap US food from being imported. Its basically a farm subsidy fight. The US and Europe subsidise their farmers causing them to grow far too much food which is then very cheap and can be exported. Any country importing such food destroys their own agricultural industry. So, Europe and Africa think up ways to try and stop imports of food.

We have a similar situation in Zambia with regards to eggs. The farmers in Zimbabwe are subsidised making their eggs cheaper. So Zambian farmers get together and convince the government to ban imports of eggs based on claims about diseases. Similarly Zambia has rejected GMOs so that they can prevent the US from sending them cheap food which damages the local agriculture.

There is also the fact that whenever there is something that seems like a controversy, there will be people who use the scare stories to make money off it. I note the scientist quoted earlier in the thread was going around giving lectures about roundup without having done the science to back it up. Essentially making money off it.
The same applies to the media. '50% of people will have autism' makes for a great headline even if it is total nonsense. The media will do anything for a great headline.

Also interesting reading:
https://www.biofortified.org/2016/10/norway-became-anti-gmo-powerhouse/

Originally posted by humy
I just happen to be highly qualified in this field (distinctions in C&G horticulture, chemistry, and several relevant science university qualification) and have studied the science of agrochemicals and I can tell you with absolute certainly and scientific authority that the chemical glyphosate, which is the active ingredient of roundup herbicide, is of such low ...[text shortened]... they are, just stupid hysterical scare stories with NO scientific or rational bases whatsoever.

While I appreciate your concern and your expertise in these matters scientific opinions on glyphosate are conflicting. You can see this from the references that have been provided. Now you are an expert and are at liberty to state that this is baseless but I am not and must of necessity try to be as objective as I can be by assimilating arguments and opinions from both perspectives. Nor do I think that its reasonable to attribute this opposition entirely to lying scheming environmentalists with a personal vendetta against Monsanto. The subject is multi faceted, complex, studies conflicting and field studies scant. From what I have read about glyphosate it has a half life of about 47 days and is bio-degradable. Whether or not it has any measurable biological effect I think remains to be seen and its very difficult to get any kind of objective report because both sides have loaded canons.

Just out of interest if I added washing up liquid to my weed killer would it act like a wetting agent and help the chemicals be absorbed into the leaf? If you can find a solution to persistent weeds like 'mares tail', also called 'horsetail' (Equisetum arvense) you could make a lot of money. 😀

Originally posted by twhitehead
You might want to learn a little more about barley in Scotland as you seem to be under the delusion that there is one variety of Scotish barley that is perfect and has been grown for centuries.
Here is a database of Scottish barley varieties:
http://barley.agricrops.org/
637 varieties!

According to this article:
https://www.sasa.gov.uk/plant-variet ...[text shortened]... a great headline even if it is total nonsense. The media will do anything for a great headline.

citing that there are many varieties does not negate the fact that we have been successfully growing awesome barley here for centuries and its illogical to think that it does. Please check your variations prior to posting. Furthermore me grow early ripening barley (Golden promise which takes advantage of the rather dank Scottish climate) chosen not because of its alleged efficiency or its resistance to herbicides but for its flavour. Please note that this example effectively negates the ludicrous idea that we have resisted GMO's because of ignorance and political reasons.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Also interesting reading:
https://www.biofortified.org/2016/10/norway-became-anti-gmo-powerhouse/

vewy intwesting Meester Bond

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
citing that there are many varieties does not negate the fact that we have been successfully growing awesome barley here for centuries and its illogical to think that it does.

I didn't even suggest that it does.

Please check your variations prior to posting.
Please read my posts prior to responding.

Please note that this example effectively negates the ludicrous idea that we have resisted GMO's because of ignorance and political reasons.
It does no such thing. You have resisted GMOs precisely because of ignorance and political reasons. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
One part of that ignorance is what you have demonstrated in this post - you don't realise that a GMO is made from an existing variety, so it would be perfectly possible to take a variety suited to Scotland and add extra features to it that would make it even better. Simply pretending that you have the best barley breed possible therefore you don't need anything better just demonstrates your political bias.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I didn't even suggest that it does.

[b]Please check your variations prior to posting.
Please read my posts prior to responding.

Please note that this example effectively negates the ludicrous idea that we have resisted GMO's because of ignorance and political reasons.
It does no such thing. You have resisted GMOs precisely because of i ...[text shortened]... y breed possible therefore you don't need anything better just demonstrates your political bias.[/b]

what complete rubbish, we have resisted them because we have no need of them, we already grow the tastiest barley in the world. Are GMO's grown for their taste, no? well point proven, read it and weep!

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_5_environmental_impacts_glyphosate.pdf

No genetically modified (GM) herbicide resistant crops have yet been authorised for commercial production in the European Union, but there are currently 14 GM glyphosate resistant crops awaiting approval for cultivation. 10 of these are for GM maize varieties, as well as cotton, sugar beet and soybeans. Monsanto claims that if these GM crops are approved, there will be a reduction in pesticide use iv. But based on what has happened in the United States since the introduction of GM crops, it has been predicted that the introduction of GM glyphosate resistant sugar beet, maize and soybean in the European Union could lead to an 800% increase in glyphosate use by 2025, with overall herbicide use going up by 72% compared to current levels v

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what complete rubbish, we have resisted them because we have no need of them, we already grow the tastiest barley in the world. Are GMO's grown for their taste, no? well point proven, read it and weep!

As I said, politically biased. I wonder why. Whats in it for you?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
But based on what has happened in the United States since the introduction of GM crops, it has been predicted that the introduction of GM glyphosate resistant sugar beet, maize and soybean in the European Union could lead to an 800% increase in glyphosate use by 2025, with overall herbicide use going up by 72% compared to current levels v

Yet when I look up the reference, I discover that:
a) it was research specifically arranged by Green Peace.
b) The report does not match the claim. The report actually says use of other herbicides will fall relative to the case where GM crops are not approved.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As I said, politically biased. I wonder why. Whats in it for you?

unsubstantiated twaddle.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet when I look up the reference, I discover that:
a) it was research specifically arranged by Green Peace.
b) The report does not match the claim. The report actually says use of other herbicides will fall relative to the case where GM crops are not approved.

1. I am not interested in who commissions reports. I am interested in the content of the report, whether the ideas can be scientifically substantiated. It makes no difference who commissions the report if the science is solid.

The report is claiming that Monsantos claim that the use of pesticides will be reduced if GMO's are introduced is false because this has not in fact happened in the United states. Whether it is true or not I cannot say, but there is definitely conflicting perspectives.

I am basically against mass farming because it does in my opinion produce inferior tasting crops. Taste has been sacrificed for profit. One only needs to taste a home grown tomato to realise that those tasteless red things they sell in supermarkets are inferior in every way. They do not smell like tomatoes, they do not taste like tomatoes and the only solution for a consumer like me is to grow my own food if I want tasty fruit and vegetables.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It makes no difference who commissions the report if the science is solid.

You don't seem interested in knowing whether the science is solid either.

The report is claiming that Monsantos claim that the use of pesticides will be reduced if GMO's are introduced is false because this has not in fact happened in the United states. Whether it is true or not I cannot say, but there is definitely conflicting perspectives.
Of course you can find conflicting perspectives because GMOs are so politically charged. Why don't you dig deeper and see whether the report is backed up by anything? What does the report use as a reference?

I am basically against mass farming because it does in my opinion produce inferior tasting crops. Taste has been sacrificed for profit.
That is only true in some cases, not all. Further, mass farming is an absolute necessity to feed the world.

One only needs to taste a home grown tomato to realise that those tasteless red things they sell in supermarkets are inferior in every way.
That is not because of mass farming. That is because of picky consumers.

They do not smell like tomatoes, they do not taste like tomatoes and the only solution for a consumer like me is to grow my own food if I want tasty fruit and vegetables.
Well and good. What does this have to do with GMOs again? Its almost as if you just said that because you don't like the taste of shop bought tomatoes, the scientific evidence for the use of herbicides is more against GMOs than if you liked the taste of shop tomatoes.

The real question is whether or not you would buy tomatoes in a shop if:
1. They didn't look absolutely perfect at the expense of taste.
2. They cost more.

The reality is that although people are willing to pay a bit more for 'organic produce' the farmers got clever and turned it into a whole marketing scheme but are often not actually selling you better products.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
While I appreciate your concern and your expertise in these matters scientific opinions on glyphosate are conflicting. You can see this from the references that have been provided. Now you are an expert and are at liberty to state that this is baseless but I am not and must of necessity try to be as objective as I can be by assimilating arguments a ...[text shortened]... like 'mares tail', also called 'horsetail' (Equisetum arvense) you could make a lot of money. 😀

While I appreciate your concern and your expertise in these matters scientific opinions on glyphosate are conflicting.

They are not conflicting amongst the scientists that study these things, only conflicting amongst the ignorant (or sometimes lying) paranoid morons that know NOTHING about science and have absolutely NO IDEA what they are talking about.

You can see this from the references that have been provided.

No doubt from the same ignorant paranoid morons that know NOTHING about science that I just spoke of above.

Now you are an expert and are at liberty to state that this is baseless but I am not and must of necessity try to be as objective as I can be by assimilating arguments and opinions from both perspectives.

No, you mustn't try and assimilating arguments and opinions from "both perspectives" since one perspective is from ignorant (or sometimes lying) paranoid morons that know NOTHING about science and the other perspective is from the perspective of the science and experts, like myself, that know about the science; you should ONLY try and assimilate arguments, which are NOT mere 'opinions' but based purely on the known EVIDENCE, from the experts.

Nor do I think that its reasonable to attribute this opposition entirely to lying scheming environmentalists with a personal vendetta against Monsanto.

I didn't attribute this opposition "entirely" on that but, nevertheless, much albeit not all of it is and the rest is just non-expert opinion. Don't listen to the non-expert opinion but listen to the real experts.

The subject is multi faceted, complex, studies conflicting and field studies scant.

None of that is true. The effects of these chemicals has been well researched and has given consistent results; those results being simply been ignored by many of the non-experts.

Whether or not it has any measurable biological effect I think remains to be seen

Then you are wrong, it doesn't "remains to be seen" but has been long shown by science to be pretty safe.

Just out of interest if I added washing up liquid to my weed killer would it act like a wetting agent and help the chemicals be absorbed into the leaf?

Yes.
But many if not most modern weed killers as well as many/most pesticides already have wetting agents incorporated into them.

If you can find a solution to persistent weeds like 'mares tail', also called 'horsetail'

Here is a tip;
I find the best way to deal with horsetail is to dig deep (~ 2 feet) with a spade, NOT a folk, to sever the deep roots; don't know why but for some reason horsetail, unlike most other weeds, readily succumbs to its deep root being cut. I also find, if you make the mistake of dig with a folk rather than a spade where there is loads of horsetail, it not only fails to kill off the horsetail but strangely seems to somehow actually make the problem much worse with it growing back more vigorously; trust me; I have had ~30 years experience with this.
I have never tried herbicides on horsetail so don't know how effective that can be.