GM crops

Originally posted by humy

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 ...[text shortened]... with this.
I have never tried herbicides on horsetail so don't know how effective that can be.

Ok it seems that you feel rather strongly about the issue and I don't want to incur your wrath unnecessarily. I will continue to do my own research into both sides of the argument so as to be better informed. As for the old horsetail, I have a paved driveway from the gate up the entire side of the house and digging is impossible and the weed killer that I used did contain glyphosate but had little effect on the old horsetail, sadly.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Ok it seems that you feel rather strongly about the issue and I don't want to incur your wrath unnecessarily. I will continue to do my own research into both sides of the argument so as to be better informed. As for the old horsetail, I have a paved driveway from the gate up the entire side of the house and digging is impossible and the weed killer that I used did contain glyphosate but had little effect on the old horsetail, sadly.

There's no need for you to "do research" - informed people are here to tell you the GM scare is bollocks and if you are concerned about what's in your food you should instead look at things like sugar and salt content which are overwhelmingly more likely to negatively impact your health.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I will continue to do my own research into both sides of the argument so as to be better informed.

You don't get 'better informed' by reading both sides of the argument. You get better informed by learning from those who actually know what they are talking about - the scientists. Searching on the internet for 'both sides' will just flood you with misinformation from deliberately crafted misinformation campaigns.

I suspect however from your behaviour so far that you have no actual interest in being informed, but rather are looking for some excuse to blame GM crops for something.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
There's no need for you to "do research" - informed people are here to tell you the GM scare is bollocks and if you are concerned about what's in your food you should instead look at things like sugar and salt content which are overwhelmingly more likely to negatively impact your health.

I respectfully disagree.

GM crops are not produced with the consumer in mind. They are produced to maximise profits for seed and chemical companies. Furthermore its nothing more than a blatant attempt to control and license basic foodstuffs once again for nothing more than profit.

I reject you and everyone else here who has stated that those who oppose them are ignorant and have an ulterior motive for in many cases those who have opposed them are deeply concerned about the environmental impact of them and have taken up studies in an attempt to gain a better understanding of that environmental impact. To dismiss this is unscientific and quite frankly rather disturbing.

I suggest that you read this and try to be more open minded in your approach.

Genetically engineered crops and pesticide use in U.S. maize and soybeans

The widespread adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops has clearly led to changes in pesticide use, but the nature and extent of these impacts remain open questions. We study this issue with a unique, large, and representative sample of plot-level choices made by U.S. maize and soybean farmers from 1998 to 2011. On average, adopters of GE glyphosate-tolerant (GT) soybeans used 28% (0.30 kg/ha) more herbicide than nonadopters, adopters of GT maize used 1.2% (0.03 kg/ha) less herbicide than nonadopters, and adopters of GE insect-resistant (IR) maize used 11.2% (0.013 kg/ha) less insecticide than nonadopters. When pesticides are weighted by the environmental impact quotient, however, we find that (relative to nonadopters) GE adopters used about the same amount of soybean herbicides, 9.8% less of maize herbicides, and 10.4% less of maize insecticides. In addition, the results indicate that the difference in pesticide use between GE and non-GE adopters has changed significantly over time. For both soybean and maize, GT adopters used increasingly more herbicides relative to nonadopters, whereas adopters of IR maize used increasingly less insecticides. The estimated pattern of change in herbicide use over time is consistent with the emergence of glyphosate weed resistance.

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850.full

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
II reject you and everyone else here who has stated that those who oppose them are ignorant and have an ulterior motive for in many cases those who have opposed them are deeply concerned about the environmental impact of them and have taken up studies in an attempt to gain a better understanding of that environmental impact.

That is clearly not the case for you however.
First you started a thread trying to blame GM crops for the decline of bee populations. It very quickly became clear that you couldn't care less about the bees, you were just looking for something to blame on GM crops.
Then you started this thread, again trying to blame GM crops when in reality what you were discussing is a herbicide.
Again, you have shown no desire to investigate other herbicides or other chemicals used in agriculture that are not connected to GM crops.
It is blatantly clear that your concern is not the environment at all. Your concern is to try and attack GM crops in any way you possibly can.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is clearly not the case for you however.
First you started a thread trying to blame GM crops for the decline of bee populations. It very quickly became clear that you couldn't care less about the bees, you were just looking for something to blame on GM crops.
Then you started this thread, again trying to blame GM crops when in reality what you were ...[text shortened]... the environment at all. Your concern is to try and attack GM crops in any way you possibly can.

I didn't even read your text after the first line, this thread is about GM crops, their effects on the environment, their safety etc the issue is not me and I resent your attempts to make it so. If you have anything of relevance then please produce it otherwise your predictable, transparent and intellectually stifling attempts to make this thread personal will be ignored.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
... and the weed killer that I used did contain glyphosate but had little effect on the old horsetail, sadly.

Did you repeat the spray every week? I have never tried it on horsetail but for most other deep rooted weeds like bindweed etc I know from experience that you will often have to keep spraying it once every week until enough of it is absorbed and transported via the sap from its leaves to its deepest roots to kill those deepest roots else it just recovers.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie


GM crops are not produced with the consumer in mind. They are produced to maximise profits for seed and chemical companies.

This is equally if not more true for NONE GM crops so it is pretty much irrelevant.
What has that got to do with what KazetNagorra just rightly said which is
" There's no need for you to "do research" - informed people are here to tell you the GM scare is bollocks "?
NONE GM crops are also often "not produced with the consumer in mind. They are produced to maximise profits for seed and chemical companies"
So we should be concerned with the health and safety of NONE GM crops because of this?

Also note that, chemical companies would often prefer NONE GM crops because they are often less pest and disease resistant than GM crops genetically engineered to be pest and disease resistant.
Pest and disease resistant crops are usually bad news for the profits of chemical companies; no need for the farmer to buy their insecticides and fungicides. For this reason chemical companies may generally oppose GM crops.

And what have you got against seed companies?
ALL companies need to make profit and most try and maximize their profits so don't understand why you want to pick on them (or any other company for that matter) in particular.
Solar panel manufactures also try and maximize their profits; so have you got something against them as well?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I didn't even read your text after the first line, this thread is about GM crops, their effects on the environment, their safety etc

Yet the OP was all about a herbicide, not GM crops. Interesting.

the issue is not me and I resent your attempts to make it so.
Resent it all you like. The thread was started by you, for your own agenda - which is quite clearly to discredit GM crops for political reasons.

If you have anything of relevance then please produce it otherwise your predictable, transparent and intellectually stifling attempts to make this thread personal will be ignored.
I provided plenty of relevant information and you made it clear that you were uninterested in the facts of the matter. In fact, you even explained how you were against mass farming - clearly demonstrating that you have no real interest in the facts and instead have an agenda.

Originally posted by humy
This is equally true for NONE GM crops so it is pretty much irrelevant.
What has that got to do with what KazetNagorra just rightly said which is
" There's no need for you to "do research" - informed people are here to tell you the GM scare is bollocks "?
NONE GM crops are also "not produced with the consumer in mind. They are produced to maximise profits ...[text shortened]... profits of chemical companies; no need for the farmer to buy their insecticides and fungicides.

No its not, I have already cited a variety of barley that is grown in my own country to take advantage of the climate (its an early ripening variety) and is grown primarily for its taste. Its the same with a varieties like Marris Otter, also grown for its taste. Its simply untrue in the case of GMO's, they are not grown for any other reason than to enrich seed manufacturers and chemical companies. Clearly this is not the case with Golden promise and Marris otter both excellent varieties of barley, grown primarily for their taste.

I reject you and KazetNogrras ludicrous and close minded approach to this issue for reasons already cited and infact there is no difference between you and other dogmatists that you attempt to vilify, you are simply opposite ends of the same spectrum.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yet the OP was all about a herbicide, not GM crops. Interesting.

[b]the issue is not me and I resent your attempts to make it so.
Resent it all you like. The thread was started by you, for your own agenda - which is quite clearly to discredit GM crops for political reasons.

If you have anything of relevance then please produce it otherwise y ...[text shortened]... - clearly demonstrating that you have no real interest in the facts and instead have an agenda.

Didn't even read, you are wasting your time, you will not be wasting mine thats 4sure.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its simply untrue in the case of GMO's, they are not grown for any other reason than to enrich seed manufacturers and chemical companies.

this above quote shows you have a delusional mind. Where did you get that from? Just for starters, what about GM crops genetically engendered to be disease resistant so that the farmers don't require to buy fungicide from the chemical companies? Is that for the chemical companies? If so, how does that work then? Seriously, I would like to know!

Originally posted by humy
you have a delusional mind. What about GM crops genetically engendered to be disease resistant thus don't require the farmer to buy fungicide from the chemical companies? Is that for the chemical companies?

On the contrary I remain capable of rational thought.

yes but the irony of the matter is that where GMO's have been introduced insecticides have been reduced but the use of herbicides has increased dramatically, therefore your attempt to cherry pick and use a single parameter to prove a point is a failure. Furthermore the attempt by companies like Monsanto to license the use of their seed is nothing short of an attempt to monopolise food production, not for the benefit of the environment or consumers, simply as a mechanism for control and profiteering.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not, I have already cited a variety of barley that is grown in my own country to take advantage of the climate (its an early ripening variety) and is grown primarily for its taste.

Utter and complete hogwash. It is grown to maximise profits of those who grow it. Nothing more nothing less.
If taste is what sells, that is what they will grow. If the climate requires early ripening that is what they will grow. But farmers are in it for the money, not the taste, make no mistake.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you are wasting your time, .

Yes, I realise that. I guess its to be expected when responding to an anti-science personality in the science forum.