Vegans argue they’re a ‘creed’ under Ontario human rights law

God, that moggie looks pissed off.

More on the Dutch-based "Vegetarian Butcher": http://www.telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/features/mock-meat-the-rise-of...

Those are the kind of concerns I have. I'm REALLY not anti-science.

Right now, I'm wringing my hands because a friend is hosting a "live-blood testing" for the modest sum of $100 per sucker, er client, based on the more than dubious theories of one Gaston Naessens, a notorious quack who still lives in Sherbrooke. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/714-X It really bothers me that an educated person would fall for this type of crap, but it isn't the first time. I didn't want to argue with him; I just told him I didn't have the money. I didn't add that I wouldn't have the money for that even if it were five cents.

Go to any chinese market and get a can of braised gluten. Mock duck or otherwise. It is cheap and great. Sadly, it is made of the one thing that is perhaps more toxic than meat for them that are overly concerned with such stuff.

Nothing wrong with MSG if you aren't one of those people who get the alleged headaches (which scientists have not been able to replicate in the lab).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

It is kind of a taste cheater, as you can tell if you buy one of those ramen soup packs. But if you are going to that chinese market you should also pick up a small tin of MSG, just to see how it tastes all on its own. I have one up with the spices.

Devogenes wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Oh, don't mistake me - there are still issues. Although there are actually fewer chemicals used on GMO than on other crops, there are still some environmental concerns, and I take those seriously.

That's not true at all. In fact it has been known to be untrue for years. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_...

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X2012...

http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/10/how-gmos-ramped-us-pesti...

I think Timebandit is correct here.

I couldn’t get your first three links to work, but based on the 2012 dates I assume they are all based on the Benbrook, 2012 report from the Organic Center (Available here http://goo.gl/nMRP6l). Basically, Benbrook used USDA-NASS data to estimate total herbicide use on GE and conventional acres, which is quite difficult to do because 1) These datasets are pretty incomplete due to limited USDA resources and, 2) The data don’t separate use on GE and non-GE crops, so quite a few assumptions need to be made.

So Benbrook extrapolated 4-5 years past (limited) available data and concluded herbicide use was increasing dramatically. But his projections only seem to take a couple of tail end data points into account, not the general trends. For crops like cotton, there is a clear increasing trend in total pounds/acre, but for corn there is a clear decrease from 1995-2005 (10 data points) – Benbrook then predicts a complete trend reversal based on a single data point from 2010. Most other studies show a reduction in overall herbicide use, so that seems more plausible (although I wouldn’t attribute a reduction in overall herbicide use to GE crops, since that wasn’t their designed intent, but rather to better application practices).

More importantly, it isn’t really the total pounds/acre that is most important for pesticide/herbicide use, but the environmental impact of those applied pounds. For Roundup Ready varieties, glyphosate use goes up dramatically (you are correct in this), but the use of other herbicides is greatly reduced. In 1996, pendamethalin was used on 23% of soybean acres. This was reduced to 3% by 2006, while glyphosate use increased from 15% to 85% over the same period (other herbicides also decreased). The Environmental Impact Quotient [EIQ] (a rather imperfect measure of overall environmental harm from pesticide application, but simple to use) of pendamethalin is 31.17, versus 15.33 for glyphosate. So even if you increase the amount of herbicide applied, switching to glyphosate should be better for the environment. As the USDA and EPA stated (HT = herbicide tolerant):

 “Some studies suggest that herbicide use on HT soybeans may be slightly higher than herbicide use on conventionally grown soybeans in the United States. However, glyphosate (the herbicide used on most HT crops) is less toxic to humans and not as likely to persist in the environment as the herbicides it replaces. Consequently, increased herbicide use on HT soybeans is not necessarily indicative of worse environmental outcomes.”

Another point to consider is that herbicide tolerance isn’t unique to GMOs. There are plenty of herbicide tolerant varieties produced through conventional breeding (such as Clearfield varieties from BASF – also patented) and others that have been developed, but not released because there isn’t current demand. So GE isn’t introducing anything remarkably new, it just allows for more rapid development.

Devogenes wrote:

The vast majority of genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand the herbicicde glyphosate (marketed as RoundUp by Monsanto). Rates of glyphosate use have skyrocketed as a direct result of the spread of genetic engineering. Because of the rapid (predictable) development of herbicide resistance in quick-succession plants (weeds), the chemical companies have now gained approval to market 2,4-D resistant crops.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/epa-enlist-duo-weed-killer_n_59...

2,4-D has an EIQ of about 16, so it’s not terrible to use, and has been used for many years already. Applying herbicides isn’t inducing resistance, it is only selecting for resistant mutants, so the emergence of new varieties hasn’t increased since the introduction of GE crops. It’s actually quite difficult to control herbicide resistance; it can certainly be done, but the associated costs are probably much greater than you might expect. The easiest method is probably to use more herbicides to begin with, which obviously has negative effects on the environment. Using multiple herbicides is a good strategy, but it’s not easy to predict which types of weeds will be problematic year to year, and is prohibitively expensive on lower acreage crops such as sugarbeets (fewer available herbicide options). If you are rotating crops, you also need to ensure that you aren’t using herbicides that have a long soil longevity (like 3 years for imazethapyr) that prevent you from planting other crops in that field. You can, of course use other weed management methods (tillage, cover crops, hand weeding, etc.), but these also have high costs and weeds can develop resistance to all of them as well.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

It did happen, LB Cultured Thought.

Monsanto and Percy Schmeiser:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

It says right there on the wiki: “…Schmeiser violated the patent by intentionally replanting the Roundup Ready seed that he had saved”. He deliberately saved and used the patented seed; nobody sued him for having it blow into his field and that has never happened.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Virtually all this patenting and pushing of those strains to the exclusion of all others has to do with genetic modification.

And one of the main GMO tweaks is to allow plants to grow in RoundUp, which otherwise WOULD kill them like it kills every other plant it touches.

And no, it is not true that all food was most certainly grown in a pesticide to help it survive. It is not true at all.

Yes, patenting has everything to do with genetic modification. Every new strain has altered genes, but most aren’t made by techniques that would make them considered GMOs. Farmers tend to purchase new seeds every year regardless, since storing seeds is a challenge and hybrid strains won’t perform as well in future years. It’s a business decision.

And yes, Roundup kills weeds; that is the entire purpose of herbicides, so I’m not sure I understand your point. Reducing yield loses to weeds is a good thing.

I’m not aware of any data to show total acres grown with no pesticides (Maybe you have some?), but I’m guessing it would be negligible. And ALL plants produce their own pesticides, few of which have been tested! (Although those that have been tested are about as toxic as the synthetic pesticides we use)

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

I’m not sure I understand your point.

How much more clearly do I have to say it? I said my concern is about growing food in poison.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/weed-whacking-herbicide-p/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

If you want, brush over the links to lymphoma. Look at the effects on amphibians. 

And here is an article about the rise in birth defects in Hawaii, where restricted pesticides are used in GMO research:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/23/hawaii-birth-defects-pest...

And yes, my objection is also to the business model, and of monocropping. The 2013 UN report on food security and agriculture found that the best model was to be found in small-scale farms, local-based food systems, and rotation and multi-crop planting.

As for being able to produce food without chemicals. I manage to keep myself in tomatoes, greens and squash without the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides. And while the numbers might not look that impressive on paper, it is a different story when you go into a grocery store and see how much of the produce section is organic.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-marke...

Quote:

Today the organic food market is described by industry analysts as the most dynamic and rapidly growing sector of the global food industry. The global market for organic products, once a small scale niche market, reached a value of almost $US 63 billion in 2011 (Source: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements). Worldwide, about 37.2 million hectares of agricultural land are certified according to organic standards, and there are about 1.8 million certified organic producers.

But really, my point was that your claim there is virtually no food grown without herbicides and pesticides is false.

Sure.

The UN Report was about global agriculture, and it found that small scale farming and local networks are the most sustainable way forward, rather than multinational-controlled industrial farming.

http://www.iatp.org/blog/201309/new-un-report-calls-for-transformation-i...

And yes, I know that most small farmers use these seeds and these chemicals. Hard not to given the financial risks, and the market being entirely geared toward those single crops.

And is this an argument along the lines of plants' "natural pesticides"? Come on. There is a difference between ashes, soap and diatomaceous earth and organophosphates, and let's not pretend there isn't.

LB Cultured Thought wrote:

I think Timebandit is correct here.

I couldn’t get your first three links to work, but based on the 2012 dates I assume they are all based on the Benbrook, 2012 report from the Organic Center (Available here http://goo.gl/nMRP6l). Basically, Benbrook used USDA-NASS data to estimate total herbicide use on GE and conventional acres, which is quite difficult to do because 1) These datasets are pretty incomplete due to limited USDA resources and, 2) The data don’t separate use on GE and non-GE crops, so quite a few assumptions need to be made.

So Benbrook extrapolated 4-5 years past (limited) available data and concluded herbicide use was increasing dramatically. But his projections only seem to take a couple of tail end data points into account, not the general trends. For crops like cotton, there is a clear increasing trend in total pounds/acre, but for corn there is a clear decrease from 1995-2005 (10 data points) – Benbrook then predicts a complete trend reversal based on a single data point from 2010. Most other studies show a reduction in overall herbicide use, so that seems more plausible (although I wouldn’t attribute a reduction in overall herbicide use to GE crops, since that wasn’t their designed intent, but rather to better application practices).

More importantly, it isn’t really the total pounds/acre that is most important for pesticide/herbicide use, but the environmental impact of those applied pounds. For Roundup Ready varieties, glyphosate use goes up dramatically (you are correct in this), but the use of other herbicides is greatly reduced. In 1996, pendamethalin was used on 23% of soybean acres. This was reduced to 3% by 2006, while glyphosate use increased from 15% to 85% over the same period (other herbicides also decreased). The Environmental Impact Quotient [EIQ] (a rather imperfect measure of overall environmental harm from pesticide application, but simple to use) of pendamethalin is 31.17, versus 15.33 for glyphosate. So even if you increase the amount of herbicide applied, switching to glyphosate should be better for the environment. As the USDA and EPA stated (HT = herbicide tolerant):

 “Some studies suggest that herbicide use on HT soybeans may be slightly higher than herbicide use on conventionally grown soybeans in the United States. However, glyphosate (the herbicide used on most HT crops) is less toxic to humans and not as likely to persist in the environment as the herbicides it replaces. Consequently, increased herbicide use on HT soybeans is not necessarily indicative of worse environmental outcomes.”

Another point to consider is that herbicide tolerance isn’t unique to GMOs. There are plenty of herbicide tolerant varieties produced through conventional breeding (such as Clearfield varieties from BASF – also patented) and others that have been developed, but not released because there isn’t current demand. So GE isn’t introducing anything remarkably new, it just allows for more rapid development.

2,4-D has an EIQ of about 16, so it’s not terrible to use, and has been used for many years already. Applying herbicides isn’t inducing resistance, it is only selecting for resistant mutants, so the emergence of new varieties hasn’t increased since the introduction of GE crops. It’s actually quite difficult to control herbicide resistance; it can certainly be done, but the associated costs are probably much greater than you might expect. The easiest method is probably to use more herbicides to begin with, which obviously has negative effects on the environment. Using multiple herbicides is a good strategy, but it’s not easy to predict which types of weeds will be problematic year to year, and is prohibitively expensive on lower acreage crops such as sugarbeets (fewer available herbicide options). If you are rotating crops, you also need to ensure that you aren’t using herbicides that have a long soil longevity (like 3 years for imazethapyr) that prevent you from planting other crops in that field. You can, of course use other weed management methods (tillage, cover crops, hand weeding, etc.), but these also have high costs and weeds can develop resistance to all of them as well.

That's weird. I'm not sure why the links didn't work since they work if you copy/paste them:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bronner/herbicide-insecticide-use_b_...
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X2012...

EDIT: it seems to be causing the same error. I don't know what's up with it, this janky forum seems to be truncating the links. Anyone that wants to can just do a search for pesticide use increases and GMOs

Anyways, yes it's true that herbicide tolerance isn't unique to GMOs. However, glyphosate resistance is a problem now because of the dramatic increase in recent years of glyphosate applciation, which has gone hand-in-hand with the rapid increase in genetically modified crops. Monstanto's published advice in scientific journals has been for years to simply increase the dose.

Quote:

Applying herbicides isn’t inducing resistance, it is only selecting for resistant mutants, so the emergence of new varieties hasn’t increased since the introduction of GE crops. It’s actually quite difficult to control herbicide resistance; it can certainly be done, but the associated costs are probably much greater than you might expect.

What?? I don't know what point you're making about induction. Obviously it is selecting for resistant mutants: that's exactly what we're talking about. What does it mean to say it "only selecting for resistant mutants"? That's exactly the mechanism we're talking about! Quick succsession plants (ie weeds) willd develop immunities faster than we can keep up with them. That's exactly the problem. That's an endemic problem in pesticides. All the species which we attempt to control with these poisons (be it aphids and mites or weeds) have rapid reproductive cycles and will develop immuntities to the toxins we're applying to them.

Your suggestion that we simply apply more poison is not only bad for the enviornment, it exagerates the rate of resistance development because it increases the selection pressure on organisms which are defined by their capacity to reproduce rapidly and explosively. Incidentally, it is exactly the same advice Monsanto has been giving farmers up til now which is observably failing, which is precisely why 2,4-D resistant crops are now being introduced. We will then experience the same jump in 2,4-D application which we have seen in glyphosate, and we will see the emergence of 2,4-D resistant weeds.

You cannot separate an analysis of GMO agriculture from pesticides because it is the same companies which produce and market both. It is absolutely not surprising that we would see what we are seeing now.

Timebandit wrote:

There are other, more poisonous "naturally derived" pesticides that are commonly used.  They are every bit as toxic as the "unnatural" sort - they're just less processed. Organic doesn't mean benign. In concentration, they can be equally destructive. What you get at the organic counter is as much factory farmed as the rest of the produce in the grocery store and it uses its fair share of chemicals. It's the source of the chemical that's at issue, that's all.

Maybe you could ante up with a specific example what you are talking about so we can discuss it in a specific way - pyrethrum? BT? nicotine? And yes, my grandmother just about passed out from the latter back in the day. They still aren't nerve agents. 

And  organic vs chemical farming and small scale vs industrial are two separate issues. Just because some industrial producers might grow organic foods doesn't turn the whole thing into jello, though some might make that argument.

BT isn't harmful to humans, although mention a monsanto corn that produces its own and you'll have the detractors of GMOs howling about how dangerous it is.

Nicotine, yes, pyrethrum, rontenone, just a few off the top of my head. And of course, for all of them, the dose makes the poison. My argument isn't that there are terrible chemicals used in organic farming so much as that they aren't any better than glyphosate, which isn't really harmful to humans, either.

Quote:

For example, glyphosate, which is often paired with herbicide resistant GMO crops, shuts down a biochemical pathway in plants that simply doesn’t exist in mammals. In contrast many of the natural toxins found in plants can be harmful to mammals. Yet we’re far more concerned about glyphosate residues than we are about natural formaldehyde in pears. Check out the graphic at the end of this article that highlights this point: we fear anything that’s synthetic because we assume that it’s “bad for us”, but there’s plenty of stuff that’s “natural” that can be harmful at a certain dose.

I’ve read a lot of arguments from anti-GMO groups about how transgenic crops that have the Bt-toxin will kill us all, because it’s a registered pesticide with the EPA. “Do you want to eat something that’s a pesticide?” is what I’ve read time and time again. But as I’ve noted above there are plenty of “natural chemicals” that are registered pesticides, but no one seems to be freaking out about basil and mustard seeds.

https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/20/myth-busting-are-synth...

PS - I've put Bt all over my organic garden time and again...

ETA: another interesting link

Quote:

When you test synthetic chemicals for their ability to cause cancer, you find that about half of them are carcinogenic.

Until recently, nobody bothered to look at natural chemicals (such as organic pesticides), because it was assumed that they posed little risk. But when the studies were done, the results were somewhat shocking: you find that about half of the natural chemicals studied are carcinogenic as well.

This is a case where everyone (consumers, farmers, researchers) made the same, dangerous mistake. We assumed that "natural" chemicals were automatically better and safer than synthetic materials, and we were wrong. It's important that we be more prudent in our acceptance of "natural" as being innocuous and harmless.

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html

I have used BT as well. I am not talking about BT. And I know that "natural" poisons are poisons.

Is that in any way an argument that we should keep using DDT?

As for Roundup, there is a study on that wikipedia page showing links to lymphoma, and much more serious treat to amphibians.