214 Monarch Butterflies
Some people, formerly including Bill Nye, are very concerned about monarch butterfly populations and other potential adverse environmental effects.
The trouble is that they feed exclusively on milkweed, a weed. All farmers, organic included, work hard to get rid of these weeds from their fields. In this sense, the argument is a moot point with regards to genetic engineering. This is a land use problem. Increased yields of GE crops over traditional and organic farming may eventually reduce total acreage converted for agriculture, allowing more lands for preservation.
If GMOs, labeling laws, or genetic engineering in general are topics you’re unsure about – this is the best debate on the subject. I highly recommend you watch it all the way through:
But they could be bad for the environment, you don't know.
ROB
People say that, but no such risk has ever been identified.
KATE
Butterflies. They're dying off because glyphosate is killing their food source.
ROB
All crops use herbicides to kill weeds.
KATE
So you admit it?
ROB
That herbicides kill weeds? Yep.
0
0
0
0
“This is a land use problem. Increased yields of GE crops over traditional and organic farming may eventually reduce total acreage converted for agriculture, allowing more lands for preservation.”
Perhaps, if the population were to remain static… however such is not the case as indicated by world wide population growth and the reasoning behind it (being “fruitful and multiplying”):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
Perhaps I’m a wet blanket but that is a subject for another time.
I should qualify: reduce total acreage compared to what we would use without GE. In either case, it will continue to expand.
Bottom line: The vast majority of the world’s problem stem from one thing. Seven billion humans on one planet.
Reduce the acerage needed to feed the population, food prices drop, and people feel the urge to make more humans. Especially since so much more living space has just opened up. GMO’s are essentially slated to make the problem worse by increasing the population significantly. But nobody wants to think about that because, hey, money. And they hope to die in bed before their grandkids starve.
Planet can barely handle our crap as it is. (both figurative and literal)
This is unsubstantiated. The birth rate has been dropping for decades, even as food has become cheaper. Birth rate drops as women become better educated, and as people become better educated, the proportion of their income going toward food drops as well. So, lower birth rates are correlated with lower food prices. Eventually, the birth rate drops below replacement rates, and the population shrinks, as is happening now in Japan.
The mass starvation you predict was predicted in the 1970’s, and was supposed to happen in the 1990’s. Kind of old, discredited alarmism.
Which stems from a different problem: this fixation on “being fruitful and multiplying” for some, for others its a belief that they can out-procreate the other groups and take charge (basically the same thing, just different motivation).
People need to stop glorifying couples just because they had kids, stop demonizing those that would rather live without kids, and same goes for government subsidization of having kids. I’m all for government programs to ensure kids are eating healthy and getting proper medical care but the tax breaks and other things like it can GO. Of course if I get off on that rant I’ll sway over into my argument about why in the hell home owners still get a tax deduction for interest on a mortgage but I get nothing for renting an apartment, and that’s for another day …
We need to say “mission accomplished” on the whole be fruitful thing and ease off on the reproductive throttle. Planet can’t keep up with us. At least not until we start orbital hydroponics farms or maybe figuring out a way to turn Mars into some sort of agro-planet we can use. Even then perhaps we’ve got enough people until we start colonizing other planets, eh?
Right, here’s the facts. Malthus was discredited in his lifetime and he is still wrong now. What does have a strong correlation? Population growth and standard of living. Lets try for 20 billion people in my lifetime.
the problem with that statement is that it has very little to do with money.
yes it plays a part but by a large the predictions of population growth ignore factors like health care, education, and industrialization. in places like sub-Sahara Africa we see high birthrates in places with low industrialization, little to no health care, and little education
low tech societies have high birthrate-population percentages due to the need to produce offspring and only a fraction of those offspring will survive to adult hood.
as a society advances in technology and healthcare and education become better and more widely available, less and less new baby’s are born because more and more of those children grow to be adults.
how this pertains to GMO crops is that the percentages of birth may drop but more and more children are born to an ever expanding population base.
the more pounds of crops obtained per square acre the less total farm land is required to feed the population so the expanding population base will have more room to expand into with an ever growing amount of crop yield as GMO advances are made to further crop yield.
in this century as GMO technology advances we may be able to maintain twice the population we do now with less total farmland then what we have due to the higher yields per acre
Hmm… Wet blankets might be a good way to reduce the population problem, similar to spraying dogs with a hose :p
One of the problems with the overuse of Roundup is the Roundup-resistant weeds that have evolved. There are three new mechanisms just in the past several years for how plants have learned to basically ignore Roundup. Just like the overuse of antibiotics is a grave danger for humans, the overuse of particular pesticides is a grave danger for plants (and thus for humans, because we eat those plants).
Weed resistance occurs with all pesticides. Heck, it even occurs with hand weeding (bizarrely). But the introduction of GM crops has, overall, reduced the number of new resistance species per year from 13 to 11.
http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/10/01/superweeds-confirm-failure-of-gmos-or-maybe-not-narrative-misleads-avoids-real-solutions/
And companies like Monsanto are already presenting alternatives that will significantly lower the chance of resistance forming. The glyphosate and 2,4-D herbicide is an example of that. It works on the same principle as HIV treatments. The more combinations you use at once, the less likely it is that the virus (or weed in this case) will be able to develop resistance to all of the different types at the same time. It’s really a better method overall.
Looking at the data, it seems that the destruction of milkweed is probably only a secondary problem to the real reason. And, funny enough, that reason is climate change.
Due to increasing temperatures, cold winters over the past few years have been later than usual. This ended up putting them smack-dab in the middle of the butterfly migration and egg laying season. As a result, a huge amount of butterflies were killed during their migration due to temperatures and many eggs were not able to hatch properly.
i dont understand how you can be pro GMO have you seen the world acording to monsanto its a doucmantary in it, it is pointed out that GMO’s increases your chances of getting cancer
other examples are plants that no longer produce usable seeds forcing farmers to buy seeds every new year costing them more money
many people growing GMOs are finding the plants are having problems they have never heard of before with the plants getting what some are calling diseases for plants
buying the seeds for GMOs forces the farmer to sign a contract in which he can be sued for misuse of the seeds and many farmers have been sued for no reason at all
there are lots of problems with GMO’s and i think i recall you saying there could be good with the GMO plants using less space and less water, well so far no such GMOs exist
(sigh) First, GMO’s and Monsanto are not synonymous. Second, the claim that GMO’s cause cancer is based on a crappy study, which when analyzed, showed no such thing. In fact, it had to be retracted because it was crap.
Third, farmers have been buying seed for decades, and non-GMO seeds are patented as well. Yes, you will be sued if you continue to do so, and that’s regardless of whether it’s Monsanto, any other seed company (GMO and non-GMO) will do so. The “sued for no reason at all” was hyped by Greenpeace, and it turns out that was a myth. The case, if you’re wondering, was Monsanto Canada v Schmeiser. It also turns out that mass suicides in Indian farmers is a myth
I feel the need to point out that crops don’t use herbicides. Farmers that grow crops use herbicides.
Right and wrong at the same time. While farmers do use herbicides, crops also produce their own types of insecticides and herbicides. Dozens of them.
Farm kid here (with some degrees as well): Allow me to point out that a “weed” is simply a plant in the wrong place. Maize is a weed in an alfalfa field. Use, and overuse, of herbicides and pesticides is a problem without a simple solution. The first, and perhaps biggest challenge, is getting everyone to understand it is a problem.
Honestly, the only thing I am worried about with GMOs is someone accidentally making the next Kudzu while trying to make some fast growing wheat or something.
Considering biotechnology only involves changing a handful of genes with known effects, you are far more likely to get the next Kudzu from regular crop breeding, which changes hundreds, if not thousands, of unknown genes. Though, even for that, the chance is really low. But not impossible.
Just look at the Lenape potato that was made through conventional breeding. They didn’t even realize it was poisonous until it went on the market.
According to this article a 1998 study in which GMO potatoes were fed to rats found that the rats developed a range of abnormalities; “Their brains, livers, and testicles were smaller, while their pancreases and intestines were enlarged. The liver was partially atrophied. Organs related to the immune system, including the thymus and the spleen, showed significant changes. Their white blood cells responded to an immune challenge more slowly, indicating immune system damage.” The author’s tone is partisan, and he cites his own anti-GMO book, so I’m a little bit sceptical, but on first reading it seems like a well-designed, controlled study. It certainly makes me think there may be more to the issue: http://www.alternet.org/food/biotech-companies-are-peddling-dangerous-propaganda-about-risks-gm-potatoes
Unfortunately, it turns out that it wasn’t a well-designed study, and here’s an analysis of why it wasn’t. Looking at the analysis, the conclusion I see is that he showed that a low-protein diet of potatoes is bad for rats. Which is pretty much an obvious conclusion.
I dont see how GMO can be harmful. It just gives to plant extra ability by introducing/changing genes. It just improved proccess of selection. There plenty plant seeds from natural selection which are immune to some specific disease, fast growing and etc. Should we also make sellers mark such plants when selling final product?