I avoid GMOs for similar reasons. It's not that I think GMOs are unsafe. What I dispise is the disparity between the "marketing promises" made and what GMO's are acually used for.

ATM the most common application for GMO is adding tolerance against specific herbicides/pesticides/funghicides. I see three problems with this:

1. Overuse of the …cides a tolerance was added for

2. Said overuse causes evolutionary pressure on "the stuff you don't want to grow there" which in the long term may cause the same trouble as with MRSAs and similar superbugs.

3. Loss of genetic diversity (within the crops used for farming). It's a simple cost/benefit evaluation which crops to modify, limiting these modifications to a small subset of the genetic pool. Already the disparity between the breeds in existence and the breeds are actually used is worrying.

Also a still unclear topic is the stability of genetic modifications, i.e. if genetic modifications "stick" or if they get "repaired out" or "spread out over" of an organisms genome over generations (still an active research topic and in plants a wide field, because of the huge genomes and large set of pathways).

IMHO the more cost effective and long term sustainable path would be marker assisted breeding, which often can lead to desireable results faster and with higher yield than straight on genetic modification.

These are the exact reasons. People act like GMO means we are uncontrollably mutating crops with potential dangers involved with "playing God"... We've been using radiation and selective breeding to alter DNA in the past. It's slower and riskier than GMO.

Monocultures, super-weeds/pests, and potentially political/economic issues (Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world) are the real issues, not "we dont know what we are doing to the plants!" We know now more than ever.

> Im not a fan of Monsanto controlling all of the seeds of the world

At the moment, there is quite a lot of companies selling seeds:

http://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/wp-content/uploads/201...

Thats a fair point and I was intending to use a bit of hyperbole, while speculating on what COULD happen.

>1. Overuse of the …cides a tolerance was added for

Farmers aren't stupid. They're not wasting extremely expensive chemicals.

The reason roundup use has grown is because it has replaced entire spectrums of more harmful chemicals.

Don't confuse increase in market share with increase in use.

>Said overuse causes evolutionary pressure on "the stuff you don't want to grow there"

That's no different from any biologic.

Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur? No. They should be used more intelligently.

>Loss of genetic diversity

You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent.

Diversity is lost when farmers breed traditional (and organic) hybrid strains, not at the insertion of a single gene.

>Also a still unclear topic is the stability of genetic modifications

If you are worried about genetic stability, don't google "transposons".

But seriously. Transgenic insertions are incredibly stable. They are selected specifically to be stable. We know exactly where insertions happen. In fact the entire patent process depends on this.

>IMHO the more cost effective and long term sustainable path would be marker assisted breeding,

Breeding is crazy expensive compared to genetic modification.

Why limit our toolbox? Why force breeders to build birdhouses with sledgehammers on the moon, instead of a hammer and a nail?

> Should we stop using antibiotics because resistance might occur

There are good arguments that we shouldn't be using antibiotics in farming, period.

> You can insert a gene into any crop. That crop can be diverse or not. It's completely independent.

You missed my point. Genetic modification does not come for free. So the varieties which are chosen for modification will be only a small subset of the varieties in existence. Hence you shrink the size of the set of crops with an economic interest.

Don't they say roundup ready crops require fewer biocides than their non GMO counterparts? Isn't one of their value propositions that you don't have to treat them as much as conventional and organic varieties?

Citation needed. One would have assumed that the point of a plant designed to be resistant to a herbicide would be that you could apply that herbicide with abandon.

Sure. Here are results from meta-analysis of the question[1].

Key takes:

"On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries."

So pesticide use goes down, yields go up, resulting in fewer acres planted for the same yield resulting in even further pesticide use.

[1]http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

I noting that more and more meta-analyses are kind of falling out of fashion. They're increasingly being viewed as having dubious scientific merit and should be viewed similarly to "lit reviews". As well as some obvious biases there are other subtle issues, such as incomplete data or poorly matched data-sets. There's a list of short-comings on the wikipedia page which should provide a good primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis#Problems

Basically, we need to be careful about accepting the results of meta-analyses as scientific fact. They are useful for illustrative purposes but really, at the end of the day if you're going to settle an argument you're going to need rigorous methodology, data-collection and reporting, as well as the all important reproducibility, falsifiability and verifiablity.

You are free to go to the list of references in that meta analysis article, and look at the results of the individual studies.

Just like with any lit review.

Yes, but it also means you can use the herbicides that actually work. Less total volume required for the same effect, because it's a more effective (on plants) poison.

The Monsanto claim is that the plant is resistant to the herbicide, and thus you can apply the product earlier in the growing cycle. That kills weeds and allows you to use less product.

"Buy our GMO seeds and spend more on inputs" would be a fucking terrible sales pitch.

On the case of Monsanto soy, you can use a more widely effective herbicide, and because it kills more diverse species of plants, you can apply less of it.

Roundup is a very effective herbicide.

Farmers wouldn't use it if it didn't save them money.

Roundup is a Monsanto product and the hate is probably directed at Monsanto, not specifically about the amount of .*cides used.

I believe this is the case and sadly it stems from a case where a Canadian farmer[1] got positive PR by playing the relative David to the Monsanto Goliath (to the detriment of Monsanto and by extension GMOS). IIRC, the farmer was in the wrong [by court decision --not wanting to pay IP fees] but people only recall the an overbearing corporation suing a farmer, whereas the farmer was trying to use GMO seeds without having to pay Monsanto their licensing fees.

[1]http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top...

Roundup is a Monsanto trademark, but the patent has expired decades ago, the product itself is manufactured by multiple companies all over the globe, and I wonder if Monsanto has even two-digits percentage of the market share.