The farmers I know of use herbicides to kill the weeds early in the season - not right before harvest. You don't want your crops having to compete with the weeds for the soil nutrients all season long nor do you want to waste fertilizer. Go drive through an agricultural area and see how many fields are infested with weeds. You won't see many. Why? Because it is inefficient. The farmers I know go to great lengths to keep their fields clear of weeds - especially when they lie fallow.

Now maybe you don't, but I always wash my produce before eating it. That way I don't worry about herbicides, pesticides, dirt, random bugs, etc.

So here's a question: what is your opinion on the artificial ripeners used heavily on tomatoes?

Just because it "could never happen in nature" is just blindly attacking the technology. It is actually pretty impressive technology. Golden Rice for example has more beta-carotine so is healthier in 3rd world, even though it "could never happen in nature".
The problem with GMO's is not the resulting plant, it is that more sprays can be used on the crop, so potentially increasing the toxins in our food.

Yes, what you described with Roundup is exactly right. Roundup is a herbicide. With GMOs you can use Roundup to kill grass before harvest. The timing is very important to farmers, it means the grass dies before harvest which makes the crop flow better through the harvester (no moisture from the grass) and also the ground is ready to be worked as soon as harvest is done. The old way to kill the grass was to wait for fresh growth after harvest, then spray, then wait for the grass to die, then start working the soil. Wasting those vital weeks was sometimes very expensive if you miss a good weather window. So in summary, "Round-Up Ready" encourages spraying this carcinogen onto almost-ready-to-eat human food.

As you say, broad-leaf weeds in cerials were never difficult to deal with.

Pest resistance, I heard it was the same chemical used in pesticides which damages the pest's stomach lining. But you might be right... or there might be more than one type out there.

Yes, voluntary system for labels would be ideal, but the DARK Act reduces the force of consumer demand.

There are plenty of scare stories, hypotheses, and suppositions about the effects of GMO's, but no hard proof. That's what we deal in here.

"For conventional varieties, herbicides cannot be used while the crop is growing."

You must not have done any gardening. I wouldn't use a broad-leaf weedkiller on my tomatoes, but I would certainly use it on corn. We did it all the time when I was growing up - long before the introduction of GMO's. The one we commonly used was called 2-4D. There is also a grass-killing version (effective against monocotyledons) which we would use on our tomatoes, potatoes, beans, etc. to keep down crabgrass - especially just after germination when it was difficult to do hand-weeding without destroying your crop.

What you have with the modern GMO-based plants is a resistance to a generic weed-killer commonly called Round-Up (glyphosate). It used to be that Round-Up was only used in areas where you wanted to kill everything. With the advent of the GMO's and the "Round-Up Ready" crops, they could use a single herbicide to try to control both broad-leaf and grass-based weeds in one shot, which reduced the costs of spraying and made it so less experienced farmers could still get a decent yield.

In those crops which are pest resistant, most of them simply taste bad to the bugs - they do not exude a toxin. If you are a farmer, you don't want the bugs chewing on your plants - even if doing so kills the bugs. You want the bugs to stay away in the first place. See marigolds.

With respect to labeling, most consumers simply don't care. (http://theconversation.com/study-gm-f...) What I am against, however, are mandatory labeling requirements. If there is sufficient consumer demand, producers are welcome to voluntarily label their products.

Doesn't seem to be an "Independent study" and it's likely that none of those conditions and diseases have nothing to do with gmo's. Note these conditions have been around before gmo's.

Read: Altered Genes/Twisted Truth...the things they have to do to modify these crops could never happen in nature...seriously, read this book.

Also see: http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history... some good question at the end of the article about GMO's and Vaccines.

For conventional varieties, herbicides cannot be used while the crop is growing. For the GMO varieties designed to resist herbicide, their purpose is to allow use of herbicide to selectively kill weeds, even up to just before the crop is harvested. So the toxin can be sprayed on the growing crop.

For other types of GMO, the plant is designed to produce its own insect toxin in the leaves, as you say, to reduce pesticide use. However, reducing pesticides is a purely commercial benefit for the producer. Eating seeds from a plant which internally produced its own pesticide (which might also reach the seed) is no benefit to the consumer.

As for labels, I view it as the right of the consumer to know what is in their food, not the right of a producer to save money on cost of labeling.

Also a small farmer (15 ache farm).

I have raised alpha, oats and triticale for my cattle for 15 years. Over this time I have tried hairloom seeds and GMO seeds. I have tracked the production and also the consumption of the feeed I have growin for my cattle.

I have found, that on average GMO increases production by 16% more (by weight), however the cattle eat 7% more (by weight) when feed the GMO hay durring the winter.

Bottom line is the GMO is still more effective, and I can spray to control weeds without killing it (huge advanatage). There is a loss of the production increase based on increased consumption as well.

I have wondered why. I have had the feed tested for protein levels and they have been higher in the GMO crops. This should in theory cause the cattle to eat fewer pounds per day, but the results say they eat more. I have not determined why and wondered if you may have an idea?

Protein and trace mineral content are probably the biggest differences. I have seen studies that also show feed conversion is better with older varieties. I can personally attest to the fact that my blood sugar reacts differently to old school wheat as opposed to mainstream wheat. The goals of the "Borlaugs" of the world was to feed the masses. It was and is an admirable goal, but in their rush to increase yield they forgot quality.

"[T]here is a difference in the quality of the grain from a digestibility and nutritional value standpoint."

Can you elaborate? This would seem to be an important point to consider, I agree.

I used to work with a company that hauled sugarbeets, and we worked with the farmers' coops who overwhelmingly favored the GMO versions because they got much better yield from their crops. But that crop had only really one purpose: to be processed into sugar and volume was key. Wheat may require completely different considerations.

As a farmer I can say unequivocally that here is a difference in the quality of the grain from a digestibility and nutritional value standpoint. Older open pollinated strands of grains have attributes that modern hybrids and GE grains can only dream about. I am not against science in agriculture, but the same people who push GE have a Utopian slant to them and fail to recognize the complexity of the biologic system. When science focuses on one trait or even a couple with disregard to the big picture they create unintended consequences just like a political planner. Resilient crops, economies, and communities are often the victims of the unintended consequences. I choose to support businesses that support rational systems. The current gmo system in my opinion is too myopic to be rational. I do not question the technique, but the goals and paradigm of the researchers.

Herbicides and pesticides are used on non-GMO food as well, so I fail to see your point. As the article points out, the insect-resistant strains allow for the decreased use of pesticide, which would reduce the risks of pesticide poisoning. And it points out that those farmers who are over-treating with herbicides are doing so against recommendations.

If a producer wants to label their food, that's up to them. It costs money to alter one's packaging. The bigger issue is whether or not producers should be forced to notify. Given the findings of this report, I don't see justification for that. I wouldn't see justification for withholding the information if asked either.

The food itself is likely no less healthy. The problem is the increased ingestion of herbicides and pesticides, which are known toxins in animal experiments.

It says there is "no justification for labeling for food safety purposes".
Therefore also, if the argument is that it is so safe, there is no justification for NOT labeling GMO.