What this means is that the GMO - roundup protocol has been a complete failure and is not justified at all. It does not stop the use of round up which predates all this but it certainly supports a serious reduction in usage.
Considering that it has now been also shown that organic methodology is comparable to best industrial practice as well it is high time that we pulled back and worked to support organic farming in particular at the policy level. That means ending subsidies for non organic protocols generally and transferring all that to the organic sector.
That would cause a rapid redeployment of investment and a huge boost in employment as well all of which happens to be intellect policy...
.
https://fee.org/articles/do-genetically-modified-crops-really-increase-yields/
The NYTimes has an excellent feature on genetically modified crops, written by Danny Hakim joined by Karl Russell on data. The usual story is about a battle between fears of contamination on one side and the potential of increased yields on the other but the Times story is about how genetically modified crops have failed to increase yields or reduce pesticide use. This has been discussed in the scientific literature for a few years (e.g. here) and Tom Philpott at Mother Jones has covered the story earlier but the Times story really brings it home in a dramatic way. The graphics are especially good.
Here’s one graph showing corn crop yields in the United States, which uses GMOs, and Western Europe which does not. See the difference?
Addendum: Some good further discussion here, h/t ant1900 in the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment