Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Genetically modified means gen splicing in the lab, for the specific ends of letting the plant in question be "immune" to some herbicide or pesticide. It benefits no one but the patent holder. And it risks a great deal - and one result is super-weeds that are also immune to the chemicals.
Gee, what a great outcome...
|
So, one application GM has been used in is to provide resistance to glyphosate pesticides. That does make it easier to spray for weeds and increase crop yields from a given piece of land and other inputs. If nothing else, that increase in efficiency should result in lower prices (to someone) and lower greenhouse gas emissions for a given yield. Those are benefits.
"Super weeds", resistant to glyphosate, how though? As far as I know there's been no transfer of genetic resistance from crop plant to wild plant and the resistance has arisen due to simple selection pressure. That is known because there are different mechanisms by which resistance is conferred in the resistant crop plants and in the wild plants.
You might argue that glyphosate herbicides could be used more intelligently, such as using them in conjunction with herbicides that kill by a different mechanism, in order to catch the plants that do evolve resistance. That can just as easily apply to using any single herbicide alone, with or without GM crops.
There are concerns with GMO's but there are also significant, realised and potential (which are huge), benefits.
Labelling has been resisted because it tells you nothing of value about how a crop has been grown. It's more nuanced than GM vs non-GM.