End GMOs in exchange for Regenerative Agriculture

According to Pimentel (2001), the justification for the use of genetically modified organism (GMO) in agriculture is the fear of food shortages for an increasing global human population. Yang & Suh (2015) state that the environmental impact of major crops in the US has decreased by about 50% over the last 10 years due primarily to the use of GMOs. Both justifications seem logical, but there is more to consider. Namely, the loss of biodiversity and threat to food security that large scale agricultural use of GMOs brings with it. Not only that, but there are very real alternatives to the use of GMOs.

First, the use of GMOs may increase food supplies and reduce the use of pesticides, but the potential to cause widespread loss of food due to a lack of diversity in the food supply is also very real. The fewer species or sub-species available in the food supply, the more vulnerable the food supply becomes to environmental factors such as drought or disease. One species may be able to withstand certain instances of a degraded environment while another cannot. When we have only one species covering much of an entire continent’s food supply, the risk of total loss increases dramatically. Khan et al (2012) calls for research into the potential risks, including the risk of transgenic dispersal into wild species, before widespread use of GMOs continues. Furthermore, Khan et al (2012) rightfully points out that despite the wide spread use of GMOs in agriculture, world hunger continues unabated to this day. In fact, according to the website https://www.worldhunger.org/ 815 million people suffer from hunger each day throughout the world. So, it is safe to say that GMOs are, in fact, not saving humanity.

What about the alternatives? According to the CEO of EAT, a Norwegian organization promoting sustainable food production, about a third of all food produced by modern agriculture gets wasted (Deen 201. For example, about 20 percent of fruits and vegetables harvested in the US each year are never delivered to market because of imperfections, resulting in billions of pounds of wasted food (Kleinman 201. Or, according to Refed, a non-profit organization that works to reduce food waste in the US, about 62 million tons or $218 billion worth of food gets either discarded or not harvested due to aesthetics (http://www.refed.com/?sort=economic-value-per-ton ). Moreover, US food producers export only about half of one percent to countries with hungry populations such as Haiti, Yemen and Ethiopia (Schechinger 2016). With this much food going to waste why are people starving all over the world, and why are we searching for ways to increase food production? Why is so little US produced food going to hungry people around the world? Are we over thinking the problem? Are we too smart for our own good? Are we allowing food producing corporations to waste vast amounts of food to preserve their profit margins?

What about the use of pesticides? GMOs have reduced the environmental impact of agriculture in the US by about half over the last decade (Yang & Suh 2015). But, what does that really mean? Reduced by half, but what was the starting amount 10 years ago? Why do we not hear about regenerative agriculture instead of GMOs? Regenerative agriculture rebuilds the soil and results in greater soil fertility, sustained high yields with less pesticides than industrial agriculture (Montgomery 2017). There is more to regenerative agriculture than just reducing the use of pesticides. Regenerative agriculture also increases soil organic matter, which results in both increased carbon sequestration as well as increased nitrogen levels in the soil as a result of higher microbial bacteria in the soil (http://www.drawdown.org/solutions/food/regenerative-agriculture ).

Take a listen to Ben Dobson, a member of the Organic Materials Review Institute’s (https://www.omri.org/about ) board of directors talk about regenerative agriculture’s potential regarding climate change:



As far as GMO’s are concerned, for the reasons previously discussed they need to be abandoned. They are not ending world hunger. They may be reducing pesticide use, but we can reduce it further with the added benefit of climate change mitigation through regenerative agriculture. GMOs increase the potential for food security disaster by narrowing food biodiversity. This occurs through the natural gene flow outside. When GMO genes are introduced into an ecosystem, they get dispersed and naturally infuse with existing species, possibly causing ancient species to go extinct. A perfect example of this can be seen in the valleys of Mexico where maize has been growing forever and has evolved into many landraces (Quist & Chapela 2001). These are essentially all infused with GMO genes today. What makes humans think that we are so intelligent that we can redesign something that has evolved over immeasurable time? We believe that we can design something that will survive drought and disease, but it already exists. Just look around. Nature has been providing for us throughout time.

Steve

References:

Deen, T. (May 201. Food Waste Enough to Feed World’s Hungry Four Times Over. Inter Press Service, New Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/05/food-waste-enough-feed-worlds-hungry-four-times/

Khan, S. J., Muafia, S., Nasreen, Z., & Salariya, A. M. (June 2012). GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (GMOs): FOOD SECURITY OR THREAT TO FOOD SAFETY. Pakistan Journal Of Science, 64(2), 6.

Kleinman, A.J.C. (May 201. What Does Ugly Produce's Newfound Popularity Mean for Food Banks? Washington City Paper. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com...duces-newfound-popularity-mean-for-food-banks

Montgomery, D.R. (April 2017). 3 Big Myths about Modern Agriculture. Scientific American. Retrieved from: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-big-myths-about-modern-agriculture1/

Pimentel, D. (2001). Overview of the Use of Genetically Modified Organisms and Pesticides in Agriculture. Indiana Journal Of Global Legal Studies, (1), 51.

Quist, D., & Chapela, I.H. (November 2001). Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature volume 414, pages 541–543

Schechinger, A.W. (October 2016). FEEDING THE WORLD, Think U.S. Agriculture Will End World Hunger? Think Again. Environmental Working Group. Retrieved from:https://www.ewg.org/research/feeding-the-world#.Ww7ockgvzIU

Yang, Y., & Suh, S. (September 2015). Changes in environmental impacts of major crops in the US. Environmental Research Letters, 10(9), 9.

 

Considering that in 1990 (pre-GMO), about 1 billion people were starving, and that number is less now (815 million), despite a higher world population, seems to prove, that at least, GMO's aren't making things worse.

https://ourworldindata.org/slides/hunger-and-food-provision/#/8

According to the above, 10.8% of the world was undernourished in 2015. 18.6% were undernourished in 1991. It's a pretty steady decline.

 

I dont think GMO crops are going to be eliminated. They are simply too cost effective. They are also...in most farming systems...a practical tool in regenerating soil. No till has saved millions of tons of top soil every year. It seems to be the original regenerative agriculture. I used to think mulching 100 acres of land was practically impossible but now with roller crimper technology ....or chemical no till... it is not only practical but cheap. The OP seems to be saying"give up your GMO crops and farm my way.

 

Why don't you just create a greater diversity of GMO crops?

Who says you only have to make one?

And GMO's may not be ending world hunger but neither will your way.

That's a political problem, not an agricultural one.

 

The ban of GMO's by the EU has resulted in economic harm to those third world countries who would benefit most from their cultivation due to decreased expensive water, pesticide, and fertilizer requirements. No GMO has ever harmed anyone.

 

Perhaps Western subsidies have harmed them more?

 

I didn't say that GMO harmed people directly. They are, however, a threat to food security. By reducing crop diversity, crops are more susceptible to disease and drought. Greater crop diversity is one of the advantages of regenerative methods.

Research regenerative agriculture and reduced water and pesticide use. Also, increased carbon sequestration and soil organic matter results from regenerative agriculture methods.

 

That's exactly what GMO's do. Reduced water, pesticide, fertilizer, and herbicide costs plus higher heat tolerances. And in some cases provide for known vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies.

 

Grow hydroponically forget GMO, US law is a joke I can insert a cancer gene into a plant and sell it tomorrow with no testing under US law! Aquaponics is taking it to the next level! Making the plants Round up resistant so you can spray more pesticides is not reducing lol.

Water usage isn't the issue the issue is shipping goods, what do you think California exporting so many oranges and wine's is doing to their water supply? They're exporting it!

Farming needs to be decentralised as much as possible, no government funding for large farms!

 

This sure sounds like a good idea to me......

 

Okay...let me put it this way. I work in a small scale but i don't plow my ground. But i do deep mulch where i can and i use generic roundup. I have a small pasture set aside for my goat garden. It just had watermelon growing on it and we got some good melons. Last fall we had rygrass growing there. So come spring i let the goats eat it down to almost nothing. It was still green so i sprayed roundup rather than till. Then i built hills with rotten hay and planted my watermelon seeds in it. Then i let them go and didn't even walk in it for a couple months. Then i just let eveything grow. After the watermelon harvest i let the goats have it. I will soon do a burn down with roundup and plant rygrass. When the rygrass dies off...about June...I will probably plant some field peas....harvest the peas...and let the goats eat the vines...then rygrass again in the fall. Everything that grows there stays there contributing to the organic matter in the soil and feeding my family and the livestock. So I use no tractor, no tiller, and just hand tools. I can prepare land for planting almost as fast as walking through it. Of course I add manure, mulch, and other things as they become a available. I just had a bunch of wood chips dumped off and my regular garden is getting mulched about 4 inches deep. I could use a trailer to pull behind my lawn tractor however.

 

This ia the watermelon patch after the goats. They are still working on it. They will add manure, saliva, and urine to the soil. They improve the pasture and keep it fertile. I also have chickens making manure for me.

 

The main thing about GMOs is it's designed to make the plant itself resistant so it can be sprayed with lots of pesticides. These high levels of pesticides would cause a regular plant to not grow well, but the GMOs allow the plant to grow well in a situation where any other lifeforms will be killed.

 

No...GMOS were developed to reduce pesticide use. If it has the bt toxin gene it will kill bugs without being sprayed. And gm crops for no till are developed to be sprayed with the herbicide gyphosate. You can kill the weeds and leave the crop growing. Roundup ready crops reduce tillage...this slows the breakdown of organic matter in the soil. Tillage is the enemy of good soil management. Introduction of nitrogen from the air into soil will accelerate the decomposition of organic matter. It also disrupts worm population and micoryzal fungi in soils.

 

More GMO crops are designed to be resistant to pesticide than to make their own pesticides.

Being resistant to pesticides and herbicides allows them to use more of those pesticides and herbicides.

 

I would consider the advantages. I grew gm corn one year. No pesticides sprayed...had it in the plant...sprayed roundup once...the corn then had the advantage over the weeds...used a one gallon sprayer for roundup. Just walked between the rows and sprayed....one half pound of seed produced many dozen ears of corn...filled up my large freezer and gave away many dozen ears...all perfect with no bug damage at all. The best corn i ever grew. And the highest yeild of any corn i ever grew.

 

https://uk.lush.com/article/lesson-regenerative-agriculture-loess-plateau

 

A few snippets:

https://sustainablepulse.com/2017/09/06/a-short-history-of-glyphosate/#.W3X9ShlOnqC

1961: Glyphosate was patented in the U.S. as a Descaling and Chelating Agent by the Stauffer Chemical Co.

Due to its strong metal chelating properties, glyphosate was initially used as a descaling agent to clean out calcium and other mineral deposits in pipes and boilers of residential and commercial hot water systems.
1985: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classified glyphosate as a Class C Carcinogen.

On February 11, 1985 the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate was first considered by an EPA panel, called the Toxicology Branch Ad Hoc Committee. The Committee, in a consensus review dated March 4, 1985, then classified glyphosate as a Class C Carcinogen. A Class C Carcinogen has ”Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” according to the EPA.

1985: Monsanto tried to persuade the U.S. EPA that glyphosate was not a possible human carcinogen

Dr. George Levinskas, who joined Monsanto in 1971 and became Director of Environmental Assessment and Toxicology, was a lead player in the cover up of the carcinogenic potential of the now banned PCBs in the 1970s.

In April 1985 he wrote an internal company letter stating the following: “Senior management at the EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C “possible human carcinogen” because of kidney adenomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to the EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.”

1991: EPA change classification of glyphosate from Class C “Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” to Class E which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”

The Class C carcinogen classification for glyphosate, which was decided upon in 1985, was changed by the EPA to a Class E category which suggests “evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans”. Mysteriously this change in glyphosate’s classification occurred during the same period that Monsanto was developing its first Roundup-Ready (glyphosate-resistant) GM Crops.

2012: Professor Seralini study shows harm being caused by low doses of glyphosate-based herbicides and GM crops



In 2012 the French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini published his famous toxicity study, which showed how rats fed on a diet containing NK603 Roundup tolerant GM maize or given water containing Roundup, at levels permitted in drinking water and GM crops in the U.S., suffered severe liver and kidney damage.

This was not the first independent study showing the possible damage being caused to health by glyphosate-based herbicide but it was the most high profile long-term study.
2016: Alarming levels of glyphosate contamination found in popular American foods



Glyphosate was found at alarming levels in a wide range of best-selling foods across the U.S., Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project announced in November 2016.

The testing project found alarming levels of glyphosate in General Mills’ Cheerios and Honey Nut Cheerios, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran and Frosted Flakes and PepsiCo’s Doritos Cool Ranch, Ritz Crackers and Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips, as well as many more famous products.

2017: Groundbreaking study shows Roundup causes liver disease at low doses

This peer-reviewed study led by Dr Michael Antoniou at King’s College London using cutting edge profiling methods describes the molecular composition of the livers of female rats administered with an extremely low dose of Roundup weedkiller over a 2-year period. The dose of glyphosate from the Roundup administered was thousands of times below what is permitted by regulators worldwide. The study revealed that these animals suffered from non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).

This study is unique in that it is the first to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmental dose and a serious disease condition.

 

Horse ****, greatest stuff ever!

f*ck Monsanto

 

Opposition to GMOs is kind of silly and mostly based upon thoughtless fear. Though the biodiversity argument is at least somewhat sane. Loss of biodiversity has been a real theme as humans have bent the world to their will. In the case of plants, it's not so complicated to just keep samples and seed banks to preserve a copy of biodiversity that can be reconstituted later if necessary. It's fine to take precautions against disaster and potential unintended consequences, but it's asinine to scrap a powerful tool that improves the lives of people out of fear.

 

You cant just say GMOs are bad without some evidence. All gm organisms are different. They have different gene splices. And biodiversity is compromised when crops are grown as monoculture.

 

Hydroponics is expensive and the first thing you know people will be saying that hydroponics create a nutrient deficient product.

 

Hydroponics is not expensive lol it's how we grow tomatoes in the UK which we grow under HPS or LED (Mostly HPS). When you mix the chemicals yourself and buy in 1000l IBC's it's very cheap I used to work in that industry. Grow shops rip the crap out of you. We mostly mixed powders but some nutrients came in liquid form. Commercial hydro is always recirculated.

Fytocell is the best grow media ever! Coco is also very good although you need to adjust feed to compensate.

Aquaponics is the organic (Depending on how you feed the fish) cousin of hydroponics feed fish, fish poo. Plants eat the fish poo, it's no good for weed but for many plants it's an excellent system.

 

My growing system uses soil and deep mulch. I have about 5,000 sq. feet of ground under a deep mulch. I never ever till. In fact, I dont have a workable tiller. With a deep mulch I use very little water. I also use very little...if any commercial fertilizer. With deep mulch I plant and pick. The real labor and expense is the application of the mulch. And the mulch is free. I just have to haul it from the back pasture to the garden. Mulching can also be dibe on a large scale using roller crimper technology. I also have a pasture that is not mulched. I grew watermelon this season by just laying down spoiled hay...planting the seed...and letting it grow. And after harvest let the goats eat it down to nothing. Everything goes back into the ground and the soil improves. I buy no lights and pay no electric bill. Nature does my science.

 

I'm all for natural if I ever buy a small holding it'll be organically ran. I also don't mind hydroponcs. It's just GM I'm against! And Glyphosate of course.