If we didn’t use herbicides, we would have to use human beings to pull all of those weeds.
“The folks at the Crop Protection Research Institute have, and they calculate it would take 70 million workers to hand weed all the commercial crops in the U.S. in a year.”
Click here for a video explaining it.
Can you imagine the price of food if we had to pay those 70 million people to pull weeds? Not to mention that we already have a hard time getting workers to pick fruit and vegetables, let alone find enough people to pull weeds!
Just another way technology is helping us provide affordable and nutritious food!
Do you feel there are any problems with pesticide use and our agricultural system that relies on monocultures and heavy pesticide use? Are you concerned about GMO glyphosate resistance just breeding weeds that are also resistant?
I think I would take issue with the idea that our agricultural system relies on "heavy pesticide use." I think that's a very political and charged term. Rather, we use pesticides, herbicides, and insecticides as needed to keep our crops healthy and bug free. In fact, GMOs have reduced the amount of herbicides actually being used. Also, the chemicals are expensive and we are not using them randomly and just for fun.As for the resistant weeds, I believe that is something we have to deal with no matter what our method of taking care of pests and weeds. But I'm more than confident in the scientists around the world that are working on these problems.
That's a fair critique. It's not clear what exactly "heavy pesticide use" means, and how we tell if the amount we use is "good" or "bad". So I agree that my statements were charged, thanks for pointing that out. Isn't it also true that our farm policy and incentives (or just the market maybe?) seem to encourage large fields of monocultures and that these are essentially a haven for pests to reproduce and grow to levels that might not be possible with more crop rotations, a larger number of crops being grown, etc? And it's also true that while pesticides can be managed appropriately, some are dangerous to human health for a limited period of time, such that people who pick crops have to wait a certain period of time before coming in contact with the crop. There are instances of migrant workers being exposed when they shouldn't be. Now, glyphosate is more benign (as far as I understand) but it still has safety warnings about direct contact in concentrated forms. It is absolutely not true that GMOs have reduced the amount of herbicides used. They have decreased the amount of insecticides used via the Bt toxin modification, which allows a plant to produce its own insecticide. When it comes to the Roundup Ready (glyphosate) resistant modification, recent trends show a marked increase in the use of glyphosate in an essentially futile attempt to overcome weeds that are becoming increasingly resistant. Here is the citation: Bøhn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J., & Primicerio, R. (2013). Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chemistry.Note I am not saying this poses a human health threat. I am not anti-GMO. I am just concerned about one particular GMO through which Monsanto is perhaps offering a false promise of a simple way to manage weeds that is not sustainable and will have increasing costs over time. It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that glyphosate combined with glyphosate-resistant crops may be marketed this way – as a simple, easy solution – when science (ecology and genetics) show us it is doomed to fail. (Again, you know much more about actual herbicide use than me, so maybe this is overblown to some degree, but it is undeniable that glyphosate use has been drastically increasing recently) As an example, why is there concern about the over-prescription , over-use, and early termination of antibiotic drugs? If you take antibiotics when you don't really need them, or if you don't complete the full course of your meds when you do need them, what you're doing is you are breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria in your own body, which are then spread around in the environment and to other people. There are many extremely nasty strains of tuberculosis around the world, for example, that are resistant to multiple antibiotics for these very reasons. Yes, science can work to catch up, but we are fighting against billions of years of evolutionary genius. Natural selection in organisms with short reproduction cycles (microorganisms have the shortest, while weeds are roughly yearly, and humans of course have about 20-30 years between generations) can rapidly evolve resistance. Monsanto's probably not concerned that it's selling more and more glyphosate over time, but farmers who are reliant upon it should be!I have no clue if you or your family use glyphosate a lot on your farm and if you are having to use more and more. But many farms are, and as you say, the chemicals are expensive!!
Ethan, Thanks for you comment. You have a lot of different issues going on here and I will try to just address a couple of them. Some of them are addressed in other articles I have done in the past though.You said: "Isn't it also true that our farm policy and incentives (or just the market maybe?) seem to encourage large fields of monocultures and that these are essentially a haven for pests to reproduce and grow to levels that might not be possible with more crop rotations, a larger number of crops being grown, etc?"I don't think it is some type of farm policies that gives an incentive to use large fields — that's just what makes the best sense. We cannot produce enough efficiently if we were to mix all of our crops together in a big field and try to break it up. Have you seen the equipment we use? It isn't practical or realistic to revert to farming with small patches of everything. However, farmers generally do use crop rotation in these large fields. You would not plant corn every single year in a field.You said: "And it's also true that while pesticides can be managed appropriately, some are dangerous to human health for a limited period of time, such that people who pick crops have to wait a certain period of time before coming in contact with the crop. There are instances of migrant workers being exposed when they shouldn't be. Now, glyphosate is more benign (as far as I understand) but it still has safety warnings about direct contact in concentrated forms."All pesticides should be applied and handled according to the FIFRA label, as established by the EPA. Of course, you generally will not want to be in the field right after it has been sprayed. However, that would be listed on the label. Furthermore, sending workers into a field contrary to the label would be a violation of FIFRA and a felony.
You said: "It is absolutely not true that GMOs have reduced the amount of herbicides used." Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. I have seen studies on both sides of this issue, but it isn't something I have searched out or really touched upon. If I come across some resources, I'll let you know.You said: "I am just concerned about one particular GMO through which Monsanto is perhaps offering a false promise of a simple way to manage weeds that is not sustainable and will have increasing costs over time. It is my understanding (please correct me if I'm wrong) that glyphosate combined with glyphosate-resistant crops may be marketed this way – as a simple, easy solution – when science (ecology and genetics) show us it is doomed to fail."I guess I take issue with the way you've phrased this, as if farmers just believe what Monsanto says and are gullible to eat it up if we're told that. I think everyone is aware that this can be (and may be now) an issue. We certainly don't want the weeds to become resistant, but that will probably happen over time (although, it's been 25 years already…). Nor do I think it is doomed to fail if we continue using various methods, such as crop rotation, and keep a lid on how much we're using. You said: "Monsanto's probably not concerned that it's selling more and more glyphosate over time, but farmers who are reliant upon it should be!"You don't think Monsanto is concerned about that? Of course they are! If the trait is no longer helpful in controlling weeds, then who will want to buy their product? Farmers aren't just going to buy more and more spray and apply it to the fields in vain. (Again, this is another reason I don't think the use of herbicides have gone up.) Furthermore, there are still limitations and regulations on how much we can use on a field. You cannot simply dump as much as you want into a field of corn and call it good. It is still controlled and must be applied according to the label.Hope that answered a couple of your questions! If you're interested in more discussion on this, I suggest you check out this group on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/GMOSF/
Rachel Carson, the famous ecologist who described the disastrous effects of DDT used as insecticide, was not against all use of insecticides. She even thought that DDT had a role in preventing malaria in regions where mosquitos got out of control. I give this example because I think science should always judge things on a case-by-case basis, and that different practices and quantities even of the same chemical do count as different cases to be judged differently. Thanks for this fascinating discussion and your insights. I'm eager to learn more from you and know that I do have a lot to learn!!Best,Ethan