Study: Eliminating GMOs would hurt environment, economy

[HuckleB]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/study-banning-gmos-would-devastate-earth-despite-green-claims/

"The environment would suffer devastating consequences if activists manage to ban genetically modified organisms (GMOs), according to a study published Monday by Purdue University.

“This is not an argument to keep or lose GMOs,” Dr. Wallace Tyner, a professor of agricultural economics at Purdue and the study’s lead author, said in a press release. “It’s just a simple question: What happens if they go away?”

The Purdue study used an economic model to calculate crop yield, as well as economic and environmental effects of GMOs. It found that eliminating all GMOs in the U.S. would cause corn yield to decline by approximately 11.2 percent and cotton yields to decline by 18.6 percent. The study predicted a GMO ban would cause food prices to rise by one to two percent, costing consumers $14 billion to $24 billion annually.

“We know we’ll need to nearly double again the amount of food we produce over the next 50 years,” Greg Conko, executive director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “To stave off ecological disaster, we will have to substantially increase yields again. That won’t all come from GMOs. But much of it will have to. The alternative is to substantially increase our use of agricultural chemicals: fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Adoption of the GMOs already on the market has been proven to reduce our reliance on agricultural chemicals. So, GMOs are a win-win for the environment.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

Hmm.

[bulloney]

1. The lead author is from a land grant university.

With all of the grants awarded to these colleges and their economists from large agribusinesses, these institutions are often whores for these agribusinesses.

I'm speaking from experience. I've butted heads against ag economists who hold endowed chairs at their colleges. A lot of them are over-educated idiots who are oblivious to the real world and how it works. A friend once said, "You gotta love economists who preach free markets and have tenure."

[HuckleB]

2. And so that changes the research reality?

How?

Prove the research wrong, or admit that GMOs are safe, can be good for the environment, and have been mindlessly demonized by ugly capitalist marketers. You do realize that non-GMO foods tend to rely on far more toxic pesticides, right? Oh, and that more recent GMO foods have nothing to do with pesticides, making the anti-GMO movement's arguments invalid, and yet they keep ranting against all GMOs.

It's like talking to a pre-schooler.

This is only replicating past research:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jun/13/gm-crops-environment-study

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-18/how-gmo-crops-can-be-good-for-the-environment

http://www.europabio.org/what-effect-do-gm-crops-have-environment

[cprise]

7. Its easy to attack the premise of the study, which is this:

The population explosion must be facilitated at all costs, while leaving everyone's religious bugaboos about procreation (and preference for red meat) intact.

Its not surprising you saw this first in a repug rag that paints Greenpeace as terrorists and BLM as racists. No doubt, ecological arguments about limits to growth (and, hence, procreation) must be a thorn in their side.

And that's just for starters. Using economic models to determine ecological suitability? Yeah, that's about the influence of money, and GP was right to point out the source. Of course, the natural recommendation is the up-scaling of invasive heavy industry instead of making higher education and birth control available to everyone.

I'm sorry, but this is an economic study about the business of agriculture. It is too narrow to hold up as ecology (and I think time will bear that out).

[HuckleB]

8. In other words, you have no actual criticisms of the study.

Just pointless tangents.

[cprise]

10. That sounds more like you have no intelligent rebuttal

to any of the points I made.

If a study wants to insulate overpopulation, livestock production and rampant food waste from critical examination, then I'd expect it to look very much like the one you linked to.

[HuckleB]

13. You made no relevant points.

Your response is completely tangential. The fact that you don't recogniE that reality is odd.

[cprise]

14. I forgot, ecology is irrelevant.

Round and round you go...

[HuckleB]

16. No one said that.

You are simply choosing to ignore the reality that GMOs have had a positive impact by going off on your chosen tangents, which have nothing to do with the conclusions of the study.

Thanks for kicking this!

[cprise]

17. Like I said, Round and Round you go

until you get the last word.

Instead of just labeling all the time, maybe you could try demonstrating /how/ my criticisms were tangential.

[HuckleB]

18. Your "criticism" is about your world view, and does not address the study itself.

This is very obvious. You seem to think you can toss off anything, and it's automatically relevant. That"s not how science or discussion works. If you bring an actual criticism of the actual study, then you could start a discussion. You have done nothing of the kind. We both know that, so please stop pretending. Thank you.

[cprise]

19. OK thanks for demonstrating you don't even know what ecology is

Like I said, if a study looks at the different pressures that contribute to the problem (e.g. holistically) then I'll consider it valid. In actuality, this one considers agriculture from an economic perspective. Its deliberately disregarding ecology in favor of economics. That's shoddy science.

The real pretense here comes from people who start conversations like this:
"It's like talking to a pre-schooler."

Coming from someone who only knows how to post links and label people, I'd say its projection.

[HuckleB]

20. In other words, you really are ignoring reality.

Your behavior is the very epitome of what you claim I am doing. You want to discuss a topic that is completely different than the study, yet you are unwilling to admit that, and so you repeat your personal attacks.

[cprise]

21. LOL

"...a topic that is completely different than the study..."

[HuckleB]

24. Thanks for the confession.

[immoderate]

28. The key to this poster. As if ecology does not exist.

--imm

[HuckleB]

29. Another false attack.

Lame stuff.

[immoderate]

30. Attack? I am not aware of any ecological thinking on your part.

Apprise me if I err.

--imm

[HuckleB]

31. Of course, you're not.

You and I both know you are in error. You simply don't want to acknowledge the actual science in regard to ecological issues.

Thanks for the kick!

[immoderate]

32. Y'welcome. But I'm disappointed you don't have me on "ignore."

I'm not sure what you mean by "actual science." I didn't see it in the usual data dumps, as you know.

If we both know I'm in error, how come neither of us appears to know what it is?

--imm

[HuckleB]

35. Nice confession.

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)

Why do you think cutting down forests to plant more non-GMO seeds is a good idea, from an ecological standpoint?

[villager]

26. Good points, all the way around. OP is among the first to discredit sources, methods, and funding

...of studies and articles that go against their own particular worldview.

Clearly, that's a bridge, or street, that works in two directions.

[HuckleB]

38. I discredit sources with evidence, not lame hyperbole.

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:39 PM - Edit history (1)

Weak sauce.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-cost-of-banning-gmos/

[villager]

42. ...and of course, deploys rote phrases like "hyperbole" and "weak sauce" when necessary

...none of which are themselves substantive.

Anyway, my sf-reading friend, I will look for more consistency in how you view credible sources.

Happy book journeying, however...

[HuckleB]

43. You imagine inconsistencies.

And your attacks have never included substance. Your response is meaningless, as you have never been able to justify your fiction-based science stances.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/science-based-medicine-101-how-to-establish-a-sources-credibility/

[villager]

44. Actually, no -- I *hope* for "consistency"

But there is an agenda at work...

[HuckleB]

45. Utilizing evidence and principles of the scientific method is an agenda, I suppose.

What is your agenda in supporting baseless fear mongering stances?

---------------------------------------------------------------

You have made OPs supporting the ugly propaganda of people like Andrew Kimbrell. And then there is your classic meaningless attacks upon others, as exampled here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4680510

Consistency? I'm not sure that's such a good thing with posts like that.

[villager]

46. You are good with the attack phrases, of course, and the circular use of agenda-driven web links

None of that makes you right, though.

Or rather, it doesn't make you "more right" than anyone else.

But take care!

[HuckleB]

47. LOL! "Attack phrases." Ah, I love the hypocrisy.

You've done nothing but make baseless attacks here and elsewhere. You have never been able to support your stances with an actual consensus of science. You are the one who shows a clear agenda that is not something will even ponder changing, no matter how much evidence is against it.

You are the one using pointless phrases here, and elsewhere. It's time for you to realize that you are on the wrong side of science here, and that means the wrong side of history. Do the right thing. Challenge yourself. I did. I do, every day.

[villager]

48. And of course, when all else fails... the projection.

[HuckleB]

49. "Projection."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016118601#post3

and here is a whole thread of you doing the same nonsense you're doing here...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1271694

Never any substance, though. Hmm.

Oh, goodness.

[villager]

50. You mean, "daring to reply to you?"

Yeah, I guess I've been guilty.

Enjoy the middle-school smilies, though!

[HuckleB]

51. Another ironic post.

Responding without content, and without being able to support your claims is not really responding. Or it could be considered responding in the way you described smilies above. It's much like your friend Taleb, the pretend ag scientist, whom you appear to love so dearly.

http://debunkingdenialism.com/2015/11/17/anti-gmo-statistician-nassim-n-taleb-now-defends-homeopathy/

It's cool that you're keeping this post at the top of the page, though.

[villager]

54. "Responding without content, and without being able to support your claims is not really responding"

True enough, HuckleB. True enough.

[HuckleB]

58. LOL!

Someone thinks he's funny. Oh, that dang reality always gets in the way.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5319204

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6404567

Accuracy and honesty matters, no matter how much you don't want them to matter.

[villager]

60. Your links, of course, do nothing to buttress your argument. But glad to get them aired again!

[HuckleB]

61. You keep telling yourself that.

[villager]

62. "You keep telling yourself that."

[HuckleB]

63. Nah, I'll go where the science leads...

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-solid-gmo-scientific-consensus/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/thanks-gwyneth-but-well-stick-with-the-scientists-on-this-issue_us_55c23d5ee4b0f7f0bebb34a4

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html

[villager]

64. Yes, you do have your trove of agenda-driven websites, all right

But we established that earlier.

[HuckleB]

65. So hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and scientific knowledge = "agenda-driven websites."

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 04:56 PM - Edit history (2)

Seriously?

Why do you work so hard to keep yourself on the wrong side of history, science, the environment, feeding people, etc...?

Oh, and your "we" is just hilarious. Come on, it's time to wake up.

You can do the right thing. I used to believe what your work so hard to keep believing. Evidence changed that. That evidence has only grown stronger, despite your blind complaints to the contrary.

[Buzz Clik]

55. I challenge you to prove that Tyner is being paid by "large agribsiness" to come to his conclusions.

[Archae]

3. It's the Daily Caller, though.

And I don't trust them.

I'm hoping the article is at a more credible source, not one that lets Ginni Thomas and Ann Coulter write columns.

[HuckleB]

4. It's a peer-reviewed study.

And it's not a classic pay-to-play anti-GMO "journal."

[Archae]

5. I see that in your above posting.

BUT...

The anti-GMO hysterics will never give up their bullshit beliefs, in "frankenfoods" and "GMO poison."

[HuckleB]

6. I know that, and you know that.

Still, multiple DUers have changed their minds about GMOs, because folks like us posted the actual evidence base.

[villager]

27. +1 nt

[HuckleB]

41. Steven Novella wrote a piece on this study, too.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-cost-of-banning-gmos/

[Ghost Dog]

9. The study employs only economic arguments.

It's the economy (and the politics) that needs to be changed.

[cprise]

11. But only green-paper budgets matter

Physical budgets and limits are the imaginings of anti-science crazies......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zBmdkhDGZ8A#t=1621

[Ghost Dog]

12. .

[HuckleB]

15. The study notes the effects on economic reality and land use

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 01:25 PM - Edit history (1)

The need to change other factors is a tangential issue to the results. The fact that you don't care about land use is astounding.

[HuckleB]

22. 5 Reasons to Avoid GMO Food

http://modernliberals.com/5-reasons-to-avoid-gmo-food/

"From frankenfruit to corn that is sentient, everyone knows the dangers of GMO foods are real!

Here are five reasons why you might avoid GMOs:

1. The idea of children needlessly being blind and dying is appealing to you.

Approximately 250 million (yes, 250,000,000) children have a Vitamin A deficiency. Of those, 250,000 to 500,000 lose their vision, and about half of those children die each year. Foods like Golden Rice and the GM Banana may increase the bioavailability of Vitamin A, helping to resolve the micronutrient deficiency. While there are Vitamin A supplement programs in practice already, they require constant attention (people & money) to maintain implementation and are not available in all areas.

..."

[cprise]

33. MoJo: 'WTF Happened To Golden Rice?'

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2016/02/golden-rice-still-showing-promise-still-not-field-ready

Whoops! Still not field-ready.

Of course, lets pretend that a topsoil-ravaging, insanely wasteful (40% from America's fridges and tables into landfills) system is incapable of giving malnourished people anything other than grain to eat. The sheer stupidity and arrogance is astonishing; But it would have to appear that way if someone were trying play on ignorance to promote an agenda... you get ignorant 'solutions'.

From the linked article:

Even if and when the IRRI does come up with a high-yielding golden rice variety that passes regulatory muster, it remains unclear whether it can actually make a dent in vitamin A deficiency. As the Washington University's Stone notes, vitamin A deficiency often affects people whose diets are also deficient in other vital nutrients. Vitamin A is fat soluble, meaning it can't be taken up by the body unless it's accompanied by sufficient dietary fat, which isn't delivered in significant quantities by rice, golden or otherwise.

According to Stone, only one feeding study (PDF) has ever showed a powerful uptake of vitamin A by subjects eating golden rice. The paper was much cited by golden rice proponents, but Stone says it had a major flaw: The subjects were "well-nourished individuals" who already took in sufficient fat in their diets. The study "demonstrated only that Golden Rice worked in children who did not need it," he writes. (The study has since been retracted on claims that the author failed to obtain proper consent from the parents of the participants).

Meanwhile, as the IRRI scrambles to perfect golden rice, the prevalence of vitamin A deficiency is declining in the Philippines—according to the IRRI itself— from 40 percent of children aged six months to five years in 2003, to 15.2 percent in 2008. "The exact reasons for these improvements have not been determined, but they may be the results of proven approaches to preventing vitamin A deficiency, such as vitamin A supplementation, dietary diversification, food fortification and promotion of optimal breastfeeding," the group noted. That drop is part of a long-term trend that involves all of Southeast Asia. According to a 2015 Lancet study funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, vitamin A deficiency plagued 39 percent of children in the region in 1991 but only 6 percent in 2013—without the help of golden rice.

Have a carrot.

[HuckleB]

34. Thanks for the usual silliness.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/golden-rice-follow-up/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/

The anti-GMO activists who have worked to keep Golden Rice from moving forward are as unethical as it gets.

[cprise]

36. Try reading the article I linked

If anything, its a rebuttal to the claims (and excuses) you're pushing about viability and uptake. Even your first article says that it has taken decades to engineer a rice that's only as good as taking a supplement.

This grain-based mentality is the modern-day version of "Let them eat cake!" But Big Ag-captured schools are not going to question the grain subsidies that result in people reaching for cheap carbs instead of healthy produce.

[HuckleB]

37. I read it a long time ago. It was debunked then.

Of course, you didn't read the links in my response, or you would know that.

[progressoid]

23. But what will happen to us when we all have autism from eating GMOs?

Stupid scientist can't think beyond $$$.

[HuckleB]

25. I guess we'll all develop more vaccines!

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4033

[HuckleB]

39. “Follow the money”: the finances of global warming, vaccines, and GMOs

http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/04/18/follow-the-money-the-finances-of-global-warming-vaccines-and-gmos/

[HuckleB]

40. The Cost of Banning GMOs

Last edited Sat Mar 5, 2016, 02:17 PM - Edit history (1)

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-cost-of-banning-gmos/

"...

The most significant environmental footprint of agriculture is land use. Every hectare (2.471 acres or 10,000 square meters) of forest or pasture that you convert to farmland increases carbon in the atmosphere contributing to global warming. Further, converting land to farmland reduces natural habitat or land for grazing.

For example, environmentalists have warned about declines in the monarch butterfly, implying that GMOs may be to blame (despite the utter lack of evidence for this claim). Declines are due to the loss of milkweed, which the butterflies need to lay their eggs. Loss of milkweed, in turn, is due to land use for farming and the use of herbicides.

...

The deeper point is that when considering the risks and benefits of any technology, this must be put into the context of the risks and benefits of the alternative. Anti-GMO activists talk exclusively about the hypothetical risks of GMOs, but fail to consider the alternative – the very real risk of not taking advantage of GM technology.

The authors of this recent study are not the first to point out that land use is the biggest factor to consider when determining the environmental impact of agriculture. Displacing an additional 102,000 hectares of land to use for farming is a huge factor that must be considered.

..."

---------------------------------------------------


It's interesting to note how some of DU's self proclaimed "ecologists" missed this reality in regard to this study.

[louis-t]

52. Gee, I wonder who funded the study?

Monsanto?

[HuckleB]

53. Brilliant response.

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-cost-of-banning-gmos/

https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2016/Q1/study-eliminating-gmos-would-take-toll-on-environment,-economies.html

Can you refute the study with a consensus of science? If not, why not?

[virtualobserver]

56. 40 percent of corn is used to produce ethanol

to stave off ecological distaster, we need to stop reproducing

[HuckleB]

59. That would help, but it is not the address of the study.

The study simply shows that it makes no sense to demonize a technology that is actually helping the environment, overall. Refraining from using corn to make cars go is something we should address, as well, indeed.

[Buzz Clik]

57. Great post.