THANK YOU!

I agree that “we need better farmers and a better farm bill,” but I think the effort label GMO foods is misguided. http://everylastmorsel.com/blog/prop-37-yay-or-nay/

BTW, meaning your criticism of Cook, Andrew. I think exclusion of ag voices from the dialogue only perpetuates echo chambers.

This post is problematic for many reasons. I have some questions and comments below.

“Toxic chemicals would be slathered on crops to battle GMO-resistant pests and weeds.”

This makes no sense to me. Could you please define GMO resistance?

“the use of herbicides has increased by 527 million pounds, or 11 percent, since 1996, as more and more GMO crops have been planted.”

Sure. As the study lays out, herbicide resistance in weeds increased, leading to heavier use of herbicides. A vicious cycle.

In my opinion glyphosphate resistant GMOs are the wrong solution. This is a pretty clear example of unintended consequences. However, I don’t take this as an example of GMOs general deficiencies. Rather, this was a screw up.

It is important to remember that these kinds of screw ups are not the sole domain of GMO ag-tech. Conventional farming is just as vulnerable.

“[GMO] has driven the spread of corn and soybean monoculture across millions of acres of American farmland.”

Monocultures are a problem orthogonal to the use of GMOs. In other words, human beings have managed to create monocultures — and the subsequent fall in animal/insect species diversity — for a long time and GMOs have little to do with it. In some cases you might argue that GMOs with certain characteristics might enable larger monocultures — which is my sense of things — but the choice to create monocultures is a social, economic and political one.

There is more fruit to be found in fighting against shitty farming practicies — like the aforementioned monocultures — rather than railing against GMOs based on nebulous fears.

“…he falsely impugns by suggesting organic food is less safe than food manipulated by scientists in Monsanto lab coats.”

Ahhh Argumentum Monsantium. If all else fails, just talk about Monsanto; because they’re evil, right?

This conveniently ignores the non-profit work done with GMOs or even consider the idea that people support GMOs for the best reasons e.g. food security, less environmental impact etc.

“(1) a reduction in chemical-driven, epigenetic changes during fetal and childhood development, especially from pre-natal exposures to endocrine disrupting pesticides,”

Firstly, citation please. It’s not controversial to suggest pesticides are damaging to an fetus, but another to claim that this damage is present in the human population.

Secondly, when the major argument for using GMOs in many cases is to lower the need for pesticies, isn’t that a good thing?

Thirdly, while many organic farmers continue to rely on so-called organic pesticides — like copper — this is a stone that should not be cast. Especially when you consider how nasty that stuff is.

Frankly, GMOs have a greater chance of reducing pesticide use than organic farming alone does.

“2) the markedly more healthy balance of omega-6 and -3 fatty acids in organic dairy products and meat”

Citation please. AFAIK, there are no studies supporting this assertion. What studies there are, conclude that there is no difference.

“(3) the virtual elimination of agriculture’s significant and ongoing contribution to the pool of antibiotic-resistant bacteria currently posing increasing threats to the treatment of human infectious disease.”

This is a complete load of horse-pucky. Now you’re telling us that the use of GMOs has something to do with bacterial anti-body resistance?

Anti-body resistance is bourne out of the abuse of anti-bodies in agriculture and through over-prescription by medical-professionals. It’s further compounded by poor practices surrounding hospital hygeine.

I’d be interested in reading you explicate the link to GMOs.

“[Lynas says] to continue to feed the world’s booming population, we must intensify crop production…he seems to have missed the fact that feeding the world would be a lot easier if more crops were consumed by people rather than by animals or by cars…”

To support your argument, there would need to be enough potential food-crops going to animals and cars, that if they were instead directed to just human-consumption no one would starve.

Is that true?

I don’t disagree with the basic point that using crops for animal feed and car fuel is stupid. However you’ve ignored the practicalities of making food available where people live. Even if the US has an excess of corn, how do you get food to people who need it? How do you ensure they get crops that will grow where they live? How do you ensure those crops provide all they need?

For people surviving via subsistance-farming, they need a real solution, not just “stop using ethanol in cars”.

“… not reached a consensus on GMOs… [Jason Mark et al] have categorically debunked Lynas’s claims that the science is settled.”

You don’t understand what either consensus or categorical mean. Consensus means most people agree. In the case of GMOs, most scientists do agree.

As for “categorically debunked”; the onus is on those making the claims. If GMOs are unsafe, this needs to be demonstrated in a manner “unambiguously explicit and direct” i.e. categorically. Which has not been done.

I am not arguing against either testing or regulation of GMOs — there are many obvious manipulations that are a bad idea — but when a GMO is regulated and has been tested, those that then claim it is dangerous need to _prove_ that.

“What the science does conclusively show is that we don’t need GMO crops to better manage water-polluting chemical fertilizer.”

Yes, and? There are a great many problems that GMOs can’t or don’t need to solve. I fully support any adequate solution which doesn’t involve GMOs simply because it’s often simpler and more practical.

But there are a range of problems for which GMOs can provide potential solutions.

Picking one example where a problem can be solved without GMOs does not support the general case that all problems can be solved — now, when we need them solved — without them.

As for crop-rotation; no argument here. Should be more of it happening.

“It turns out that we need better farmers and a better farm bill, not better seeds.”

Seriously? Slagging off farmers now? I have a cure for your arrogance. You should try spending your life on a farm.

This is classic EWG disinformation. You start with ripe tomatoes being injected with hypodermic needles as you image of “genetic engineering” which is purely emotive and has absolutely nothing to do with how genetic engineering is accomplished. Then you use the emotive term “slathered” and the misleading Benbrook number. On a per-acre basis that increase is actually quite small and mostly represents a shift from the ALS-inhibitor herbicides to glyphosate – still a fairly low per acre product, but not as low as the previous. But, again, as is typical for EWG you don’t consider the fact that different chemicals have dramatically different intrinsic toxicities and rates of decomposition/immobilization. That is like your “dirty dozen list” which counts as equally “dirty” residues whose toxicity based on dose and type can differ 1 million-fold. EWG has contributed far more than its share to public misunderstanding of agriculture related issues. There is no need for you to expand that to biotech

I think its pretty ridiculous to quibble over staff bios. The truth is — and this happens often — is when someone is critical of agriculture the first attack is that they don’t know anything about agriculture, or the even more pejorative “has never stepped foot on a farm.” You talk about us doing it different but your first impulse when you came to our site was just the opposite.

All the major lobby organizations are spending millions on the PR effort USFRA to bridge that divide between people who have never been on the farm. They recognize that the echo chamber and that type of attack has gotten the ag brand into some trouble.

This is my chief complaint about the environmentalism industry, in order to garner financial support they must create a good vs evil dilemma and prey on the emotions of those of us who are far enough removed from living on the land to know any better. I am an environmentalist as a function of having been raised living on the land. As I see what the environmentalists have done to destroy my part of the world I just shake my head at the tactics of these televangelists of the green religion. I support organic farming, abhor intensive livestock production, and share many of the same sensibilities they profess to champion. But lawsuits have judges instead of foresters managing our public lands, laying waste to our forests and other natural resources due to the misguided influence of environmentalists who are more interested in the environmental industry than the actual environment. when you spread this kind of emotional hype and refuse to engage in collaborative discussions with farmers in the field you are ineffective at any real meaningful change. Despite being an environmentalist, I am left in contempt of so-called environmentalist organizations. The dialog I am seeing here is farmers reaching out for productive dialog and environmentalists defending emotional and misguiding tactics, dividing rather than building together. Just a tip, Mr. Carr. The real money and influence is moving toward the collaborative model. You might want to jump on board.

I’m just surfing cause I can’t sleep, thought I’d pitch my two cents. I doubt I’ll be back to this discussion, but wish all involved the best because I think everyone’s goals are more alike than different. The one thing life has taught me is ‘the more you know, the more you know you don’t know” about any given subject, so don’t close your mind and listen and really hear.