"Earth Overshoot Day" set a new record this year.

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

First, the background. It should be common sense to anyone that our biological footprint on this earth is countered by the fact that the earth itself replenishes many resources. For example, we eat a fish, and another fish is born to replace it. We release some carbon dioxide, and it is absorbed by growing plants. And so on. However, since the 1970s, humanity has been using earth's resources at a faster rate than they are replenished. This year, we went into the red on August 13, the earliest ever.

Now, a caveat: this is a bit of an oversimplification. It's not like every single fishery and every single carbon sink hit D-Day at the same time. Earth Overshoot Day is simply the point where the average use of all our renewable resources outstrips the productive ability of the planet for a single year.

This is an important concept. Too many people dismiss environmentalists as people who care more about some random fish than fellow humans. That's not the case. We don't think (by and large) that environmental issues are the foremost pressing issues for our species going forward simply because we think there is some moral imperative to "treat the earth right." It's because we know that we need the earth to remain sustainable for our own species to survive and thrive. When the North Atlantic Cod Fishery collapsed, it destroyed lives and local economies. If enough fisheries collapse, people will starve. Sustainability isn't ultimately about the protection of the planet; it's about the survival of humankind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

First, the background. It should be common sense to anyone that our biological footprint on this earth is countered by the fact that the earth itself replenishes many resources. For example, we eat a fish, and another fish is born to replace it. We release some carbon dioxide, and it is absorbed by growing plants. And so on. However, since the 1970s, humanity has been using earth's resources at a faster rate than they are replenished. This year, we went into the red on August 13, the earliest ever.

Now, a caveat: this is a bit of an oversimplification. It's not like every single fishery and every single carbon sink hit D-Day at the same time. Earth Overshoot Day is simply the point where the average use of all our renewable resources outstrips the productive ability of the planet for a single year.

This is an important concept. Too many people dismiss environmentalists as people who care more about some random fish than fellow humans. That's not the case. We don't think (by and large) that environmental issues are the foremost pressing issues for our species going forward simply because we think there is some moral imperative to "treat the earth right." It's because we know that we need the earth to remain sustainable for our own species to survive and thrive. When the North Atlantic Cod Fishery collapsed, it destroyed lives and local economies. If enough fisheries collapse, people will starve. Sustainability isn't ultimately about the protection of the planet; it's about the survival of humankind.

Geeze, no wonder trout fishing has been slow this year.

A couple of observations/questions.

The food chain for humans starts with insects and plankton. It is my understanding, from a national geographic article that those are becoming more abundant. Maybe we need to eat different critters.

What is the greenie problem with fish farms? The Norweigans are heavily involved with that and they have lived off fishing forever. Seems like a lot of whole foods types are vehemently against them.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Geeze, no wonder trout fishing has been slow this year.

A couple of observations/questions.

The food chain for humans starts with insects and plankton. It is my understanding, from a national geographic article that those are becoming more abundant. Maybe we need to eat different critters.

What is the greenie problem with fish farms? The Norweigans are heavily involved with that and they have lived off fishing forever. Seems like a lot of whole foods types are vehemently against them.

Foodies and greenies are not the same people. Foodies hate farmed fish. Greenies prefer it. There are other issues they part ways. Foodies love quinoa. Most environmentalists won't eat it on account it's role in South American subsistence diets.

 

[twenty02]

How about GMOs?

Saw an interesting article calling out the hypocrisy of Dems being the party of science, and then wanting to require gmo labeling....

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

How about GMOs?

Saw an interesting article calling out the hypocrisy of Dems being the party of science, and then being wanting to require gmo labeling....

Wait, what? Is it wrong to want people to know what they are buying? Some people don't want to eat GMOs.

 

[twenty02]

Wait, what? Is it wrong to want people to know what they are buying? Some people don't want to eat GMOs.

There is nothing stopping some ' natural' food company from slapping gmo-free on any of their products to appeal to the silly saps who will pay extra for it....and not even know what it means.

You can't talk about environmental sustainability on one hand, then bad mouth gmo on the other hand. It's beyond ignorant and flies in the face of science

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ying-a-right-to-know-whats-in-my-food/399536/

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

There is nothing stopping some ' natural' food company from slapping gmo-free on any of their products to appeal to the silly saps who will pay extra for it....and not even know what it means.

You can't talk about environmental sustainability on one hand, then bad mouth gmo on the other hand. It's beyond ignorant and flies in the face of science

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ying-a-right-to-know-whats-in-my-food/399536/

I'm not arguing the science and I'm not ignorant. I'm talking about truth in labeling. Your off arguing some tangent I didn't bring up. I'm not bad mouthing anything so I don't know where you pulled that out of, but I bet it stinks. Just tell people what's in the food they are buying. I can't make it any more simple.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

There is nothing stopping some ' natural' food company from slapping gmo-free on any of their products to appeal to the silly saps who will pay extra for it....and not even know what it means.

You can't talk about environmental sustainability on one hand, then bad mouth gmo on the other hand. It's beyond ignorant and flies in the face of science

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ying-a-right-to-know-whats-in-my-food/399536/

No, it doesn't. GMO usage correlates to an increase in dangerous herbicide usage and perhaps health problems among farmers. It's certainly not good that more and more poor South Americans are being forced to give up their traditional (and more healthy) quinoa in exchange for a diet based on patented Roundup Ready corn.

The evidence that GMO crops increase yields is surprisingly thin. So we end up with lower biodiversity, more chemicals dumped into the ground, and we don't really feed any more people from it.

 

[twenty02]

I'm not arguing the science and I'm not ignorant. I'm talking about truth in labeling. Your off arguing some tangent I didn't bring up. I'm not bad mouthing anything so I don't know where you pulled that out of, but I bet it stinks. Just tell people what's in the food they are buying. I can't make it any more simple.

But it's not that simple. Did you read the Atlantic article? what defines what is or is not GMO?

 

[twenty02]

No, it doesn't. GMO usage correlates to an increase in dangerous herbicide usage and perhaps health problems among farmers. It's certainly not good that more and more poor South Americans are being forced to give up their traditional (and more healthy) quinoa in exchange for a diet based on patented Roundup Ready corn.

The evidence that GMO crops increase yields is surprisingly thin. So we end up with lower biodiversity, more chemicals dumped into the ground, and we don't really feed any more people from it.

I don't know about the south American issue, but this article doesn't agree with you. If the earth is going to need to feed another 2b people, we're going to need some advances.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...anic-advocates-should-love-gmos/#.VdI7RN_D_qA

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

But it's not that simple. Did you read the Atlantic article? what defines what is or is not GMO?

Well, if it's been "genetically modified" due to people f*cking with it in order to "modify" it, it's GMO.

X: I'm not sure how to define GMO
Y: Did you splice a bunch of sh*t together to fundamentally change this crop/plant?
X: Um, yeah.
Y: Then it's GMO

God, that's even more ridiculous than saying you don't know what the definition of "is" is.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

But it's not that simple. Did you read the Atlantic article? what defines what is or is not GMO?

That Atlantic article dramatically misrepresents what the actual problems with GMO crops are. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a crop that has been genetically modified. Rather, the dangers are, e.g.:

1. The most common modifications lead to an increase in chemical herbicides.
2. The spread of GMOs bring a dramatic drop in crop biodiversity.
3. Some GMO crops are designed to produce their own insecticides, which may be a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder, which is one of the most dangerous of all environmental problems today, in terms of potential negative effects on humans (although the jury is not completely back on this one, yet).
4. Related to #2, replacement of local crops with GMO crops are associated with a decrease in the quality of diet for poor locals. This is especially true when an influx of GMOs is accompanied by an increase in the foreign demand for what were previously staple crops, like quinoa, driving up the price.

There is some evidence that, in certain situations, the planting of GMO crops may help some regions increase yields (although the jury is still out on this, too). In those cases, and in regions which have a difficult time feeding the local populace, I think it's safe to say that it may be worth the negatives to plant those crops. But in areas where we grow enough food to feed everyone, GMO is simply a way for large corporations to get a bigger piece of the financial pie while farmers and local populations see a decrease in their quality of life.

It's not just about some hippies sitting around saying, "It's from a laboratory! Gross!" Those people exist, but they aren't the driving force behind the non-GMO movement. The Atlantic article is holding them up as representative, and making a straw man argument in the process.

 

[twenty02]

Well, if it's been "genetically modified" due to people f*cking with it in order to "modify" it, it's GMO.

X: I'm not sure how to define GMO
Y: Did you splice a bunch of sh*t together to fundamentally change this crop/plant?
X: Um, yeah.
Y: Then it's GMO

God, that's even more ridiculous than saying you don't know what the definition of "is" is.

You are clearly too lazy to actually read, which isn't surprising, so I'll post the specific section here:

The central and debilitating fallacy of the “right to know” argument is the meaninglessness and misleading nature of what is being known. Humans have been practicing bioengineering for centuries with selective breeding and cultivation. The Non-GMO Project defines “genetically modified organisms” as those “artificially manipulated in a laboratory” as opposed to “traditional cross-breeding methods,” wherein a laboratory is the nidus of transgression. It was only as recently as 1979 that Gallatin Valley Seed won the All American Selection Award for creating a variety of pea known as sugar snap, which is now ubiquitous, but carries no Franken-crop warning label. Indeed, most any act of agriculture could be considered an imposition of “unnatural” human activity into malleable, unassuming ecosystems. The domain of bioengineering is too vast and complex to know what exactly to make of blanket “GMO” labels; the hopeful premise that this is a binary indicator of good or evil is false. Should I have the “right to know” if my food contains ghosts?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You are clearly too lazy to actually read, which isn't surprising, so I'll post the specific section here:

The central and debilitating fallacy of the “right to know” argument is the meaninglessness and misleading nature of what is being known. Humans have been practicing bioengineering for centuries with selective breeding and cultivation. The Non-GMO Project defines “genetically modified organisms” as those “artificially manipulated in a laboratory” as opposed to “traditional cross-breeding methods,” wherein a laboratory is the nidus of transgression. It was only as recently as 1979 that Gallatin Valley Seed won the All American Selection Award for creating a variety of pea known as sugar snap, which is now ubiquitous, but carries no Franken-crop warning label. Indeed, most any act of agriculture could be considered an imposition of “unnatural” human activity into malleable, unassuming ecosystems. The domain of bioengineering is too vast and complex to know what exactly to make of blanket “GMO” labels; the hopeful premise that this is a binary indicator of good or evil is false. Should I have the “right to know” if my food contains ghosts?

So, centuries ago they had labs with microscopes and genetic engineers splicing genes together? Is this guy trying to say cross breeding plants and genetically splicing plants are the same thing? Sweetheart, we aren't talking about the evolution of corn. I read the article. The person who wrote it is just as ignorant as you are if they don't know how to define GMO.

 

[Noodle]

For those interested in facts...http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...d_lies_and_errors.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top

 

[Standard Issue]

That Atlantic article dramatically misrepresents what the actual problems with GMO crops are. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a crop that has been genetically modified. Rather, the dangers are, e.g.:

1. The most common modifications lead to an increase in chemical herbicides.
2. The spread of GMOs bring a dramatic drop in crop biodiversity.
3. Some GMO crops are designed to produce their own insecticides, which may be a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder, which is one of the most dangerous of all environmental problems today, in terms of potential negative effects on humans (although the jury is not completely back on this one, yet).
4. Related to #2, replacement of local crops with GMO crops are associated with a decrease in the quality of diet for poor locals. This is especially true when an influx of GMOs is accompanied by an increase in the foreign demand for what were previously staple crops, like quinoa, driving up the price.

There is some evidence that, in certain situations, the planting of GMO crops may help some regions increase yields (although the jury is still out on this, too). In those cases, and in regions which have a difficult time feeding the local populace, I think it's safe to say that it may be worth the negatives to plant those crops. But in areas where we grow enough food to feed everyone, GMO is simply a way for large corporations to get a bigger piece of the financial pie while farmers and local populations see a decrease in their quality of life.

It's not just about some hippies sitting around saying, "It's from a laboratory! Gross!" Those people exist, but they aren't the driving force behind the non-GMO movement. The Atlantic article is holding them up as representative, and making a straw man argument in the process.

My father planted RoundUp ready soybeans the last few years he was actively farming. And I won't argue any with of your points except for number one and then only from the perspective of one guy planting one type of modified crop. Farmers as a group dislike Monsanto and ADM with a passion and wouldn't pay them a nickel if they could keep from it. The seed is expensive and they have to sign a contract that says they won't keep some of their crop and plant it the following year (bin run). And they try to enforce the contract even if you didn't plant their product but your crops were pollinated by a bee that didn't read the contract. If they are going the GMO route (with soybeans) it's because of an advantage and that advantage correlates to profit. So either the yield is up, chemical usage is down or a combination of the two. I know that going from standard soybeans to RoundUp ready allowed my dad to cut his chemical usage by 2/3. It also made it possible to go with no-till drill planter so he removed all the passes over the fields to plow and disk (twice) before planting.

I agree with everything else that you listed and I think products should be noted if they contain components made from a GMO.

 

[Noodle]

That Atlantic article dramatically misrepresents what the actual problems with GMO crops are. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a crop that has been genetically modified. Rather, the dangers are, e.g.:

1. The most common modifications lead to an increase in chemical herbicides.
2. The spread of GMOs bring a dramatic drop in crop biodiversity.
3. Some GMO crops are designed to produce their own insecticides, which may be a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder, which is one of the most dangerous of all environmental problems today, in terms of potential negative effects on humans (although the jury is not completely back on this one, yet).

No, the jury is back on the claimed link between Bt-producing crops and colony collapse disorder. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the data is decidedly against it. Sure there are people that still claim it's causing colony collapse--just like their are still people claiming there is a link between vaccines and autism.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

My father planted RoundUp ready soybeans the last few years he was actively farming. And I won't argue any with of your points except for number one and then only from the perspective of one guy planting one type of modified crop. Farmers as a group dislike Monsanto and ADM with a passion and wouldn't pay them a nickel if they could keep from it. The seed is expensive and they have to sign a contract that says they won't keep some of their crop and plant it the following year (bin run). And they try to enforce the contract even if you didn't plant their product but your crops were pollinated by a bee that didn't read the contract. If they are going the GMO route (with soybeans) it's because of an advantage and that advantage correlates to profit. So either the yield is up, chemical usage is down or a combination of the two. I know that going from standard soybeans to RoundUp ready allowed my dad to cut his chemical usage by 2/3. It also made it possible to go with no-till drill planter so he removed all the passes over the fields to plow and disk (twice) before planting.

I agree with everything else that you listed and I think products should be noted if they contain components made from a GMO.

Overall, switching to GM crops tends to result in an increase in herbicides, but a decrease in insecticides. I'm perfectly willing to believe that some farms will see a net decrease in the amount of chemicals they are using.

It also has to be admitted that the strongest links between insecticides and CCD have to do with neonicotinoids, rather than Bt corn proper, and so it's really a side issue to the GMO debate. However, the vast majority of GM corn is treated with neonicotinoids.

The other issue you bring up, which I skipped over, is also very important, and it's probably the one most farmers care about. Having our food patented is just a bad idea, in my book. It's shameful that farmers, once they switch to Monsanto, are pretty much locked in for life, since they can no longer keep over any seed from year to year. This is extremely bad for crop biodiversity, and also bad for farmer independence.

 

[Noodle]

My father planted RoundUp ready soybeans the last few years he was actively farming. And I won't argue any with of your points except for number one and then only from the perspective of one guy planting one type of modified crop. Farmers as a group dislike Monsanto and ADM with a passion and wouldn't pay them a nickel if they could keep from it. The seed is expensive and they have to sign a contract that says they won't keep some of their crop and plant it the following year (bin run). And they try to enforce the contract even if you didn't plant their product but your crops were pollinated by a bee that didn't read the contract. If they are going the GMO route (with soybeans) it's because of an advantage and that advantage correlates to profit. So either the yield is up, chemical usage is down or a combination of the two. I know that going from standard soybeans to RoundUp ready allowed my dad to cut his chemical usage by 2/3. It also made it possible to go with no-till drill planter so he removed all the passes over the fields to plow and disk (twice) before planting.

I agree with everything else that you listed and I think products should be noted if they contain components made from a GMO.

You also have to consider the types of pesticides that were used in the past compared to those used today, particularly glyphosate. While no one should be drinking the stuff, it's a hell of a lot safer than pesticides used in the past. That's why data showing an increase in pesticide usage is largely meaningless if you aren't looking at how much of what pesticides were being used.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No, the jury is back on the claimed link between Bt-producing crops and colony collapse disorder. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the data is decidedly against it. Sure there are people that still claim it's causing colony collapse--just like their are still people claiming there is a link between vaccines and autism.

Actually, I'd say the jury is not back yet. Not enough research has been done. But, as I said to Standard Issue in my previous post, it has to be admitted that CCD has been linked directly to neonicotinoids, not Bt, and therefore is not directly a GMO issue, in the sense that neonicotinoids can be used on both GM and non-GM crops. However, 94% of GM maize is treated with neonicotinoids in America. What this really highlights is that, unlike the Atlantic article twenty posted, the real issue with GM crops isn't the genetic modification itself, but the fact that their use is associated with an increase in the use of certain chemical pesticides, which may have deleterious effects. Much bigger concerns to me, however, which the extremely long article you shared completely ignored, are issues of crop biodiversity and the effect of having staple foods muscled out of third world agriculture.

 

[Noodle]

It's shameful that farmers, once they switch to Monsanto, are pretty much locked in for life, since they can no longer keep over any seed from year to year. This is extremely bad for crop biodiversity, and also bad for farmer independence.

No one is forcing them to switch. If, as you claim, it does not increase yields and forces them to use more pesticides, then I guess they are all just stupid for switching to RoundUp Ready seed? They can buy non-RoundUp Ready seed (it's available). Yet, the vast majority of them do not. Why is that?

 

[Noodle]

Actually, I'd say the jury is not back yet. Not enough research has been done. But, as I said to Standard Issue in my previous post, it has to be admitted that CCD has been linked directly to neonicotinoids, not Bt, and therefore is not directly a GMO issue, in the sense that neonicotinoids can be used on both GM and non-GM crops. However, 94% of GM maize is treated with neonicotinoids in America. What this really highlights is that, unlike the Atlantic article twenty posted, the real issue with GM crops isn't the genetic modification itself, but the fact that their use is associated with an increase in the use of certain chemical pesticides, which may have deleterious effects. Much bigger concerns to me, however, which the extremely long article you shared completely ignored, are issues of crop biodiversity and the effect of having staple foods muscled out of third world agriculture.

The fact that 94% of corn grown in the U.S. are treated with neonicotinoids has nothing to do with the fact that it's GMO corn. The two are wholly unrelated. In fact, neonicotinoids are used on lots of different seeds that are non-GMO.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, the jury is back on the claimed link between Bt-producing crops and colony collapse disorder. There is no evidence for it. In fact, the data is decidedly against it. Sure there are people that still claim it's causing colony collapse--just like their are still people claiming there is a link between vaccines and autism.

While in DC I read in the Washington Post that the "bee-pocalypse," otherwise known as colony collapse disorder appears to be over.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

No one is forcing them to switch. If, as you claim, it does not increase yields and forces them to use more pesticides, then I guess they are all just stupid for switching to RoundUp Ready seed? They can buy non-RoundUp Ready seed (it's available). Yet, the vast majority of them do not. Why is that?

I don't know. In some cases, maybe it's more cost-effective. Some farmers probably use less chemicals. Or maybe all of the neighboring fields are already using Roundup, so they don't feel like they have a choice. But I do know that the evidence that GM crops lead to increased yields and profits for farmers overall is severely lacking.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

While in DC I read in the Washington Post that the "bee-pocalypse," otherwise known as colony collapse disorder appears to be over.

Colony collapse happens over the winter, so I'll be interested in seeing what happens come spring, but just reading that article quickly, it looks less like CCD is over and more like beekeepers in America have come up with ways to deal with it effectively. Not quite the same thing. However, regardless of how you phrase it, getting the bee population back up is very good news. Of all the horrible things we do to our planet, killing off the bees may be the one that has the largest potential harmful effect on humans.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The fact that 94% of corn grown in the U.S. are treated with neonicotinoids has nothing to do with the fact that it's GMO corn. The two are wholly unrelated. In fact, neonicotinoids are used on lots of different seeds that are non-GMO.

Which I readily admitted. It's a messy, complicated issue. The original Atlantic article makes it sound like it's just a bunch of hippies who are opposed to Frankenfoods on principle. And while those people definitely exist, they are not the driving force behind this debate.

 

[Standard Issue]

You also have to consider the types of pesticides that were used in the past compared to those used today, particularly glyphosate. While no one should be drinking the stuff, it's a hell of a lot safer than pesticides used in the past. That's why data showing an increase in pesticide usage is largely meaningless if you aren't looking at how much of what pesticides were being used.

Soybeans and corn are different animal than straight consumer crops. We never used insecticides on any of the crops other than maybe a narrow granular band during planting to keep wire worms from boring into the corn kernel before it could germinate. Maybe in other parts of the country they sprayed for pests but we/he didn't.
Glycophosate (RoundUp) is a herbicide.

 

[Standard Issue]

I don't know. In some cases, maybe it's more cost-effective. Some farmers probably use less chemicals. Or maybe all of the neighboring fields are already using Roundup, so they don't feel like they have a choice. But I do know that the evidence that GM crops lead to increased yields and profits for farmers overall is severely lacking.

It may be lacking in printed form that can be found via Google but every farmer can sit you down and show you their numbers and if they didn't add up they wouldn't be on board. Farmers if nothing else are pragmatic.

 

[twenty02]

That Atlantic article dramatically misrepresents what the actual problems with GMO crops are. There is nothing inherently dangerous about a crop that has been genetically modified. Rather, the dangers are, e.g.:

1. The most common modifications lead to an increase in chemical herbicides.
2. The spread of GMOs bring a dramatic drop in crop biodiversity.
3. Some GMO crops are designed to produce their own insecticides, which may be a contributing factor to colony collapse disorder, which is one of the most dangerous of all environmental problems today, in terms of potential negative effects on humans (although the jury is not completely back on this one, yet).
4. Related to #2, replacement of local crops with GMO crops are associated with a decrease in the quality of diet for poor locals. This is especially true when an influx of GMOs is accompanied by an increase in the foreign demand for what were previously staple crops, like quinoa, driving up the price.

There is some evidence that, in certain situations, the planting of GMO crops may help some regions increase yields (although the jury is still out on this, too). In those cases, and in regions which have a difficult time feeding the local populace, I think it's safe to say that it may be worth the negatives to plant those crops. But in areas where we grow enough food to feed everyone, GMO is simply a way for large corporations to get a bigger piece of the financial pie while farmers and local populations see a decrease in their quality of life.

It's not just about some hippies sitting around saying, "It's from a laboratory! Gross!" Those people exist, but they aren't the driving force behind the non-GMO movement. The Atlantic article is holding them up as representative, and making a straw man argument in the process.

As already pointed out, pure economics pretty much destroys your argument. No rational farmer in this country, and farmers are the most rational people I know, would pay the higher seed cost for something that requires more overall chemicals and/or produces the same yield. Defies basic logic.

The diversity argument is valid, and is why ag science companies will have to continue to innovate. But agriculture has been innovating forever.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It may be lacking in printed form that can be found via Google but every farmer can sit you down and show you their numbers and if they didn't add up they wouldn't be on board. Farmers if nothing else are pragmatic.

I'm sure farmers wouldn't do it if they lost money on the proposition. I'm really talking about the promise of GM crops feeding the third world. That hasn't happened. The spread of GM crops in South America, Africa and South Asia hasn't had the effects on yields that were expected.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

As already pointed out, pure economics pretty much destroys your argument. No rational farmer in this country, and farmers are the most rational people I know, would pay the higher seed cost for something that requires more overall chemicals and/or produces the same yield. Defies basic logic.

The diversity argument is valid, and is why ag science companies will have to continue to innovate. But agriculture has been innovating forever.

I didn't make any argument that farmers were losing money on the proposition. Your response to my argument is nonresponsive.

 

[Noodle]

Soybeans and corn are different animal than straight consumer crops. We never used insecticides on any of the crops other than maybe a narrow granular band during planting to keep wire worms from boring into the corn kernel before it could germinate. Maybe in other parts of the country they sprayed for pests but we/he didn't.
Glycophosate (RoundUp) is a herbicide.

You got me. I knew that it was a herbicide but was sloppy. I use it from time to time at home. Funny story about that...a week or so ago I had corn that started growing in my yard from some seed that fell from a bird feeder. So I sprayed it with some glyphosate (not RoundUp--a cheaper brand), but for the first few days it looked like nothing happened to the corn. I laughed and told me wife that I think they must even be putting the RoundUp Ready corn into birdseed now. Turns out I just needed to be patient, as it's all dead now.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You got me. I knew that it was a herbicide but was sloppy. I use it from time to time at home. Funny story about that...a week or so ago I had corn that started growing in my yard from some seed that fell from a bird feeder. So I sprayed it with some glyphosate (not RoundUp--a cheaper brand), but for the first few days it looked like nothing happened to the corn. I laughed and told me wife that I think they must even be putting the RoundUp Ready corn into birdseed now. Turns out I just needed to be patient, as it's all dead now.

This is odd. I have no birdfeeders, and I'm unaware of any nearby, but when I was mowing the other day, I swear I was cutting down corn out in the side yard.

 

[twenty02]

I didn't make any argument that farmers were losing money on the proposition. Your response to my argument is nonresponsive.

Sorry meant to quote your first response on the topic.

What are your thoughts on the Discover magazine blog post I included above?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Sorry meant to quote your first response on the topic.

What are your thoughts on the Discover magazine blog post I included above?

Sorry, did I not respond to that link, yet? I meant to. This thread moved so fast, I must have missed it.

I think that blog post illustrates something I said to COH at the very beginning of the thread: foodies and greenies are not the same people. There are some good things about the organic and natural food movement, environmentally speaking. For example, less use of chemical pesticides. There are some bad things, as well, however, such as the decimation of third world diets in favor of white liberal Americans who can afford to pay more.

People who care about food, the environment and agricultural are forced to make difficult decisions sometimes. To repeat an example I've already given, but in more detail, the foodie in me would love to eat quinoa. It's extremely nutritious, and, when prepared properly, can be very tasty. However, I absolutely refuse to do it. I refuse to be part of the American cultural elite who are driving up the cost of what was once a staple crop for millions of poor people in South America, who are now switching to less nutritious maize, because it's all they can afford.

As a foodie, I love wild-caught salmon. A fresh Alaska sockeye? There's nothing better. But, as an environmentalist, I make the difficult decision to limit my wild fish eating, and try to eat farm-raised, even though I know it's not quite as healthy (or delicious). Some species of fish, I refuse to eat at all, because they are so overfished, such as Chilean Sea Bass.

The organic movement is a helpful movement in some respects, but their goals are not always the goals of environmentalists, and when those contradictions occur, a lot of them stick with their foodie values, and drop the environmentalist schtick like a hot potato. Sometimes, that's because they don't care. My sister is on the forefront of the organic/natural movement. She doesn't give three shits about the environment. She's just paranoid about putting anything into her kids' bodies that she can't pronounce. She's also an anti-vaxxer (although, since she sent her kids to public school, luckily she's only an anti-vaxxer in principle, not in practice, so they won't suffer for it).

So I guess where that blog entry goes wrong is failing to recognize, as your Atlantic article did, and as COH did originally, that not all liberal hippies are cut from the same cloth. Foodies and Greens are allies at times, but they are not the same people, and they have different, sometimes contradictory values.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Especially for @Noodle ---

Just in time, here is an article from RS that touches on the strange connection between GM corn and neonicotinoid use.

For those who don't want to read the whole thing, it basically goes back to that biodiversity I keep harping about. As the American farming system in the 1990s shifted dramatically toward monoculture, the use of insecticides and fungicides on corn had to increase a lot. Bt corn covered some of the need, but not all of it, so neonicotinoids became especially prevalent in GM corn crops. These are the chemicals that are almost certainly at least partially to blame for the honeybee crisis.

 

[burbo]

This is odd. I have no birdfeeders, and I'm unaware of any nearby, but when I was mowing the other day, I swear I was cutting down corn out in the side yard.

Google johnsongrass and see if that is what you have in your yard.

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

I've been keeping loose tabs on the bee issue. I'm diabetic and apparently I'll be going blind in a couple years.

Raising bees is something I may start doing as I think the routine would be one not too difficult to master as a blind person. Especially if I can get things started prior. Also. I just like the idea of having a few hives. Do my part and outside of the startup expense very low maintenance.

I definitely believe our food labels should provide us with info of all types. Going to try to find a post of a European food label I saw I liked that had more info than ours carry.

Article regarding the politics of food: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=18743

Monsanto and others spend millions to defeat providing more food information labeling: http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ds-millions-defeat-states-gmo-labeling-effort

 

[burbo]

I've been keeping loose tabs on the bee issue. I'm diabetic and apparently I'll be going blind in a couple years.

Raising bees is something I may start doing as I think the routine would be one not too difficult to master as a blind person. Especially if I can get things started prior. Also. I just like the idea of having a few hives. Do my part and outside of the startup expense very low maintenance.

I definitely believe our food labels should provide us with info of all types. Going to try to find a post of a European food label I saw I liked that had more info than ours carry.

Article regarding the politics of food: http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&d=&t=18743

Monsanto and others spend millions to defeat providing more food information labeling: http://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ds-millions-defeat-states-gmo-labeling-effort

I think it's laudible that you want to start maintaining some hives, but I think you really need to do some research if you think it is relatively simple and low maintenance. I'm not sure where you're located, but the midwest has experienced a fairly high level of bee losses the past couple of winters. It seems to be weather events on top of CCD and/or poor health associated with the use of the Neonicotinoids that are mentioned above.

I have no experience with raising honeybees, but I do have friends involved with it and there are many things that can go wrong. Are you in an area that has suitable food sources throughout the year, or are you going to need to move the hives to different areas of the county or even different counties to find available food sources. If it's in a high cropping area, you'll probably have to deal with the affects of the bees being exposed to the Neonicotinoids. Many beekeepers in Indiana start supplemental feeding with candy boards or sugar water in October-November. Do you know how to deal with hive beetles and varoa mites? The hives need to be cleaned out each Spring. As I stated, I have no experience with that, but I'm around several folks that deal with those problem.

Again, I would recommend that you do a lot of research and more importantly, seek out some local bee keepers and learn from them. Many of them belong to clubs that meet monthly to discuss maintenance and care methods that they use and have success (or not) with. It seems anything but simple and low maintenance to me, at least if you want to harvest some honey and also maintain your bees. USDA considers normal mortality to be at 17.5% of the colonies.