Europe’s Drought Might Force Acceptance of Gene-Edited Crops(wired.com)
wired.com
Europe’s Drought Might Force Acceptance of Gene-Edited Crops
https://www.wired.com/story/europe-drought-gene-editing/
23 comments
Not everywhere in Europe. In Poland, despite the drought that caused various local problems as as a whole this season's harvest was a good one (I even heard it described as _very_ good in comparison with recent years). PL is a big exporter of food within EU and elsewhere.
Iowa is down 10% in estimated corn yields fwiw
Alternative headline from a saner and more practical world: "Europe's drought might force acceptance of landscape-wide rainwater harvesting earthworks." The effectiveness of such earthworks is pretty shocking to witness: -- https://youtu.be/8QUSIJ80n50 "Lessons of the Loess Plateau"
The permaculture folks have been implementing functional solutions to drought for 3 or 4 decades now, repairing large-scale damaged ecosystems and halting desertification. The problem already has a simple effective remedy, and gene-edited crops are a band-aid non-solution that does nothing to change the underlying conditions by which drought is created and perpetuated.
It is widely understood that forests attract/create rainfall (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/4/341/346941). Large scale water harvesting earthworks attract/create forests by creating the hydrological conditions amenable to increased vegetative cover. To put it simply, here is what is do be done: an army of people use whatever earth moving equipment they have available (from shovels to machinery) to dig a network of swales and catchments across the landscape, and then plant them with early successional "pioneer" species (sun/drought tolerant, often nitrogen fixing woody shrubs). In 5 to 10 years, the soil will be holding onto to the rain for much longer periods of time , creating the conditions such that longterm forest trees will begin to establish (attracting more rain), and staple crops can be reliably grown. This a proven method, it absolutely works, and it needs to be widely implemented across the globe.
Hopefully this comment get read by the heads of public works agencies of numerous governments in drought affected regions around the world.
The permaculture folks have been implementing functional solutions to drought for 3 or 4 decades now, repairing large-scale damaged ecosystems and halting desertification. The problem already has a simple effective remedy, and gene-edited crops are a band-aid non-solution that does nothing to change the underlying conditions by which drought is created and perpetuated.
It is widely understood that forests attract/create rainfall (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/59/4/341/346941). Large scale water harvesting earthworks attract/create forests by creating the hydrological conditions amenable to increased vegetative cover. To put it simply, here is what is do be done: an army of people use whatever earth moving equipment they have available (from shovels to machinery) to dig a network of swales and catchments across the landscape, and then plant them with early successional "pioneer" species (sun/drought tolerant, often nitrogen fixing woody shrubs). In 5 to 10 years, the soil will be holding onto to the rain for much longer periods of time , creating the conditions such that longterm forest trees will begin to establish (attracting more rain), and staple crops can be reliably grown. This a proven method, it absolutely works, and it needs to be widely implemented across the globe.
Hopefully this comment get read by the heads of public works agencies of numerous governments in drought affected regions around the world.
The big pharma/food companies are pushing really hard to this.
Daily reminder that the "GMO for herbicides and pesticides" actually means that they can spray the crops with SHITLOAD MORE PESTICIDES since it doesn't actually provide natural insect protection but it makes the plant more resilient to those sprays.
So as the side effect of that you now eat shitload more of those insecticides and herbicides in your plants.
Daily reminder that the "GMO for herbicides and pesticides" actually means that they can spray the crops with SHITLOAD MORE PESTICIDES since it doesn't actually provide natural insect protection but it makes the plant more resilient to those sprays.
So as the side effect of that you now eat shitload more of those insecticides and herbicides in your plants.
> So as the side effect of that you now eat shitload more of those insecticides and herbicides in your plants.
And it fucks up the soil more, so in the long run you'll need even more modified crops or more aggressive cultivation methods.
Let's continue with our half assed profit motivated solutions, I'm sure it'll work great
And it fucks up the soil more, so in the long run you'll need even more modified crops or more aggressive cultivation methods.
Let's continue with our half assed profit motivated solutions, I'm sure it'll work great
The article is about GMO drought-resistant crops. They use water more efficiently than conventional crops, which were bred for a water-rich environment.
But not yet the C4 cycle, right?
anti-GMO is anti-science just like anti-vax. They both rely on similar FUD and blame the bogeyman of big Pharma/Ag. They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety.
Genetics is science. GMOS are products. Being Anti-GMO does not make anyone 'anti-science'.
You Americans need to lose that 'either-or' mentality in which you polarize to extreme end of EVERY single thing.
> They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety
There was massive evidence that backed the safety of a large host of technologies and products until they were proven lethal. Majority of the evidence backing those came from privately-funded US think thanks and research institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
You Americans need to lose that 'either-or' mentality in which you polarize to extreme end of EVERY single thing.
> They also ignore massive scientific evidence backing the safety
There was massive evidence that backed the safety of a large host of technologies and products until they were proven lethal. Majority of the evidence backing those came from privately-funded US think thanks and research institutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
The anti-vax people can say something similar:
"Immunology is science. Vaccines are products. Being Anti-Vaccine does not make anyone 'anti-science'."
"Immunology is science. Vaccines are products. Being Anti-Vaccine does not make anyone 'anti-science'."
Precisely. That would be also correct. In the US, the concept 'vaccines' have been made into another extreme polarization topic. Its either/or.
The fact that vaccines are also products and there can be heavily deregulated corporations running roughshod in that industry escapes one side of that spectrum.
If a corporation like Glaxo Smith Klein can knowingly kill 150,000 Americans with their drug Avandia, and even starts to suppress evidence before releasing the drug and GETS AWAY with it, one can easily conclude that any other US corporation in health sector would be doing similar things. At the time of the Avandia drug scandal, there were THREE other massive corporations like GSK who did precisely the same.
The fact that vaccines are also products and there can be heavily deregulated corporations running roughshod in that industry escapes one side of that spectrum.
If a corporation like Glaxo Smith Klein can knowingly kill 150,000 Americans with their drug Avandia, and even starts to suppress evidence before releasing the drug and GETS AWAY with it, one can easily conclude that any other US corporation in health sector would be doing similar things. At the time of the Avandia drug scandal, there were THREE other massive corporations like GSK who did precisely the same.
Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide.
>Not when GMO crops are being modified to survive fatal amounts of pesticide.
Which GMO crops? Fatal for what/whom?
Which GMO crops? Fatal for what/whom?
Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around.
>Fatal for the plants. Many GMO crops are designed by pesticide companies. They enable the farmers to use more pesticide. Which does increase yields. But now there's even more poison being thrown around.
Farmers want to use less pesticide.
What poison?
Farmers want to use less pesticide.
What poison?
> Farmers want to use less pesticide.
They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more.
You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more.
You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
>They want to increase profit yield. If more pesticide produces more revenue than the cost of the stuff then they'll want to use more.
>You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
I have done and continue to do research in this field which is why I am perplexed by what you're saying; it doesn't make sense.
Applying more pesticide doesn't increase profit; it lessens due to the added cost and diminished returns. You'll be hard-pressed to find an agriculture operation applying more pesticide than absolutely necessary.
The advances in agriculture technology has lessened the amount of product application necessary, not increased it.
>You're free to do research on this on your own. I'm not interested in sourcing links for you. I will amend that it's moreso herbicides than pesticides.
I have done and continue to do research in this field which is why I am perplexed by what you're saying; it doesn't make sense.
Applying more pesticide doesn't increase profit; it lessens due to the added cost and diminished returns. You'll be hard-pressed to find an agriculture operation applying more pesticide than absolutely necessary.
The advances in agriculture technology has lessened the amount of product application necessary, not increased it.
Fine first result I got on google
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471...
> Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.
https://enveurope.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2190-471...
> Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.