But IS yield actually indirectly increased?  What's missing is any example
where the yield actually increased in the GE crop over the same non-GE crop.

There had better be a significant yield increase resulting, as the
collateral damage being done by the widespread use of these GE products
includes detectable levels of glyphosate in HONEY:



Sorry Jim,  but you miss a mark here..   First off,  a quick review of
yields of most crops will show a quite linear climb in the last 3 decades.
No peak in sight yet  which is fantastic when you ponder it.

But  the yield does not have to increase for it to have merit,  if it
reduces  inputs then it's a win,  such as the one you mention.  It could be
debated long that Roundup does not increase yields,  but it most certainly
reduces tillage!  While we can debate roundup in Honey (roundup is now close
to 40 years old so careful we have a lot of history)  What is never recalled
is that roundup has saved billions in tillage and fuel cost, and helped stop
erosion at a level that's incalculable.


Not all mods need to show up in the yield columns to be a win.  Many are
side benefits you can't see,  like combating cyst nematodes or soybean rust,
or just like Neonic and fungicide seed coatings,  reducing the amount of
spraying and replant.  Things you don't see as a bump in yields.


I did think one comment you made about the golden rice was quite
interesting. (thanks for the information)  But you mention that the
Africians can now not sell to the EU,  so what your saying is a GMO has
forced the nations to keep the food at home and feed their people instead of
selling it elsewhere and pocketing the money???  That sounds to me like an
actual good consequence of GMO and the EU being shall we say a bit odd.

Charles

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html