The GMO alphalpa is new, just started to use it last year. It is resistant and does not get killed by roundup. Biggest advantage is I can spray my field keeping weeds completely out and letting the alpha grow without contestation for the nutrients out of the soil.

The issue that nobody seems to want to approach is, like the supposed danger from cell phones, the entire argument against GMOs is probably baseless.

When cell phones began to proliferate (actually, prior to this) many people connected RF radiation with atomic radiation. Even microwave ovens came under intense abuse by these people, to the point that some claim cellular mutations in the food that is cooked in these ovens...boiling water in a microwave is also a no-no.

Where is the proof? Why are the dangers of GMOs and cell phones immediately considered hazardous, before any effects have even been attributed to using them, or am I entirely missing the obvious?

A baseless fear is not the same as a fear based on facts. The earth was once thought to be flat and people feared falling off the edge for generations. Even after "scientists" were able to prove that the earth was round, they were vilified and even executed for their beliefs. What is the difference between that and what we are dealing with, today?

This is interesting...
Science is so determined to throw out the time tested way of doing things. Here, the old ways with honesty and an Open Mind have proven better than GMO's. http://www.nature.com/news/the-race-t...

It makes so much sense the left will fully ignore it! Meanwhile, blindness in certain developing countries still developes because GMO rice is not used enough and total food production is kept down, while chemical pesticides are used more than hey would need to be used with some GMO crops

I am happy to see some studies on this subject. It would seem to me that nature modifies all manner of living things all the time, so if we do a bit of genetic engineering that passes some basic safety checks, it should be ok.

Selective breeding goes on all the time with crops and animals, and has for a long time.

I have no problems with GMOs. However, crops are specifically designed to resist herbicides. "Round-Up Ready" is a specific line. You may see higher herbicide levels down line, emphasis on "may," so ingestion could be an issue. Of course the herbicide will kill you over decades versus starvation....

"Mere farmer?"

It's been tested many times by many labs and they have found the poisons in the fruit of GMO soy.

You are using the same scientific technique we are yet you belittle us with your superior attitude. You observe the masses from afar and see everyone is alive and walking. Everything is fine. I observe the masses and see reported increases in obesity and mental illness. I witness increased runoff, erosion, and herbicide resistance. The speed at which ag science has impacted our system is simply troubling to me. If I use my abilities of observation and reason and come to a conclusion that is different than yours does not mean we have to be condescending in our comments.

So, because I question the value of a particular technique I am now opposed to human progress. Your premise is all scientific discovery leads to human progress regardless of its application. Just because Hank made a scientific discovery in Rearden Metal does not mean it was appropriate for all applications. Genetically modifying organisms is a wonderful tool, but a powerful one that must be used with respect for the complexity of all systems. Not just yield. During my life as a "mere" farmer I have participated in on farm research in cooperation with Iowa State University to attempt to quantity the value of various inputs and practices. I understand better than most the difficulties of complexity in research and the issues of ignoring externalities. I have worked with scientists enough in my life to know that caution is not an unreasonable exercise.

That the GMO crops resist herbicide allows much more efficient crop cycles than doing it any other way. Producing a natural pesticide is a good thing. Many plants we ingest have evolved to do so. Almost all plants have some mechanism to discourage being eaten. Now we can tune those to discourage creatures other than us eating them. This is a very good thing.
There is not evidence that these GMO plants are harmful to humans. Study after study and billions of GMO meals served and people are still saying this stuff.

Sorry but this is incorrect.

GMO has nothing to do with ingestions of herbicides and pesticides per se.

As a mere farmer you are not qualified to say any such thing. What is "push GE". Real biologists and genomics folks most certainly do recognize the complexity and are mastering it bit by bit. Nebulous unintended consequences claims are not science.

Billions of meals consumed that included one or more GMO foods and people still say this? Give me a break. This is paranoia without basis.

It is about time the obvious is agains stated. We humans have been modifying crops and animals for tens of millennia. Much more recently we learned how to do it much more efficiently and precisely than by selective breeding. That is really all there is to it.

To oppose GMO is to oppose human progress. And no, please don't bring up "because Monsanto". The tech is a very good thing regardless of whether the purported evils of Monsanto are true.

We likely could not be feeding people worldwide as well as we are now without GMO. BTW, literally billions of meals that included GMO have been consumed worldwide. If there was a major problem we would certainly no it by now.

Thanks Blarman and to all the contributors to this post. To the farmers in particular fascinating real world experience and for sharing some of it. I am in the label it camp, as a consumer I prefer to have a choice if possible.
I have to say I am somewhat suspicious of a study that gives the all clear when long term effects are unlikely determined. Huge money behind GMO products gives a greater incentive to influence study. I am not saying that is the case. It just makes me wary. Ahh and tkstone I also make spaghetti sauce from homegrown tomatoes it is
awesome.

You are right. Most herbicide use is for early season weed control as the canopy takes care of most weeds later in the season, but some crops require defoliation to be mechanically harvested. Green weeds will plug the grain cleaner in a combine for instance. So both practices are used. All herbicides are either pre emergent or post emergent. Pre prevents germination which often leaves the seed viable for next year and the post requires application at a precise growth stage to be effective. Even roundup works best on young growth. You most often can wash off the herbicides as they have to be systemic to work in the first place. One concern I have had is that many herbicides are growth regulators that in essence make the plants experience out of control growth, not unlike cancer. If you have a chance observe a weed after it has sprayed with 2-4D. It will be curled knarled and distorted before it dies. As far as ripeners go the are cosmetic for the most part. They cause the ripening to take place before the fruit is ready. I wish you could experience the sweetness of my home made spaghetti sauce. These are all crutches to allow the industrialization of food production which has become necessary in our dumbed down dependent society.

The research I have seen has dealt with corn. I was not aware of any gmo alfalfa. The protein chains were better in line with feed requirements. One thing I would like to investigate would be the pounds of meat produced per acre along with a grading scale to track quality as well. Another issue is the ability to save seed and be independent and develop local strains selected to optimize a crop for your farm. Resilience is another reason for non gmo.

You would kill weeds early as possible, yes. But if you have a grass at harvest time you are not protecting the current crop, you are protecting the next year's crop (and you can't get much earlier than that).

Washing, yes, but you can't wash off anything absorbed via the plant's leaf. Also, some chemicals remain in the soil and are taken up by the roots (not a GMO issue, that applies to any crop)

Tomato ripeners? no opinion, I don't know anything about them.

Post Script: Remember: they brought on the "could never happen in nature" argument...they thought and claimed from the beginning that they were just doing what nature could do...They unequivocally are not.

The GMO"S allow the herbicides and pesticides into the fruit...non gmo's; mostly on the outside and can be washed off of cut off.

I seen them all and vetted them out but reading that book which outlines the attitudes, from the beginning and the process...it's very detailed right up to today.
As I say...It's well worth the read.

No doubt...the tech is mind boggling but the repercussions in "Nature" is really troublesome.
The weeds and bugs have adapted and are now immune to a most devastating poison.