Just to explain the question a little more. Modern industry has provided us with a material prosperity unequaled in our history. It has also created unparalleled environmental threats to ourselves and to future generations. The very technology that has enabled us to manipulate and control nature has become as well a harm for the environment and health. Monsanto is the world leader in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as one of the most controversial corporations in industrial history. What are the obligations of firms such as Monsanto to preserve the environment and health and conserve our resources? Environmental issues are seen by some researchers as a problem that can be better framed in terms of our duty to recognize and preserve the social-ecological systems within which we live. Monsanto depends upon the natural environment for their business and that environment is affected by its commercial activities. An ecological ethic is thus an ethic that claims that the welfare of at least some non-humans is intrinsically valuable and that because of this intrinsic value, we humans have a duty to respect and preserve them. Environment is essential to the fulfillment of our human capacities by delivering ecosystem services that are the basis for our survival on Earth. The question arises as to how one can localize the moral responsibilities corporations obviously can have and what then corporate responsibility mean precisely. The corporate responsibility refers to the responsibility of some people of the corporation: a corporation cannot be held morally responsible because the corporation cannot act. Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a chemical company. Its history is intimately linked to the production and promotion of highly toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange (used as a chemical weapon in the Vietnam war) and PCBs (widespread toxic pollutants).

“Le monde selon Monsanto” (“The world according to Monsanto” see Question above) is a film painting a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals. Of course, there is an ethical problem for farmers are dependent from the company. Furthermore, it could even be stated that food is becoming a commodity owned by a private society. The other problem is that GM seeds contaminate natural seeds so natural plants are sometimes disappearing when organic fields are next to GM (genetically modified) fields. Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of biotechnology. Contemporary Western thought is characterized by an increasingly heavy accent on efficiency and functionality. This is partly a consequence of the distinction between facts and values and the limiting of science to facts stripped of moral aspects. Ethical egoism says that all people must pursue their own self-interests. Is this the right way to sustainable development?

Just to explain the question a little more. Modern industry has provided us with a material prosperity unequaled in our history. It has also created unparalleled environmental threats to ourselves and to future generations. The very technology that has enabled us to manipulate and control nature has become as well a harm for the environment and health. Monsanto is the world leader in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), as well as one of the most controversial corporations in industrial history. What are the obligations of firms such as Monsanto to preserve the environment and health and conserve our resources? Environmental issues are seen by some researchers as a problem that can be better framed in terms of our duty to recognize and preserve the social-ecological systems within which we live. Monsanto depends upon the natural environment for their business and that environment is affected by its commercial activities. An ecological ethic is thus an ethic that claims that the welfare of at least some non-humans is intrinsically valuable and that because of this intrinsic value, we humans have a duty to respect and preserve them. Environment is essential to the fulfillment of our human capacities by delivering ecosystem services that are the basis for our survival on Earth. The question arises as to how one can localize the moral responsibilities corporations obviously can have and what then corporate responsibility mean precisely. The corporate responsibility refers to the responsibility of some people of the corporation: a corporation cannot be held morally responsible because the corporation cannot act. Monsanto was founded in 1901 as a chemical company. Its history is intimately linked to the production and promotion of highly toxic chemicals such as Agent Orange (used as a chemical weapon in the Vietnam war) and PCBs (widespread toxic pollutants).

“Le monde selon Monsanto” (“The world according to Monsanto” see Question above) is a film painting a grim picture of a company with a long track record of environmental crimes and health scandals. Of course, there is an ethical problem for farmers are dependent from the company. Furthermore, it could even be stated that food is becoming a commodity owned by a private society. The other problem is that GM seeds contaminate natural seeds so natural plants are sometimes disappearing when organic fields are next to GM (genetically modified) fields. Monsanto is notable for its involvement in high profile lawsuits, as both plaintiff and defendant. It has been involved in a number of class action suits, where fines and damages have run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, usually over health issues related to its products. Monsanto has also made frequent use of the courts to defend its patents, particularly in the area of biotechnology. Contemporary Western thought is characterized by an increasingly heavy accent on efficiency and functionality. This is partly a consequence of the distinction between facts and values and the limiting of science to facts stripped of moral aspects. Ethical egoism says that all people must pursue their own self-interests. Is this the right way to sustainable development?

Dear Giovanni,

I was aware of the sense and the importance of your question mainly because it touches crop protection however general agriculture and the ocean of chemical and genetic pollutants overflows us. I wanted to comment your thread still yesterday but I had classes. I am sorry being so late.

Chemical pollution is an old history which continually frightens us. It has begun with DDT around 1945 worldwide. However, it has been banned but its residues can be found even in the milk of mothers and in the blood of every living being. People forgot it easily. You mentioned PCBs and dioxins. These are also dangerous products and side-products of human heedlessness and greed. Who are interested in them can find here some excerpts:

http://www.ua-bw.de/uploaddoc/cvuafr/guar_gum_evaluation_230807.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-12133361

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/Over-250-000-eggs-recalled-in-Germany-in-latest-dioxin-scare

http://www.feednavigator.com/Regulation/Belgium-Netherlands-meat-sectors-face-dioxin-crisis

Main sources of dioxins are pesticide (herbicide) residues, artificial fats produced as feed supplements and residues of thermal treated greases. And of course, the desire to get the cheapest products. These chemicals are extremely risky but in a world where more than 100000 chemicals are used in people’s everyday life, many have not even heard about them.

Transgenic crops are even more dangerous than hazardous chemicals because they can replicate themselves. Unfortunately, they cannot give a useful and safe answer to the troubles of agriculture. I note many troubles of agriculture like pests are produced by itself the agricultural production. The evolution of pests is a man initiated and triggered process. It seems to be a joke as humans try to solve this problem by pesticides and transgenic crops and make the situation more difficult.

Thus, I am very thankful to you for having asked this question.

Thank you Andràs for your input, excellent! I fully agree, it is a vicious and very dangerous spiral.

Hi all involved in this link/stream discussions, very valued observations that Giovanni has started and others followed.

Yes our environment is put at risk by companies whether they are developing new GM crops or special chemicals to treat crops or soil to produce better yields, often with scant regards to what happens during the life cycle or at the end of the useful life of these processes. Dioxins are everywhere, chemicals used to plasticise are everywhere, we are after all a fossil fuel civilisation reliant on these plastics and connecting adhesives. Let us not allow ourselves to be limited buy the companies mentioned earlier, what about others that develop the plastics, coatings, preservatives, lubricants and adhesives?

Companies like Ikea that develop furnishings using engineered boards and materials that have a very short life cycle and are treated to extend their useful life cause a lot more damage to the environment due to the fact that more people buy and use those type of products and most end up in landfill at the end of their useful life.

Countries like China that used to accept certain waste for reprocessing no longer accept it in its raw form, but require it cleaned and sorted. Yet our manufacturers led by marketing are producing packaging that is wasteful and difficult to process correctly.

Car manufacturers are producing cars with scant regard to the materials used, think of the “new car smell” it is mostly dioxins from adhesives and finishing polishes, plastics that dissipate over the six month or so. Dissipation of this smell or filtering through the lungs of the drivers and occupants, when will someone latch on to this and link it to respiratory problems?

Construction industry producing the buildings that we live in are also responsible for a lot of evils, all the materials used in our buildings, plastics, fabrics, finishes are full of dioxins. Furnishing containing foams, composite boards that make the cabinets, polishes, adhesives, backings of carpeting all are a problem but are very clearly dismissed.

Sustainability drive is making people partially aware of the problems, timber and natural products are seen as good, yet are still used incorrectly, to make these weather and UV resistant they are treated with poisons and coatings that at the end of their useful life make these products difficult to dispose of, landfill in majority of cases. Poor scientific understanding is creating problems, designers are focused mostly on the product sell not the product end-of-life impact.

We really need to start thinking as closed loop, cradle to grave or end-of-life of what we are doing and educate people in the correct approach. Especially those like the marketing people driven by profit only. One of my first lectures at the university is the “Box of Pizza”, which is; “When was the last time, you opened a frozen pizza, cooked it and really compared it to the pretty picture on the box? Don’t believe what they are telling you, research it correctly and arrive at your own conclusions!”

Dear David, of course I like the "Box of Pizza" anedoct, I fully agree with you, thanks.

Dear Giovanni,

Organochlorides and dioxins belong to the older generation of pollutants. Neonicotinoids are the newest active ingredients of insecticides, which are used as seed coats and the active ingredients penetrate in the phloem of plants and arrive to all parts of them. Although, its mammal toxicity is low, neonicotinoids are very dangerous to insects and birds and can cause severe injuries to environment.

It was a great victory when on 29 April 2013, 15 of the 27 European Union member states voted to restrict the use of three neonicotinoids (imidachloprid, clothianidin and thiametoxam) for two years from 1 December 2013. Eight nations voted against the ban, while four abstained. I think Hungary voted against this decision.

http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/Neonic_FINAL.pdf

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3495159/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256199/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/victory-for-bees-as-european-union-bans-neonicotinoid-pesticides-blamed-for-destroying-bee-population-8595408.html

Ad you wrote this is a vicious and very dangerous spiral.

Yes, I am aware and it drives me nuts. I decided for myself to withdraw as much as possible from products produced by large transnational companies. I rarely shop at supermarkets. I avoid conventionally produced food. Since 3 years I'm a member of a foodcoop. I tried community supported agriculture. I rarely buy new stuff and try to reuse or recycle as much as possible. It definitely feels better this way.

I think one of the strength of these companies is the fear for doom day knowing that resources are limited with the increasing demand for goods. As scientist we are also bias in our approach motivated by the aspiration to be at the solution end and not the problem, which lead itself to selective dissemination or intentional avoidance, benchmarking our interpretation on relative advantage that the finding is providing. As mentioned earlier by other contributors, big companies' strategy often aim to be the sole supplier in order to better control the market.

There is another actor that fails to its mission, is the mass media, often motivated by popularity and of course profit. It is a strong ally to unscrupulous companies as its goes with the saying "every thing has a price" focusing their efforts on human greed, naively comforting oneself with luxurious consumption and failing to see the difficulties upfront.

This is where the survival of small enterprises (craftsman, small agricultural businesses/holdings) are essentials players, they are the guardian of sustainability and they need to be supported and protected.

You lot should try feeding 7 billion people without the tools of modern agriculture and see how much food is left over for you. Nice sentiments but get real, there are too many people in the world to be fed by traditional agriculture. Not that it is not a worry, the way of the modern world because it is, but we all like to eat.

I am aware of food contamination by dioxins and PCBs. Dioxins contamination of dairy products, cereals and seafood has been reported. The dumping sites and e-waste recycling sites in Asia are reported to be potential sources of dioxins contamination of agricultural produce in India and China including human breast milk.

Are you aware of what is going on in RG?

Dear All, Lijo Francis, Patrick Low and others that you know are not able any longer to log in their RG account from yesterday. RG suspended their accounts without any reason. I don't know why, but I find this an outstanding abuse. Please help them and inform all other participants as this is a signal that things are not going in the right way in RG before it happens to you!

Regards

Gianni

Giovanni, it's incredible for me that this might happen in RG !

I'm really concerned, and if it's really an abuse, I'll give up on RG. But before, I'm asking everyone here, do you agree to ask RG for clarification ? to the 25 followers of this question: do you agree to jointly interpellate RG ?

I agree fully with you!

Dear Ruxandra, Ljubomir Jacic has started something of this kind, please join in

https://feedback.researchgate.net/responses/why-my-question-is-not-accessible-to-my-friends

To add, I suppose we need a balanced and sustainable approach. As we evolved so much from ice age or stone age or from hunter gatherer society to the present day, many a technologies and inventions helped human kind in solving problems and challenges. As growth and development is a continuous and irreversible change, we cannot go back to stone age any more (because there is no much wild life or forests exists any more). Of course, some of the technologies and products also brought other problems especially the pesticides and related products to the environment. So let us discuss on how to solve these problems in a more environment friendly way (for example the use of phytotechnologies etc.) and what are the technologies and ways and means to support such a development. I suppose the scientific advisers and policy makers could play a major role along with different sources of media to disseminate and enhance the public awareness regarding the potential dangers and the possible solutions.

These topics are a "no fly zone" for many, I commend you all for contributing to this discussion. I feel that sustainability in agriculture must be embraced and soon. But remember, agriculture is seen as a "business entity" and to increase return on investment. For the numbers people, that means anything goes as long as that number at the end of the equation keeps getting larger. I have had discussions with people from the industry, and have been told that they are very "reactive" to consumer demand and current situations. Do people understand how long it takes for a new trait to be approved on the market (10-20 years). So, if we start trying to get a trait in a GMO on the market today, it won't be on the market until 2024 at the earliest---by that time--we have other problems to deal with and "react" to, and create new traits again. Industry is only giving the producers and consumers what they are asking for (convenience). I see so many consumers outraged by GMO-yet they are out spraying bug spray on their kids in public, using herbicide in their front yards, eating in any restaurant for convenience, etc. Increasing awareness is key, and the truth is, many people believe that ignorance is bliss.

Not GMO but OMG! I agree fully with you dear Rebecca! Thanks for your contribution.

Bouncing back on Dr Hoffman input, I think we all agree that modern agriculture has contributed significantly to feeding the World today. The main concerns about GMO is the selectivity in the approach especially when these research are commissioned by chemicals industries which are evidently more enthusiastic at developing tolerance to their chemicals loading into the environment. However this approach is not sustainable in the very long run. Agricultural activities are inherently non-point polluters, consequently the impact of abusive use of chemicals can only be damaging to the whole ecosystem, besides off-farm movement there is the increase potency of residual effect -(residue and or metabolite) as a result of increasing dose without affecting the "protected GMO". Moreover, the selectivity of GMO reduces the genetic base that potentially is more at risk than by conventional breeding programs the outcome being more robust and responsive to unforeseen threat. One should not lose sight of the natural evolution of pests that are being controlled. Last but not the least as mentioned earlier is the exclusive role that GMOs confer to the company producing them.

I am having a bit to say in this discussion because I make my living by growing crops but am trained in the science of modern agriculture. I worry greatly about the paths we go down in modern agriculture and indeed modern society and yet I have to choose between options that I would prefer were simple. My take on this is around glyphosate tolerant canola (Roundup Ready or RR) because I understand the production issues with it, and it is a major food crop although most of the canola produced in Australia is not RR. I have used RR canola and perhaps will do so again. I do not need to, but I wanted to be familiar with the practicalities. By the way, we should not bundle all GMO's together in this discussion. Insect control in cotton in Australia has changed from 10-12 application of insecticide to one or none due to Monsanto and GMO technology. If I grow RR canola I use less herbicide and a more environmentally benign herbicide. Without herbicide I do not grow the crop. The organic farms do not grow canola because it does not compete with weeds in early growth. It does however produce a high quality oil (in terms of health) for human consumption.

So, shall we produce canola oil using selective herbicides that persist in the environment far longer and more damaging than glyphosate, or from GM plants, or let the people eat much less healthy palm oil? I do not like any of those choices. In Australia, each genetic trait is individually assessed on a case by case basis by the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I have some confidence that these bodies will keep up with the data that comes from all aspects of the use of GMO's because it is their job to do so. Hopefully they are not so stupid as to accept all that Monsanto says without checking. I worry about being beholden to Monsanto but I can choose to use their technology or ignore it. I worry about GMO's and modern food production and the future of modern society and our environment. The GMO issue is not high on my list of concerns for modern society and the way it interacts with the world. Clearly it is a worry to other people, but I doubt that worry is justified. For example, would we worry about glyphosate in breast milk when a great many women in our country smoke and drink coffee while breast feeding? Caffeine, nicotine and a host of other toxic substances are likely to be present in breast milk at concentrations just as low and be of greater concern than glyphosate. Let us worry about all potentially harmful aspects of modern life but not forget to be rational.

Dear Dr Hoffman,

From this perspective you are dead right, BUT in the absence of safety net we have to be proactive by putting forward our concern in this matter. The thing is about the objective set in the first place any improvement ought to be toward sustainability and conservation of life.

Thank you for clarifying matters bringing in more equilibrium in this discussion, and of course keep up your good work!

Thank you Jeffrey for your contribution to the ongoing debate. Your point of view is quite significant to me. As many issue of global concern we do not have to accept or reject it all. That is why discussion on this issue deserves many caveats. I agree with Jean Paul, thank you for clarifying.

Thanks for raising it on this forum and may the issues become clearer with more input.

Yes the Question of feeding the ever growing population is a up hill task and requires a lot of innovation in FOOD DELIVERY.... Therefore agriculture and Food products have to use technology to leverage the DEMAND - SUPPLY equilibrium...

Please see the attached .....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262070920_Agriculture_Biotechnology_-_Marketing_Innovation_poster?ev=prf_pub

Data Agriculture Biotechnology - Marketing Innovation poster

An interesting point of view Krishnan. How do we continue this discussion without mentioning the influence of social and economical "environments" on food supply, distribution and availability to all planet inhabitants? its complicated to the core. On one hand we need GMO on the other hand we criticize it as potentially harmful. But what I would like to see is more data and research on the evaluation of impact of GMO on living organisms.

I understand Jeffrey Hoffmann's point of view abd would totally agree that we must not bundle all GMOs together - in fact each and everyone of them needs assessing in its own right. However I do worry about the evaluation and assessment of GMOs - especially after the UK experience when a composite of government, NGOs and the GMO companies combined to evaluate three GMO crops - not for yield since this was already well documented but for the effect on insect life. Two GMOs reduced insect life by 50% and one increased it by 50% - due to the cultivation techniques used (which followed the company recommendations). Each GMO/normal crop was tested on over 60 farms throughout UK.Thus the whole system had a serious affect rather than the GMO itself. The companies had either not looked at the consequences of the cultivation recommended or did not publish - either is a serious neglect of scientific responsibility in my opinion. I really do think that it is incumbent on governments to insist on certain trials to be carried out in their own country prior to any licensing. If companies argue that this is too expensive then their crop is not worth accepting!

The greatest contributor to GM/GMO products is not the ignorant or uncaring consumer. It is the farmers who purchase the seed in hopes of making more money. More money for what? Cash Croppers work hard for 4 weeks in the Spring and 5 to 6 seeks in the Fall. Most of the rest of the time there is little to be done (unless they are double cropping). All in all the work load is nothing compared to small plot, South China rice farming. The GM corn, wheat, canola (rape) seed purchase and production is not just an issue of yield (that is now proving not to have increased through the use of GM crops) but rather laziness by cash cropping farmers. Unlike the farms that produce animals, requiring large amounts of time to the attention of their charges, cash croppers time requirements are very small. The cash croppers are the folks most responsible for driving the shift to GM products, not consumers. If you want to stop the bleeding then apply direct pressure on the wound, farmers. If local populations focus the attention on individual farmers and pressure them through the local community, then we will start to see a decline in GM use. Don't waste the time bitching or starting litigation against Monsanto or complaining to the grocery store selling GM products. Monsanto and the grocery store chains are responsible to the shareholders to make money. Put the energy where it will do the most good. Direct it at the farm organizations and individual farmers. Hold them accountable as they are making a conscious choice on what seed to use. Farmers are the Monsanto customers, not the consumer.

So the Biotechnology is highly vulnerable for exploitation under the big-wig enterprises..The the Big-picture of Bio-Tech would become monopoly market...All the activities of Micro/ Macro markets would be affected....

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262070920_Agriculture_Biotechnology_-_Marketing_Innovation_poster?ev=prf_pub

Data Agriculture Biotechnology - Marketing Innovation poster

Sorry, i had attached the link again....

Krishnan,

You miss the point. There can be no monopoly if the farmers are pressured not to buy the seed. You are focused exactly where the corporations want you to be focused, on them. They can stand the heat of controversial issues as they have the political connections, legal fight deep pockets and scientists paid to produce the results the corps. want. The weak point, as Sun Tsu would point out, is the farmers. Here is where the pressure and attack should be directed in the elimination of GM products. This has everything to do with changing attitudes and the Pirsig's trap.

Cloud Jon

In case of Markets, the needs gratification does not happen only through BUYERS / SELLERS market...there are other things that play in reality... Hedging, Co tiers, Hacking and other opportunism are to great extent..these actions are not fair practices but still and will exist as the survival of an organization is at stake when a major opportunity is lost... In India, during MULTI -CROPPING, after each crop harvest the recropping of the same plant happens in the next cycle...; and hence, we have practices of selling SEEDS through government cooperatives during the cropping periods...The seeds are procured through tendering by the cooperative societies....

As a farmer (Australia) and scientist I cannot let this go without another comment. The GM crop I could grow is canola. I have recently finished seeding this seasons crop. I had to make a choice to buy Monsanto's technology, or to use some other weed control technology. To use none is not an option. Canola does not compete well enough with weeds in the seedling stage for me to grow it without chemical weed control. I have a clear choice. Monsanto technology using GM glyphosate tolerance, or non GM triazine (atrazine and simazine) tolerance. It is more cost effective to use the triazine tolerance as there is no technology fee to Monsanto and I can use my own saved seed. However, the atrazine is damaging to the environment (groundwater systems). My reading of the GM literature indicates less issues than for atrazine. Neither option may be benign but what about the option of people eating palm oil because they cannot buy canola at a price they can afford.

I hear some of you saying I should not choose GM because you have made a judgement that it is bad. Some of you are clearly not abreast of the issues with food production for 7 billion people. By the way, I have this year sown triazine tolerant canola because the weeds that are of most concern are controlled before they emerge or soon after and I do not have groundwater. I use GM canola when I have crop residue that I do not want to burn and which will interfere with the triazines getting to the soil and into the weeds via root uptake. I think on my reading of the literature on GM and the alternatives, that your fear of GM is unjustified. What then would give you the right to target me and push me to what is probable a less benign alternative way of producing food?

Thank you Dr Hoffman to add more to this discussion, it occurs to me that you are the only one arguing for GM and more importantly not as a blind user.

Two valuable points you raised in your comment (1) the relative environmental risk regarding herbicides choice (2) the cost factor regarding GM.

From your experience, I would like to know about control efficacy when comparing glyphosate (contact and low to no persistence) against atrazine (persistent) herbicides: for instance level of control and frequency of intervention? Is the risk of off-farm losses

It is evident that your choice is dictated by the prevailing condition (non-GM this year over GM, some would say very courageous!) and this judicious approach clearly depends on the grower's awareness and ability to make the right choice. And I believe that it is very unlikely that all growers respond as you are doing, they are not always as knowledgeable as you (they are more "docile" to expert's advice-guess who!) and secondly some will not take the risk (if any) to change the winning formula! Indeed in a crisis situation, novel technique adoption is often much faster and reverting to former alternative is seldom an option.

I think the fear of GM is often not directed at the crops themselves but the application of glyphosate or other ...icides, the crops are resistant against. Glyphosate an its metabolites are as damaging to the environment as other herbicides. So for the farmer it is a choice between pest and cholera. Unfotunately, many farmers will just look at the costs and won't weigh the harmful effects of one ...icide against the other.

Thanks Jean for your understanding. I fully expected to get a some hate mail (not really, we are scientists after all) but you know what I mean.

Simply from a farmers point of view the alternatives I have go something like this.

GM (glyphosate tolerant) canola.

Higher yielding but not much. The triazine tolerance carries a penalty in plant vigour.

Higher oil content for the same reason.

Herbicide is applied to the foliage of the weeds which means there can be old crop residues on the surface of the soil.

The herbicide is only applied if there are weeds.

Slightly higher profit but higher risk if the crop fails because of the seed cost which includes the technology cost.

Very effective on a wide range of weeds.

Some weeds can be controlled that have become resistant to other herbicides.

Environmentally not as damaging as the alternatives (I may get some argument here, but this is my clear understanding of the current state of knowledge).

Not dependent on rainfall to take the chemical into the soil for root uptake.

Higher seed cost.

No residual activity so weeds germinating after the application will not be killed.

Increased the risk that weeds will become tolerant of glyphosate so that cultivation becomes the only option for pre seeding weed control. That would mean reverting to system that was very damaging to our soils. This is my main reason for limiting the use of glyphosate tolerant canola.

Triazine tolerant canola

Low establishment costs due to low seed cost.

Weeds are controlled as or before they emerge. This is very important as a large germination of weeds emerging with the crop will dramatically reduce yield of the canola even if they are later controlled.

Most of the canola produced is non GM, so sale and delivery is simplified by being in the mainstream.

Triazine herbicides are not used in any other part of our crop-sheep farming systems so using in canola makes the system more diverse.

Very effective weed control but some grass weeds will still usually need to be taken out with a post emergence herbicide.

Environmentally a worry because of the persistence of the herbicides.

You are right that not all farmers are as knowledgeable as me, but in Australia for the most part the level is very high.

I have made it my business over my lifetime to study the scientific basis of modern agriculture. I left the school system at 15 years of age to go farming. I was good at it and I took advantage of the higher education system in Australia which allowed me to study agricultural science by distance education over many years while still working my farm. Over 8 years I was involved in plant physiology research to be awarded a PhD while still running my farm. (I was younger and had more go in me then). I am nearly 68 years old so I have seen farming when productivity was low because it did not use the tools and knowledge of modern agriculture. I run my farm by myself, producing about 400 tons of canola and 1,000 tons of wheat per annum. I have 2,000 sheep for wool and meat run on pastures integrated with the crops. Perhaps I did not need to go into all this to establish my credibility but I sense that I am not a majority in this discussion.

Perhaps after all I have it all wrong. I am not at all comfortable that the tools of modern agriculture are all safe and totally beneficial. I am however, very clear that a world of 7 billion people will not be fed without modern agriculture. Condemnation of a productive system may mean that somebody goes hungry so we must all be sure that our position is well founded in research, not emotion.

Jeffery,

I take sharp exception with your position. Your position does not even consider the impact of chemicals on the microbe populations in the soil or length of chemical toxicity,(atrazine 25 year in some of the sand soils of Canada). Abandoning natural fertility cycles, recycling nutrients and growing appropriate crops capable of providing an aleopathic in exchange for the ease of cash cropping and working for a few weeks a year is not taking the consumer or the environment into account. I have seen the impact of 25 years of atrazine and its impact on soil populations. I have been in over a thousand fields on 5 continents. The increased use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers reduce the knowledge of the soil. It is easier for you to apply the chemicals and leave the crop rather than have to scuffle, establish tight rotations that produce cover crops and green manures or recycle farm and human nutrients. The real reason chemical agriculture works so well is because it is easier and you don't need to know much about your soil. If a farmer can read a soil test and use a telephone the chemical companies will supply all their expertise to determine the quantities of NPK, herbicide mix and even do crop scouting to tell him when to combine. Such farmers are not farmers but rather bag openers.

Regarding GM products: We have no idea what the impact of the library of enteric bacteria is for animal or humans. One study was released in the Spring of 2013 but more studies are needed to determine if or how GM products impact the constellation of bacteria and what its health of the animal, FCR, DTM implications are.

Hi everyone, thanks for the pretty good and passionate discussion and the contributions! The multi-faced aspects of using GM products and related issues are increasingly emerging indicating how complex is the issue we have to face to find a win-win solution. Because it is very clear what Jeffery says, that a world of 7 billion people will not be fed without modern agriculture. But the question is then what does a "modern" agriculture mean with or without limitations of GM products and chemical pesticides and fertilizers? Can we envision it somehow?

Thanks Jeffrey,

I don't know if you can spare some times to do extension works on-line with your heavy work load between sheep/canola/wheat, but definitely we need people of your standard.

The video is overstated and dramatic but raises some critical points regarding the process of acceptance for GMO products. The long term effectiveness of GMO products against pests needs testing. Otherwise we may end up in the same place we are with antibiotic resistances after 40 years of their prophylactic application with animals. DDT and some of the other heavy duty chemical used during the 40's - 60's also had enormous consequences. Both of these examples appealed to the excuse (note: excuse is different than reason) that Agri-business needed to feed the world. How many times are governments going to listen to the same excuse for approval of such products. Stop using the same old excuse of a global food shortage and start applying long term science (longitudinal studies) to assess impact on the soil microbes, animal gut health, human health. WE WILL ALL STARVE TO DEATH. is not a reason to throw long term science to the wind..

The discussion is picking momentum!!! It is good that hot discussions are going on. But to my wonder many of the big-wigs (I mean the so called scientific community) are still keeping mum. Why????

Lachezar, if you wrote more like a scientist your posts would be worth reading. What are we coming to as scientists when we cite u tube? Cloud, I do not know what your knowledge base is but please have some respect for mine. I have farmed studied and measured my the land I own for over 50 years. All the indicators we can measure or observe both in productivity and sustainability are positive. Longitudinal studies, we have those already and they are not showing any negatives, only positives. The system using atrazine about every 5 years to grow a high value crop like canola with other crops and pastures in between is very positive on all things we can find to observe or measure. That is over a long period, but the more recent GM canola would seem to be even more positive for production and biology of the soil and wider environment and the people. Scientists have not been asleep during the 40 or so years since the introduction of glyphosate and agricultural chemicals in general. Any substantial ill effects would have been evident by now. We should continue to worry, but that is the evidence we have in spite of what I would have at first thought. I am an advocate for evidence based farming. Cloud, rethink your position on feeding the world. The French princess Marie Antionette was supposed to have said during a famine when asked what will the people eat 'let them eat cake" and was branded a fool for evermore. Modern agriculture has kept pace in food production with a rapidly expanding world population and as an agricultural scientist and farmer I am proud of that. I thank Givanni for starting this thread, but I will do better to publish some of my data on the function of deep roots than spend my time on this. Send me a message anybody if you want, but I will no longer read or respond to this because of the poor quality of some of the contributions.

Dear Hoffman,

I agree fully with your response. At some point this discussion is going afield. Without modern agricultural practice , it would not have been possible to feed the population of the present day magnitude. no doubt about that , i hope no one will question it. all the best for you publication. Please send me a copy when its published. If you don't mind please share with me your research.

I believe that this thread is complex enough for anyone to tell us his view-point. In this respect, Jeffrey's point is not a generic one, but it is one coming form years of farming practice coupled with scientific research.I fully respect Jeffrey's point and I appreciated it very much. Thank you Jeffrey! It is not easy to be brave and tell something that is not very much popular by now. I believe that perhaps we need more information on real farming experience data such as Jeffrey's to point better at the question and draw a more accurate picture of what is going on with GMs.

Jeffery,

I was a farmer for much of my life. In additon to farming I spent a great deal of time in Urbana reading pre 1938 agricultural archives. Presently I am working on my 4th Masters degree, have owned an operated my own agricultural company with incorporated offices in on three continents. The company trained farmers in agronomy, set crop rotations and recommended inputs to some 1,500 farmers. Additionally, I sat for 8 years on the Ontario Oil and Protein Seed Crop Committee that approved the registration of all oil (rape, soy, sunflower, etc.) and protein seed varieties for registration in Ontario, Canada. I have not just provided anecdotal evidence from one small section of a bio-region but have been in thousands of field around the world. You are not the only person who knows how to ride tractor and do scientific studies.

The reference to MA and cake is not a good metaphor for GMO use or restrictions. It is not the common person crying wolf and the world is starving. It is the corporate entities.

I think a balance between environment and man health is required. GM foods should be controlled and used in communities. Mass production of crops is a need for increasing human population

Hello everybody,

The discussion is going histerical and vinegar.

Very unfortunately, since defensive attitude lead to blockage and we can't see beyond and reach out for compromises for a better world.

We should not also ignore unscrupulous motives/person that often undermines progress or it's implementation for unintended purpose- cut & paste approach, then motivated by personal gain (greeds).  There maybe good reason to rethink or redefine success besides economic term!

The bottomline is whether the scientific finding is sustainable for the future and from there we can establish criteria to way(s) forward and to identify the risk elements , keeping in mind that any appreciation is based on current knowledge limitations! One example amongst so many will be Hg-base amalgam filling in dentistry which is now being banned due to health hazard, but has since then saved the day.

We should avoid putting everything in the same basket.

Regards to All.

I am not opposed to GM crops or the application.  I am opposed to the rush for approval for use of these crops without the scientific data to show the consequence of their use (on soil, microbes, consumers and other registered varieties of the crops).  If only one consequence, yield, is used as a measure for registration of varities; then the scientific investigation is extremely narrow/skewed.  Many bioregions are all dealing with invasive species.  Is the contamination of other registered varieities of the same crop, by wind pollenation, acceptable? Evern if it means the farmers expereiencing the contamination can no longer sell his crop?  Where is the liability, responsiblity and accountability?