You cannot live without chemicals. Lecture at the ANU

Diggety said :

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3852802.htm

The relevant quote is here “But six weeks ago about 400 or so people trampled the crop so that neighbouring properties wouldn’t be contaminated.”

Genetically modifying rice so that people can continue to live solely on rice seems to me fraught with ethical problems. Diversification in the diet would be better. If there are or are going to be too many humans for the planet to support, then that is the problem. If GM increases food supply, or makes it more viable to live on less food or less variety, then it only postpones the inevitable need for population control.

I will be called a crank, but I fail to see how the safety of GM food can be demonstrated in a decade or two, when humans live a lot longer. How long was it before asbestos was found to be a problem, not least because of the long “incubation” period for the illnesses? And how much longer before the manufacturers would admit it?

IP

Robertson said :

You haven’t read the links provided. In those links, the negative consequences of the corporatisation of the food supply are exposed: lower yields are the result of GM that isn’t designed to maximise productivity, but is instead designed to promote the use of the company’s other products, eg, pesticide.
As to why farmers buy into this stuff, that isn’t an argument in favour of GM – after all, people also buy food from McDonalds. The evidence of actual low crop yields and the risks of catastrophic crop failures is discussed in the links provided – it is a reality.
GM is fairly synonymous with corporations such as Monsanto and Bayer because the majority of GM products are pesticide-resistant GM crops from those companies, not designed to improve our food supply in any way whatsoever.

A couple of negative articles pulled off the web does not prove your point Robertson. It is a complex issue. I can see your articles and raise you 10 opposing articles if you like.

My point is that there ARE benefits in using GM crops – which is why they are grown. To argue otherwise is illogical and demonstrates very narrow knowledge of the subject. Whether these benefits outweigh the risks is a separate issue.

I think that in some cases they do, perhaps not in others. But it is difficult to argue rationally with people who have an opinion based on an ‘all GM is bad’ ideology

justin heywood said :

Robertson said :

Is this the direction we want our agriculture to go?

(Notice Bayer’s “Magic Rice” is solely designed to drive sales of its pesticide products? Funny how the GM cheer squad rarely mention this kind of crap, eh?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/business/02rice.html?_r=0

A Bayer AG unit will pay $750 million to settle claims with about 11,000 United States farmers who said a strain of the company’s genetically modified rice tainted crops and ruined their export value.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had tested the rice, bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La.

The genetically modified variety cross-bred with and “contaminated” more than 30 percent of United States ricelands, Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the start of the first farmers’ trial in November 2009.

Exports fell as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas buyers ceased or slowed their orders for testing of long-grain rice grown in the United States, the growers said.

Robertson, you just can’t keep writing any old rubbish and expect to be taken seriously.

Your earlier post claiming GM crops are lower yielding demonstrates ignorance of the topic. If GM crops have no advantages for the farmer, why do you think they are planted?

Your claims in the above post about ‘contamination’ solely concern loss of market share and lawyers chasing compensation – nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or otherwise of GM crops.

It is a pity that in most people’s minds the term GM has come to be synonymous with American multinationals like Monsanto. As a result the debate on the issue rarely rises above bumper-sticker ideology.

You haven’t read the links provided. In those links, the negative consequences of the corporatisation of the food supply are exposed: lower yields are the result of GM that isn’t designed to maximise productivity, but is instead designed to promote the use of the company’s other products, eg, pesticide.
As to why farmers buy into this stuff, that isn’t an argument in favour of GM – after all, people also buy food from McDonalds. The evidence of actual low crop yields and the risks of catastrophic crop failures is discussed in the links provided – it is a reality.
GM is fairly synonymous with corporations such as Monsanto and Bayer because the majority of GM products are pesticide-resistant GM crops from those companies, not designed to improve our food supply in any way whatsoever.

Madam Cholet said :

God, I hate the self-diagnosers who go around eating gluten free products because for some reason they have decided that gluten is the devils work. Most would not have a clue what it in fact is.

+1

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3852802.htm

GardeningGirl said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

+1
I try to take a cautious educated approach to chemical use so I guess some here would categorise me as one of the nutters, but I realise chemicals are everywhere and it sounds like a really fascinating lecture, and btw I know what dihydrogen monoxide refers to. That’s all I’m going to say on the subject, not interested in debating the extremists on either side.

Well said.

I try to find fragrance free soap, shower gel etc ( don’t need shampoo!), because
a) the fragrance is just one extra chemical (or cocktail of chemicals) I don’t need and
b) what with handsoap, shower gel, deodorant etc. I am using a mixture of different brands, so the fragrances are all just ending up mixed up with each other.
If I want to smell of something (and often I don’t), I’ll use unperfumed products then add a single “perfume”.

But how hard are unperformed products to find, and how expensive when you do find them? Mum deodorant is great, but neither of my nearest Coles or Woolworths stocks the unperfumed one. Mitchum I can sometimes find, but often at twice the price of everything else.

Go to the UK and the choice is enormous and cheap, e.g. Sanex Zero shower gel (and other products) for a fraction of the price of Sanex here, unavailable in unperfumed version; never mind the supermarkets’ own labels.

IP

Robertson said :

Is this the direction we want our agriculture to go?

(Notice Bayer’s “Magic Rice” is solely designed to drive sales of its pesticide products? Funny how the GM cheer squad rarely mention this kind of crap, eh?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/business/02rice.html?_r=0

A Bayer AG unit will pay $750 million to settle claims with about 11,000 United States farmers who said a strain of the company’s genetically modified rice tainted crops and ruined their export value.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had tested the rice, bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La.

The genetically modified variety cross-bred with and “contaminated” more than 30 percent of United States ricelands, Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the start of the first farmers’ trial in November 2009.

Exports fell as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas buyers ceased or slowed their orders for testing of long-grain rice grown in the United States, the growers said.

Robertson, you just can’t keep writing any old rubbish and expect to be taken seriously.

Your earlier post claiming GM crops are lower yielding demonstrates ignorance of the topic. If GM crops have no advantages for the farmer, why do you think they are planted?

Your claims in the above post about ‘contamination’ solely concern loss of market share and lawyers chasing compensation – nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or otherwise of GM crops.

It is a pity that in most people’s minds the term GM has come to be synonymous with American multinationals like Monsanto. As a result the debate on the issue rarely rises above bumper-sticker ideology.

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

+1
I try to take a cautious educated approach to chemical use so I guess some here would categorise me as one of the nutters, but I realise chemicals are everywhere and it sounds like a really fascinating lecture, and btw I know what dihydrogen monoxide refers to. That’s all I’m going to say on the subject, not interested in debating the extremists on either side.

Totally XLNT and a full house plus quite a lot forced to stand at the back so if you’re going tomorrow get there early!

Is this the direction we want our agriculture to go?

(Notice Bayer’s “Magic Rice” is solely designed to drive sales of its pesticide products? Funny how the GM cheer squad rarely mention this kind of crap, eh?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/02/business/02rice.html?_r=0

A Bayer AG unit will pay $750 million to settle claims with about 11,000 United States farmers who said a strain of the company’s genetically modified rice tainted crops and ruined their export value.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had tested the rice, bred to be resistant to Bayer’s Liberty-brand herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La.

The genetically modified variety cross-bred with and “contaminated” more than 30 percent of United States ricelands, Don Downing, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said at the start of the first farmers’ trial in November 2009.

Exports fell as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas buyers ceased or slowed their orders for testing of long-grain rice grown in the United States, the growers said.

IrishPete said :

Barcham, you lost me completely. Apart from creating an opportunity for some fairly ignorant posts by others, what exactly was the point of this story? Anyone who thinks “chemicals are dangerous” dropped out of school too early. Anyone who thinks Greenpeace or GMO-protesters (I presume they mean GM – not sure what the o stands for, Organisms?) are ignorant, also dropped out of school too early.

I’ve never been to Nimbin, but I suspect the people there are actually highly educated, and simply trust evolution more than they trust Big Pharma, Big Coal or Big Oil.

IP

Sorry missed this comment.

The point was to advertise Peter Wothers lecture, however I couldn’t help but rant a bit about the subject of his lecture which kind of consumed the original article and all the comments since.

I’m sure Dr Wothers would be happy discussion is taking place.

p1 said :

Robertson said :

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Because GM reduces yields, increases pollution (chemical and genetic), increases the risk of catastrophic crop failures, but worst of all, it seeks to tie up our food supply behind patents and other corporate shenanigans.

If GM weren’t a problem, the people pushing it wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail against honest labelling on GM products.

One stop closer to peak irony.

I do love that DrK’s one example (cherry picked though it is), has pretty much none of the “bad” things about GMOs which you list. Perhaps you could modify you arguements to “some GM agriculture is bad”?

Er, you mean this Norman Borlaug “rice that saved a billion lives”?

Here’s the thing: DrK’s magic rice is a pure fiction. This is exactly how the GM PR-machine conducts its business. They just make shit up.

In the real world, GM crops do not improve yield, but do increase the risk of catastrophic crop failures.

DrKoresh said :

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Is a boogieman a 1970s dancing monster? Doesn’t sound very frightening.

IP

johnboy said :

Overlord to you IP.

And basically we won’t ever run out of oil, we will choose to use something else. Possibly because of the expense of getting to what oil remains.

Sometimes I think the term “moderator” should be replaced with “agent provocateur”.

True, we will never run out of oil (I did say that earlier) not least because we can make it from olives. Cheap vegetable oil in Aldi is about $2 a litre, not that far off what I pay for diesel ($157.9). Buying in bulk would be cheaper than Aldi. However, if everyone wants it for their cars and trucks, and not just for frying chips, I expect the price may increase a little.

And we can make from plants a fair imitation of petrol too (ethanol).

Yeah, people in the developing word may starve so we can drive V8s, but not if the Stable Population Party takes over.

IP

DrKoresh said :

Robertson said :

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Because GM reduces yields, increases pollution (chemical and genetic), increases the risk of catastrophic crop failures, but worst of all, it seeks to tie up our food supply behind patents and other corporate shenanigans.

If GM weren’t a problem, the people pushing it wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail against honest labelling on GM products.

So you’re responding with more baseless scaremongering? Well done.

Not really – I am providing balance to your unsceptical acceptance of the non-research-based claims of the GM industry.

Also, I read this this morning:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

Robertson said :

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Because GM reduces yields, increases pollution (chemical and genetic), increases the risk of catastrophic crop failures, but worst of all, it seeks to tie up our food supply behind patents and other corporate shenanigans.

If GM weren’t a problem, the people pushing it wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail against honest labelling on GM products.

One stop closer to peak irony.

I do love that DrK’s one example (cherry picked though it is), has pretty much none of the “bad” things about GMOs which you list. Perhaps you could modify you arguements to “some GM agriculture is bad”?

Robertson said :

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Because GM reduces yields, increases pollution (chemical and genetic), increases the risk of catastrophic crop failures, but worst of all, it seeks to tie up our food supply behind patents and other corporate shenanigans.

If GM weren’t a problem, the people pushing it wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail against honest labelling on GM products.

So you’re responding with more baseless scaremongering? Well done.

DrKoresh said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

Because GM reduces yields, increases pollution (chemical and genetic), increases the risk of catastrophic crop failures, but worst of all, it seeks to tie up our food supply behind patents and other corporate shenanigans.

If GM weren’t a problem, the people pushing it wouldn’t be fighting tooth and nail against honest labelling on GM products.

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

No it isn’t, just because Monsanto is the trendy boogieman of today doesn’t mean they’re seeking to poison you with their evil GM food. Norman Borlaug saved a billion lives with GM rice, on what possible grounds can you argue against that?

IrishPete said :

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

In my experience the anti-vaccination people tend to be right wing and extremely religious. Not pot-smoking dreadlocked hippies. I have come across the latter, but they are not as numerous as the religious types.

IP

Orana School.

’nuff said?

poetix said :

DrKoresh said :

Silentforce said :

I am always amused by Smokers who say “I have to go outside for fresh air.”

Because you enjoy irony or because you’re oblivious to it?

Irony is menthol for the mind.

However, we could be close to Peak Irony…

I think the forthcoming appointments of Dennis Jensen as Science Minister and Bob Carter as Government Chief Scientist will represent Peak Irony.

johnboy said :

The stone age didn’t end because we ran out of stones…

Is this the moderator’s philosophical comment for the day? It’s a little too obscure for me.

IP

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

In my experience the anti-vaccination people tend to be right wing and extremely religious. Not pot-smoking dreadlocked hippies. I have come across the latter, but they are not as numerous as the religious types.

IP

Ronald_Coase said :

Add peak oil nutters to that list. My question for them is, how precisely do we run out of hydrocarbons?

Well, we are digging up hydrocarbons that have formed over millions of years and turning them into CO2 and H2O at a very rapid rate.

If you don’t know what peak oil is, here is a graph showing you that the USA experienced peak oil in 1975:
http://www.energyvanguard.com/Portals/88935/images/peak-oil-us-production-rise-peak-decline.jpg

Here is peak oil in the North sea:
http://gailtheactuary.wordpress.com/files/2007/06/north-sea.jpeg

Here is a different view of global peak oil:
http://gailtheactuary.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/oil-discoveries.jpeg

You can read this article,
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2693

In future, having learnt what Peak Oil is, you can comment on threads such as this one without displaying careless ignorance of the topic.

For anyone interested in GM crops, coming up on ABC Background Briefing is this:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/2013-09-15/4950990

Jethro said :

I agree with ronald. Oil production will continue to increase for ever.

And it’s going to get cheaper and cheaper every year.

Masquara said :

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

GM is a menace:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14735903.2013.806408

The authors compare US & Canadian yields of the primary GE crops with yields in Western European countries that prohibit the use of GE seeds, and they come to the conclusion that any yield gains cannot be attributed to GE. Their analysis also concludes that, while GE may have led to decreased pesticide/herbicide usage, Western European nations decreased their usage even further despite not growing GE crops.
They also note that GM leads to decreased genetic diversity, and genetic diversity being the most basic factor in maintaining productivity in the face of ever-changing crop threats, GM has already demonstrated it can cause serious and even catastrophic productivity failures.

May aswell lock and archive this thread. The nutters have already spoken and can only go downhill from here…

I’ve been to one of his lectures and – unless he has changed his approach – its far less serious than suggested – basically its a fun show with lots of sparks and flames and interesting bits and pieces and some chemistry knowledge snuck in. Sort of like a (very) souped up Questacon show. Worth going for all ages – my 9yr old son and his friends had a great time.

Putting people who are cautious around, say, GM, into the same basket as Nimbinite hippie anti-vaccination paranoids is equally unsound. It’s perfectly mainstream to wish to choose food without GMO and be skeptical about scientists who operate in cahoots with Monsanto.

Ronald_Coase said :

Diggety said :

Hot Diggety, I could think of many space-cadets needing to see this lecture.

* Entire population of Nimbin
* Those who self-diagnose themselves with Coeliac
* Helicopter parents
* Anyone who takes Greenpeace ‘studies’ seriously
* Anti-GMO nutters
* Other assorted skalliwags of a similar nature.

Add peak oil nutters to that list. My question for them is, how precisely do we run out of hydrocarbons? And how does it matter given we trade in it? Is it not possible that as the resources become scarce that the price rises and we substitute? Maybe with geo-thermal, solar, lng, etc?

LNG is a hydrocarbon. So are you, largely (ignoring all the water). Peak Oil is about running out of (well, that’s inaccurate too, but I’ll leave it alone) of fossil fuels, not hydrocarbons.

IP

Barcham, you lost me completely. Apart from creating an opportunity for some fairly ignorant posts by others, what exactly was the point of this story? Anyone who thinks “chemicals are dangerous” dropped out of school too early. Anyone who thinks Greenpeace or GMO-protesters (I presume they mean GM – not sure what the o stands for, Organisms?) are ignorant, also dropped out of school too early.

I’ve never been to Nimbin, but I suspect the people there are actually highly educated, and simply trust evolution more than they trust Big Pharma, Big Coal or Big Oil.

IP

DrKoresh said :

Silentforce said :

I am always amused by Smokers who say “I have to go outside for fresh air.”

Because you enjoy irony or because you’re oblivious to it?

Irony is menthol for the mind.

I agree with ronald. Oil production will continue to increase for ever.

Diggety said :

Hot Diggety, I could think of many space-cadets needing to see this lecture.

* Entire population of Nimbin
* Those who self-diagnose themselves with Coeliac
* Helicopter parents
* Anyone who takes Greenpeace ‘studies’ seriously
* Anti-GMO nutters
* Other assorted skalliwags of a similar nature.

Add peak oil nutters to that list. My question for them is, how precisely do we run out of hydrocarbons? And how does it matter given we trade in it? Is it not possible that as the resources become scarce that the price rises and we substitute? Maybe with geo-thermal, solar, lng, etc?

gospeedygo said :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAJ4XVmI4dc

Lol, another cracker: dihydrogen monoxide!!!

Silentforce said :

I am always amused by Smokers who say “I have to go outside for fresh air.”

Because you enjoy irony or because you’re oblivious to it?

I am always amused by Smokers who say “I have to go outside for fresh air.”

Diggety said :

Hot Diggety, I could think of many space-cadets needing to see this lecture.

* Those who self-diagnose themselves with Coeliac
.

God, I hate the self-diagnosers who go around eating gluten free products because for some reason they have decided that gluten is the devils work. Most would not have a clue what it in fact is.

And with regards to the Nimbin dwellers – send all the anti-vac parents up there and then blow the place up. Will take all their infectious germs with them on the way.

There’s nothing wrong with making your own choices, but they need to be researched if you are going to expound on them.

Hot Diggety, I could think of many space-cadets needing to see this lecture.

* Entire population of Nimbin
* Those who self-diagnose themselves with Coeliac
* Helicopter parents
* Anyone who takes Greenpeace ‘studies’ seriously
* Anti-GMO nutters
* Other assorted skalliwags of a similar nature.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAJ4XVmI4dc