It's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever with facts. You are simply wrong, empirically and logically.
> You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it.
Total rates of herbicide resistance have not increased since the introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs. The rate of glyphosate resistance has increased, while the rate of resistance to many other herbicides (e.g. ureas, dinitroanilines, atrazine) has slowed by a greater total rate.
> Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point.
1. Dose dependence of resistance doesn't mean what you think it means. When we say resistance is dose dependent, that means the plant is resistant only up to a threshold dose, beyond which it will suffer the normal symptoms of toxicity. It does not mean "the more herbicide we apply the more resistance there will be".
2. Glyphosate resistance does not allow higher dosing, it allows lower dosing after the crop has been planted (non-resistant crops in general have the land treated with extreme doses several weeks before sowing).
3. Herbicides select for resistance with different strengths, related to how easily mutations can lead to resistance. Glyphosate is a relatively low selector for resistance. Atrazine is an example of a very strongly resistance-selecting herbicide. By reducing the use of strongly-selecting herbicides like atrazine, Roundup-ready decreases the aggregate strength of selection for resistance.
> The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see.
No. The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of less harmful herbicides applied in other crops.
>It's no use trying to be clever with words when you aren't being clever with facts.
Funny that you're bringing up cleverness with words. You're engaging in wordplay to avoid the obvious inferences ascribable to the very facts you're acknowledging.
That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?
Forget about the term "dose dependence". I misused it in an effort to be concise. I should have used "volume-dependence". The point is that it is patently true that the more of a pesticide we use in aggregate, the higher the rate of resistance to that pesticide and the more we have to use. You seem to have acknowledged that, but now you are attempting to obfuscate it.
Obviously, this does not mean that if we use X volume of any given pesticide, then we will get Y resistance to that pesticide. Nowhere did I state that. Actual resistance rates are obviously dependent on the properties of the specific herbicide. But, for each pesticide, the more we use, the higher the risk of resistance. Again, you seem to be acknowledging this at least tacitly via your acknowledgment where Roundup is concerned.
But, you are flailing about between arguments and contradicting each. On the one hand, you're saying that GMOs such as Roundup Ready do lead to higher resistance. OTOH, this is OK because we are decreasing use of other herbicides and thus decreasing resistance there. So you are arguing both sides. To see this, answer the following: what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in significant use?
And, BTW, beyond resistance, we are using more roundup because GMOs allow the crops to tolerate more.
>The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of less harmful herbicides applied in other crops.
Again, this is misleading because you are vascillating between discrete herbicides/GMOs and aggregate. Bottom line is that humans are consuming more glyphosate than in pre-Roundup Ready times because more of it is being used. You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious question. When the dose we receive from any given herbicide keeps going up, we eventually cross a threshold wherein even the industry-sponsored research is little more than a wild guess. The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.
It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill. If their presumably increased understanding of the delicate balance and complex chemical processes within the human body isn't enough to warrant a bit more respect, it seems that history should be.
This is going nowhere - you're being deliberately obtuse, clearly don't know what you're talking about, and I think the comments so far stand for themselves. Last post, because there are some points I have to answer.
> That is, you're using "facts" to mislead in very much the same way that Monsanto does. What's your affiliation with them or related companies?
I have no affiliation with Monsanto or any related company. I've never, to my knowledge, met or corresponded with anyone who works for them. I've very deliberately avoided doing so because I want to remain impartial in my role as a plant scientist. My research is funded by the Millennium Seed Bank, a conservation organisation.
>...you are flailing about between arguments...you are arguing both sides...
I'm just presenting the facts, there are no sides, there is just the simple fact that the total rate of herbicide resistance has decreased. If you're incapable of seeing that it is possible for all the things I've said to be true then I don't know what to suggest.
>what happens when we have herbicide-resistant GMOs for every herbicide in significant use?
Then we need to use less herbicide to achieve the same effect, because we can apply it directly to the crop after planting, killing the emerged weeds. With other herbicides, they have to be applied pre-emergence, sterilising the soil, which requires larger doses. Secondarily, there's no way we will have GMOs resistant to every herbicide that are currently in significant use because many of the older, more harmful ones will soon be illegal.
>You keep calling it safe but, as is often the case with chemicals meant to kill, the independent research is calling these safety claims into serious question.
I'm calling it safe relative to other herbicides. To feed everyone, herbicides have to be used. These chemicals are meant to kill plants, although some of the older ones has non-specific modes of action that might also harm animals. Glyphosate in particular targets a protein, ESPS synthase, that only exists in plants and microorganisms. It's been extensively tested and, you are wrong, there is not research calling the safety claims into question - the safety rating of glyphosate accurately reflects the state of knowledge. If you're seriously interested, just read the literature. Everything you're saying just demonstrates that you're not taking your information from the literature. A good start is the GENERA database of independently-funded studies on GMOs[0].
>The result is that we just don't know when we've reached a tipping point until it's too late.
This is true for absolutely anything. Wearing clothes, watching TV, fluorescent lighting, using a toilet, eating organic food, eating GMOs, and so on. We have to use short-term studies to infer safety.
>It boggles my mind when scientists, of all people, show little regard for the complexity of the human organism and make such cavalier statements about the safety of consuming chemicals that are intended to kill.
Nothing is more important to me than human wellbeing. It's what I've dedicated my life to, for very low pay, and I work incredibly hard to a) develop the technology to allow us to alleviate hunger and b) maintain a thorough understanding of the working of the agricultural system and its implications. The reason your mind seems to be boggled is because you're leaping to conclusions without understanding the system you're talking about.
And I suppose that, like you, I have trouble letting your last bit stand. So, I will just summarize and be done with it.
You started by making a blanket statement that was categorically false and misleading. Then, rather than acknowlege that you misspoke, you dug in and defended it to the end. You never even acknowledged that you were now qualifying your initial statement. But, it's me who is being deliberately obtuse? OK.
And, here, you are making still more claims that are simply untrue or misleading, as well as making trite arguments. Comparing wearing clothes, using a toilet, etc. to consuming herbicides? Come on, man.
You are also deliberately taking examples meant to illustrate points to extremes to set up strawmen. Attempting an earnest discussion is frustrating. Perhaps consider that you may be so passionate that you are dismissive of any ideas (and possibly some facts) that contradict your beliefs.
And, if you are truly interested in educating people, then perhaps, at a minimum, you might also consider how you present facts and draw conclusions. For instance, as just one example, you might reconsider how making unqualified statements, such as your initial one here declaring that GMOs are completely independent of the resistance problem might be misleading, especially to laymen. Then, you might consider how making such glaring and apparently apologetic misstatements in a charged environment might lead to questions about your motives (of which you seem to get many) or, at the least, diminish the effectiveness of your efforts to educate.
In short, maybe it's not everyone else. Maybe it's you.
> You previously stated that resistance is no way exacerbated by using GMOs. Now you're saying that it is for one GMO, but trying to qualify it with a "but". Too late. You've already conceded the point. Now you're trying to lawyer it.
Total rates of herbicide resistance have not increased since the introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs. The rate of glyphosate resistance has increased, while the rate of resistance to many other herbicides (e.g. ureas, dinitroanilines, atrazine) has slowed by a greater total rate.
> Resistance is dose dependent. GMOs allow higher dosing. It's the entire point.
1. Dose dependence of resistance doesn't mean what you think it means. When we say resistance is dose dependent, that means the plant is resistant only up to a threshold dose, beyond which it will suffer the normal symptoms of toxicity. It does not mean "the more herbicide we apply the more resistance there will be".
2. Glyphosate resistance does not allow higher dosing, it allows lower dosing after the crop has been planted (non-resistant crops in general have the land treated with extreme doses several weeks before sowing).
3. Herbicides select for resistance with different strengths, related to how easily mutations can lead to resistance. Glyphosate is a relatively low selector for resistance. Atrazine is an example of a very strongly resistance-selecting herbicide. By reducing the use of strongly-selecting herbicides like atrazine, Roundup-ready decreases the aggregate strength of selection for resistance.
> The more herbicide-resistant GMOs we use, the more herbicides we'll use and the more resistance we'll see.
No. The introduction of herbicide resistant GMOs has led to a reduction in the rate of herbicides applied for most crops, or approximately similar rates of less harmful herbicides applied in other crops.