[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse"

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Science-Technology
See other Science-Technology Articles

Title: Monsanto’s Superweeds Saga Is Only Getting Worse
Source: Yahoo
URL Source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/monsanto ... y-getting-worse-000354904.html
Published: Aug 2, 2016
Author: Yahoo
Post Date: 2016-08-03 11:06:55 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14218
Comments: 51

You’d like to think there are certain types of corporate malfeasance that really only exist in the realm of Hollywood fantasy. For example, the soulless biotech company that, through a combination of shortsighted greed and scientific hubris, decides to play God with Mother Nature—only to unleash a host of unintended consequences, which said company then refuses to acknowledge and instead continues to pursue its reckless technology to devastating ends. Sounds like the plotline of dozens upon dozens of dystopian sci-fi flicks, right? Or maybe it’s just the ongoing saga of Monsanto and the superweeds.

Yes, the story has taken far longer to unfold than any feature film, but still, your average teen who’s taken a semester of biological sciences would get the gist in a flash: A generation ago, Monsanto rolled out its patented line of genetically engineered crops that, in a (diabolical?) bit of corporate synergy, were designed to survive being doused with the company’s trademark weed killer Roundup, made with the herbicide glyphosate.

Monsanto billed its “crop system”—the “Roundup Ready” GMO seeds combined with Roundup itself—as a revolutionary boon for farmers: higher yields with fewer chemicals. Yep, fewer chemicals. It’s worth remembering today, when the use of glyphosate has soared by more than tenfold in the past decade, that the original bill of goods Monsanto sold to farmers centered on the argument that because Roundup Ready seeds could withstand glyphosate, farmers wouldn’t have to use as much of the chemical to kill all those nuisance weeds.

That’s not exactly what happened, as we’re reminded once again by the latest Monsanto-related headlines this week.

As NPR reports, a scourge of superweeds that have become resistant to glyphosate is plaguing soybean farmers in parts of Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri. They’re not alone. This graph from the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds shows how the number of unique cases of herbicide resistance in weeds in the U.S. shoots off like a rocket in the years following Monsanto’s introduction of Roundup Ready GMO seed in the mid-1990s.

Monsanto’s own solution to this escalating problem would seem as laughably predictable as a bad Hollywood sequel if it weren’t all too real: Let’s roll out more GMO crops designed to withstand being doused with even more weed killer. Monsanto calls its next-generation line of GMO soybeans “Xtend,” and these are capable of not only surviving heavy applications of glyphosate but an older, more potent herbicide known as dicamba.

Federal regulators have yet to approve the new dicamba-based weed killer Monsanto formulated to pair with its dicamba-resistant GMO soybeans. But that apparently hasn’t stopped some desperate farmers from spraying dicamba anyway. And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields, Monsanto’s new GMO crops aren’t only upending the natural order, they appear to being upending the social order in tight-knit farming communities too: Neighbors are accusing neighbors of illegally spraying dicamba and killing off crops that haven’t been engineered to tolerate the chemical.

Dozens and dozens of complaints have been filed in Missouri and in Arkansas, but that may only be the beginning in the next chapter of the Monsanto saga. If the company’s new herbicide wins federal approval and certain farmers start spraying it, surrounding farmers might have no choice but to plant Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant GMO crops too—or risk their own crops dying from herbicide drift.

As one crop scientist at the University of Arkansas tells NPR: “[These farmers are] afraid they’re not going to be able to grow what they want to grow. They’re afraid that they’re going to be forced to go with that technology.”

That is, of course, until the next generation of superweeds develops its own resistance.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

#1. To: Deckard (#0)

"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"

Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-03   11:30:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: misterwhite (#1)

"And because the chemical has a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring fields"

Just as drugs -- legalized by one state -- will have a nasty tendency to drift to neighboring states.

Still denying the existence of human volition? Weird.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-07   14:54:08 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: ConservingFreedom (#9)

"Still denying the existence of human volition?"

Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it. And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable.

"Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-07   15:12:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: misterwhite (#10)

Still denying the existence of human volition?"

Quite the contrary. I'm acknowledging it.

By likening the drift of chemicals under the action of wind and diffusion with the movement of drugs under human volition, you do the opposite.

And I'm saying that, as a society, we decide how we will live and what behavior is unacceptable.

"Every society has a has has a has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816.

Yet three years later he wrote: "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’; because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." (to Isaac H. Tiffany, 4 April 1819)

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-07   15:49:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: ConservingFreedom (#11)

"Yet three years later he wrote:"

What do you mean "yet"? Do you see a contradiction?

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-07   20:52:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#12)

Do you see a contradiction?

There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand.

Now, since Jefferson made the statement you quote in the context of opposing placing on the entire citizenry the burden of protecting the international trade of the few (lcw eb2.loc.gov/service/ms...j1/049/049_0227_0230.pdf) he may well have contemplated no such extension as you make. In that case, cheers for Jefferson and jeers for your misapplication of his words.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-07   22:09:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: ConservingFreedom (#13)

"There is certainly a contradiction between extending "the fundamental principles of its association" to include a drug ban, on one hand, and "unobstructed action according to our will, within the limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" on the other hand."

Two ways of saying the same thing -- an individual has rights, but others have equal rights. A society is created to set limits.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-08   7:58:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: misterwhite (#14)

an individual has rights, but others have equal rights.

I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety - that's a fictitious "right" like the "right" to health care.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-09   16:13:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: ConservingFreedom (#15)

"I have no "right" to anybody else's sobriety ..."

That's an odd way to phrase it.

People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live. If those rules are offensive to you, then go live the way you want above the tree line.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-09   16:35:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: misterwhite (#16)

People in a society have the right to set the rules by which they all agree to live.

If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-09   20:18:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: ConservingFreedom (#17)

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-09   20:40:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#18)

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-09   21:00:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: ConservingFreedom (#19)

"Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?"

Correct? It's their society and their country. They read the Koran, not the Bible.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-10   8:52:35 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: misterwhite (#20)

"If the majority says no publishing or reading the Bible, or Hayek, that's their right?"

The Muslim society thinks so.

"Are they correct? Would Jefferson agree?"

Correct? It's their society and their country.

Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question.

And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?" If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-10   17:25:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: ConservingFreedom (#21)

"Which doesn't imply they're correct in thinking it's their right to say no publishing or reading the Bible - so you haven't answered the question"

It's their society. They make the rules. "Correct" has nothing to do with it.

And you didn't even pretend to answer, "Would Jefferson agree?"

It's none of his business.

"If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it."

You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits.

It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-10   19:24:14 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: misterwhite (#22)

"Correct" has nothing to do with it.

So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?

'If, as you seem to imply, there are no bounds to what a society may rightfully fix as "the fundamental principles of its association," then that fixing doesn't "draw limits around" the individual's "unobstructed action according to his will" but simply obliterates it.'

You mentioned drugs. Our society says some drugs are legal, some are legal with a prescription, and some are illegal. Those are the limits.

It's disingenuous to focus on just the illegal drugs and conclude that society is obliterating the actions of the individual.

Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-12   21:53:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: ConservingFreedom (#23)

"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"

Pot, meet kettle.

"Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts."

Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't. If you don't like it, Jeremiah, you can leave.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-13   8:32:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: misterwhite (#24)

"So you're a moral relativist - or nihilist?"

Pot, meet kettle.

Not at all - I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."

You hold that when a Muslim society bans the Bible, '"Correct" has nothing to do with it.'

"Society's assertion of a "right" to ban whatever they choose is enough to obliterate the rights of the individual, and leave him only perks bestowed as revocable gifts."

Society consists of like-minded individuals who decide what they will ban and what they won't.

Bans that are more restrictive than what is required to defend the rights of others are tyranny - specifically, "tyranny of the majority" (as characterized by John Adams, A Defense Of The Constitutions Of Government Of The United States Of America).

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-13   9:36:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: ConservingFreedom (#25)

"I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."

Well then, we agree.

misterwhite  posted on  2016-08-13   19:17:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 26.

#29. To: misterwhite (#26)

'I hold with Jefferson that it's immoral for a society to "violate the right of an individual" by "drawing limits around action" that are more restrictive than what is required to defend "the equal rights of others."'

Well then, we agree.

No equal right is defended by a drug ban.

ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-08-13 19:36:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 26.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com