National Academy Of Science Says GMO OK

[Jim Meade / Iowa City]

The National Academy of Science National Resource Council released a long-awaited report that concludes none of the horror stories on GMO are true.  Ho Hum, or big deal?

I'm glad to see it, but on the other hand none of the disbelievers are going to change their mind, so what does it prove?  

[too close for comfort]

Everyone believes what they want to believe. The people who won't believe the scientists about this, are the ones who are positive that scientists are correct about humans causing climate change. Just like us farmers, we complain about the USDA crop reports until the report leans our way, then we believe them.

[hardnox]

Probably not a good analogy with AGW because in this case the vast majority of scientists, when they look at the data, conclude there's no evidence of harm to human health or the environment.

Might be some very modest environmental benefit from slightly less pesticide use and perhaps making some conservation tillage systems made a little easier.

But the big clinker in it is that they stated that the promised acceleration of yield trend has not occurred.

For farmers, GMOs have been a big fat 0 at best (other than making it easier to farm 10,000 acres). All you have is a new set of rent extractors with patent protection.

I wouldn't be too quick to circle the wagons in defense of it all. If people want to know what is in their food I think that's their right. The key thing would be to phase it in slowly enough that no farmers get caught holding the bag. And in that case, the companies won't get caught holding the bag- they'll just be inconvenienced a bit, or the stock options of the CEOs will expire out of the money.

[smokeyjay]

Yield is not a zero sum game, where GMO traits automatically translate into greater yield. However, you have to give it credit for beneficial conditions derived from resistance to root worm, ear worm and ability to be effective against weeds that weren't touched by earlier herbicides. All of that does translate into more yield. Not to mention, the newer drought and heat tolerant traits protect yield against adverse weather. 

[hardnox]

If you're going to trumpet one major conclusion of the study- the safety of GMOs- then I think you need to accept the other.

Their conclusion was that there was no evidence that genetic modification had accelerated the yield trend as promised.

It has continued apace, but not accelerated. And if you think about it, it is a no duh as far as the incentives to the companies- would you rather have improvement that you can charge $150 a bag for or $300?

Although as demonstrated in the comments, we can be highly flexible as to which scientific conclusions we want to accept as politically correct.

[smokeyjay]

Their conclusion did not address the yield benefit from resistance or tolerant traits. Just the pure yield increase from the technology. I sat in on two days of hearings, along with colleagues from the scientific community. Anyone is free to reject the yield delivery that comes along with transgenic technology, just be prepared to not only spend more money on crop protection inputs AND the lower yield that may result in failure of chemicals to do their job.

[sw363535]

It is just too easy ,,, isn't it..?

To play the now infamous "I will believe what I want to believe" game.

Because I am a human and I have rights......you know..=!

Nox you are choosing to "say what I want to say" because I am a..................................=!

Fortunately science is all about facts, the absolutes that can be proven, the........and I am glad there is still some who care about the truth and understand the worthlessness of what we believe..

But ........ There are consequences to what we choose to "believe" ...........that will get ya forum bound --there is a research project on the value of "my opinion" going on continuously over there.

Subjects don't last 24 hours in that test chamber. 

The finding by the reasearch at the Academy of Science........(which of course knows nothing because they actually listened in class and went to class without being stoned)

The finding showing that evidence was not found as to yield enhancement is nice to hear.

Because if you go back to the congressional hearings and listen, it was just an opinion claim by the Monsanto speaker and never presented as tested fact.  

But the "believe what I want to believers" of marketing and congressmen(including usda) ran with it because it sold subscriptions, justified ethanol and kept the complainers at bay in the ethanol camps.

We can and do prove that irrigation, farming practices, improved fertilizer application, precision equipment, etc -- all improve yield.  And in a secondary way ---- as stated above gmo probably might.  So what, the obvious is obvious.  There is no big revelation here just as there was never a big revelation the day it was first mentioned in those hearings...

The cost of seed went up BIG.... and has stayed up.... us folks over in the economics department think that test in fact means GMO research was beneficial... No mater what the individual believes...