On 24 Aug 2003 13:59:48 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote:
On 21 Aug 2003 03:41:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

You have a related problem - another unnatural agricultural procedure that
was warned about: feeding meat to cattle, causing spread of BSE.

Feeding meat to cattle is NOT "unnatuaral". And "unnaturalness" has
nothing to do with BSE.

Cattle have several stomachs to digest cellulose.

Yes, and protein and fats.

The food is
supposed to be well digested by the time it reaches the intestines.

Like in all animals.

Feeding even grain causes an increase in E.coli.

So? All dietary change causes changes in the balance of gut flora.

When have cows eaten meat, except perhaps their own placenta?

They do it whenever they come across it in the wild. Not very often
coz they can survive on veg only, but rich sources of protein/minerals
are never passed up.

Scrapie infected sheep byproducts were fed to cattle.

Not good practice without first thoroughly cooking it.

There was a
jump of the problem to cattle as BSE. Then it spread fast through
cattle. Isn't that it?

Yep. Feeding infected material. Nothing to do with
naturalness/unnaturalness or feeding animal protein per se. As I said.

the article is so grossly simplistic as to be fatuous

Such statements as we often see from the agbiotech sector, that we have to
get up production to feed the world are rather stupid. There are surpluses
aren't there?

Not where the folks are starving, and that's what counts.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

In the wrong places. They can't afford it coz the first world screws
them on commodity prices.

Work is what is needed, and the chance to learn about
nature. It is a very tough way of having farmers learn about nature by
having them coping with giving their allegiance to herbicide tolerant
crops for more profit but finding that they have to spend a whole lot more
since the weeds have become tolerant.

Where has this happened? Other than the natural level of weeds
becoming tolerant of different circumstances

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

Well yes, but so what? It has been ever thus with selective
herbicides. The farmer needs to choose which ones suit his problems.
The weeds not affected by the glyphosate are no different now than
before, they just possibly have more land to grow on.

If new herbicides are developed the same thing will happen again and the
farmers will go under further.

Go under what? Are you saying that weed control is a useless activity?

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

Then don't buy the bloody stuff. Sheeeesh!
Many farmers disagree with you.

The FAO is pushing non-GM for the developing countries.

URL so we can read why?

Actually not just non-GM, rather pushing organic.

Meaning good farming techniques?

"Organic" is a mish mash of good traditional farming techniques and
some silly ideologically driven proscriptions which hamstring the
whole shebang.

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e05.htm#P6_90

That is quite long. They are even quoting such as:
"once agriculture comes to be regarded as a health service the only
consideration in any matter concerning the production of food would
be: is it necessary for the health of the people? That of ordinary
economics would take a quite secondary place"

Econmoics equates to efficiency, and that NEVER should take a back
seat.

Now I see some
farmers in UK are working like third world farmers for very low hourly
rates.

Are you confusing deregulation/globalisation with technological
progress?

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Tech progress won't happen any other way. Do you want to feed the
world? Or let nature take its course?
Then you must elect a sound regulator to juggle the different needs of
society.

If poor famers get the notion of selling to their folks about them
that is quashed pretty quickly by dumping.

Dumping is the result of poor regulation IMO. The solution is to
improve the regulation.

On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases. Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated. The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.
Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage. It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed. Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices. Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

Dean




-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.


Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.

At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?


The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many
cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart
showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think
there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try
to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article
,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many
cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart
showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think
there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll
try
to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

sorry that should read to mean that of course agriculture is not the major
stumbling block
Jim Webster

Jim Webster

On 9/2/03 7:20 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

DH: There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all
before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

I don't know. A heavy dose of Roundup will control dogbane. The Roundup
has to be applied in doses that are over the label limit for corn. I think
the trick is to spray toward the end of the growing season to minimize the
impact on the corn crop.

DH: Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

True. There are other reasons to rotate. One is soybeans will leave
behind about 45# of nitrogen per acre for the next year's corn crop.
Another is insect control. There something showing up locally that has no
treatment except rotation. I don't remember what it is. It isn't the
traditional bugs or weeds.
The seed corn companies here won't put their crop into a field that had
corn the previous year.


At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

I don't know.

DH: The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

I think RR beans were introduced here before the RR corn. I was probaly
thinking back to that time.


DH: Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska,
USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

I don't know. Most were migrant workers. I suppose some back to Mexico,
others to other farm work. It was quite a sight, at times. Grandma and
almost down to toddler stage would be out working.

DH: It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?

Probably in some fields. I really haven't noticed a big increase overall.
I don't pay real close attention. I'm in fields working on irrigation.
Rogueing wasn't too effective for dog bane. It spreads through risones
(sp?) on the roots. Roundup can control it.
My dad had a real bad problem in one field years ago. This was before
Roundup. I think he put winter wheat in that field. He disced the field
following harvest the next summer. Then he used a heavy doses of something
like 2-4D plus something else. Whatever he did helped a lot although I don't
remember the details.


DH: Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

It's a constant battle. Companies develop and farmers use new sprays.
Rotating chemicals from year to year helps keep each more effective longer.
DH: Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

Sorry, I missed that post.


DH



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Jim Webster wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

sorry that should read to mean that of course agriculture is not the major
stumbling block

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and keep him dependent = a
possible meaning of your subsidies.

Teach him to fish and you make him independent of you = equal another
means of applying the subsidies.

Much third world work is agriculture. Cut that away with your subisides (=
dumping GM grain or beans) and you then can buy up their land cheap and
blind yourself to the eyesore you are creating. Get govts and aid orgs to
donate to buy the produce you produce on the gouged farms to sell the mass
subsistence market, keeping it weak enough not to challenge you.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

of course not, it should be easy to screw money out of middle class tax
payers in the first world to subsidise the third world but they tend to
complain

sorry that should read to mean that of course agriculture is not the
major
stumbling block

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, and keep him dependent = a
possible meaning of your subsidies.

Teach him to fish and you make him independent of you = equal another
means of applying the subsidies.

Much third world work is agriculture. Cut that away with your subisides (=
dumping GM grain or beans) and you then can buy up their land cheap and
blind yourself to the eyesore you are creating. Get govts and aid orgs to
donate to buy the produce you produce on the gouged farms to sell the mass
subsistence market, keeping it weak enough not to challenge you.

Total waste of time. Who in their right mind is going to buy up a lot of the
agricultural land in the third world. Most of it owned by subsistence
peasants who cannot make a living for themselves.
If you want to actually help the third world, as opposed to merely feel
good, then rather than condemn them to a lifetime of back breaking graft
producing small amounts of commodity food, provide the opportunities of
education, real jobs for their children in manufacturing or services. The
problem with that is they will then compete with you and take your job and
that will never do.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster writes
Total waste of time. Who in their right mind is going to buy up a lot of
the agricultural land in the third world. Most of it owned by
subsistence peasants who cannot make a living for themselves. If you
want to actually help the third world, as opposed to merely feel good,
then rather than condemn them to a lifetime of back breaking graft
producing small amounts of commodity food, provide the opportunities of
education, real jobs for their children in manufacturing or services.
The problem with that is they will then compete with you and take your
job and that will never do.

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

Oz wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

They have more kids in order to have more chance of being looked after
when they are old, if poor.

In New Zealand we have been buying overseas goods for a long time. New
Zealand has been becoming more of a commodity economy, though some forces
in the current govt have been promoting added value.

The immigrant population to New Zealand has been increasing. Many bright
people from Asia have come here. It has meant more work for music
teachers.

There has been some social adjustment necessary. The challenge for a
number of young whites now is to find an identity when many Polynesians
are excelling at sport and many Asians academically. It needs some
attention. No longer is there the quantity of labouring work available
for people who may like to take cannabis and perhaps not think so hard, or
for people who may not be so academically inclined.

And I think we can all do with a bit more physical activity. Not all day
perhaps, let there be time to study, too. Cath said her people had worked
picking cotton a lot, and though it was back breaking at the time, now
their backs are good.

Jim Webster writes
Total waste of time. Who in their right mind is going to buy up a lot of
the agricultural land in the third world. Most of it owned by
subsistence peasants who cannot make a living for themselves.

Because they are paid nothing for cash crops. Then when they grow food for
local market instead, aid (dumping) squashes their market. They are no
longer on their land. It now becomes a commercial farm like anywhere in
the world doesn't it? Unles labour is still cheaper than machines.

If you
want to actually help the third world, as opposed to merely feel good,
then rather than condemn them to a lifetime of back breaking graft
producing small amounts of commodity food, provide the opportunities of
education, real jobs for their children in manufacturing or services.
The problem with that is they will then compete with you and take your
job and that will never do.

Sometimes the way jobs are organised in industry is a whole lot worse than
on farms.

Don't let the bosses implant the idea of pride of having a job as a way to
exploit your years of life.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

doesn't matter, with education they will still undercut you and take your
job

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

doesn't matter, with education they will still undercut you and take your
job

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies which
now worry you?

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders. But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life. I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Jim Webster wrote:
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...
Oz wrote:

Well, you could increase the world price of food.
Then it would be worthwhile for the peasants to produce a surplus.
Then they could have more kids.
Which they could afford to educate.
So they can compete with you, and take your job away.

Ooops, same result ....

Actually when the standard of living goes up people tend to have fewer
kids.

doesn't matter, with education they will still undercut you and take
your
job

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies which
now worry you?

No

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?


We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders. But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life. I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Jim Webster

Jim Webster wrote:


"Brian Sandle" wrote in message
...

Are you saying that the missionaries should never have gone out from
Britain a few centuries ago to start changing some of the societies which
now worry you?

No

Some of your problem is saving the type of society in one geographical
area. Then perhaps saving one racial type?

What are you waffling on about? What has racial type got to door with this
discussion?

Just geographical area which concerns you?


We do seek out likes. Creatures mate with likes up to a point. We need to
protect the groups of likes.

As I mentioned before the whites in schools in New Zealand may be having
fewer of the old role models amongst the advanced pupils as leaders. But
can't the trade benefit all parties? I think it takes a change of
viewpoint as to life's values. Maybe we will have more whites feeling they
are not earning enough to support a family and living a childless life. I
think that needs a bit of atteniton where some support large families on
welfare. Malaysia was trying to get more educated people to have more
children.

This is not easy to think or talk about.

And all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

You talked about people taking your work if you help them in poor
countries. Reading back through the thread you could take the noiton
that Jim is saying, `Yes, GM and the USA approach is right to be
suppressing poor countries so we can keep our jobs.'

On 2 Sep 2003 12:05:00 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

In sci.agriculture Dean Hoffman wrote:
On 8/24/03 9:13 AM, in article ,
"Brian Sandle" wrote:

Some cut.

The folks are stariving because they cannot pay the world market
prices for the food, because they do not have work. There are
surpluses of food.

The cost of the actual raw materials going into food aren't the real
problem. Transportation and packaging add more to the cost in many cases
than the actual foodstuff. The USDA used to have an online chart showing
how much money a farmer got compared to the consumer cost. I think there's
about 2¢ U.S. worth of wheat in a loaf of bread, for example. I'll try to
find it if you're interested.

So it cannot be said that agriculture is the major stumbling block
in getting food to the poor.

Well yes, if the starving people can't grow their food. That's
agriculture.

Whereas there was competition between various types of weeds before,
Roundup has killed ones except those which it can't and those now
have a free reign.

There were some weeds that weren't controlled very well at all before
Roundup. Common dog bane is one example. It's tough to control even with
Roundup. There are chemicals other than Roundup that can be used in most
cases.

How often does the RR farmer have to buy those extras?

As often as needed. Nothing much has changed wrt to some weeds. Not
controlled well with glyphosate before RR crops and the same after RR
crops.

Crop and chemical rotation is accepted practice as far as I know.

Not as simple as just RR.

Huh? For weeds that are not well controlled with glyphosate?

You admit it depends on the economics. Roundup Ready is suppoed to
make it cheaper. But it hasn't because of extra applicaitons and
other herbicides required.

I've asked farmers on occasion if RR pays. There was a slight yield drag
with RR soybeans at first but I think the drag has been eliminated.

At cost of what? The plant has to make the RR detoxifier which takes
some of its energy. So where is that made up?

In not having to make some of the other thousands of proteins plants
make?

The
farmers would rotate RR beans into corn fields to help control the weeds
that multiply in continuous corn.

RR corn?

Read what was said. RRbeans are grown to control weeds with glyphosate
that are not easy to control with the corn crop, and which get a grip
of the land without the good control the glyphosate provides, or
that's how I read it.

Roundup ready beans have made a big change in my area, (Nebraska, USA).
Weeds used to be a real problem. Whole families of Latinos used to hand
weed the fields to get the weeds not killed by other chemicals or normal
tillage.

So what is their work now?

MacDonalds, or some other service industry.

It's not necessary to rogue beans anymore.

Dog bane may be escaping Roundup control. Now Roundup has killed
other weeds which used to compete with it is it not taking over
more?

Are there examples of weeds becoming rampant because something that
they were competitors with has been given a nudge?
I wouldn't have thought so, and would wonder it it matters much. A
non-crop plant is a non-crop plant is a weed.

The technological progress of GM is aimed at, and is achieving the
goal, of increased wealth of a limited group of technology
companies.

Well, corn farmers in the U.S. do not grow their own seed.

But they do in many countries, where agriculture employs more
people.

Well it's all to do with economic pragmatism.

Hybrid corn
came into use decades ago. Apparently, it's a good deal for them and the
seed companies. Several farmers in my area raise seed corn for the seed
companies. It's a hassle but it pays better than commercial corn.
I spend a lot of time in corn and bean fields. The fields are much cleaner
now than in the past due to better chemicals and farming practices.

Though the resistant weeds have fewer competitors and over some
years must be more of a problem.

Not if managed with suitable herbicides.

Some
farmers here no till their crops in. More are switching to no or minimum
till each year. Some don't cultivate at all. They just use spray to control
the weeds. That helps keep the organic matter up and the soil erosion down.

But as I posted no till has been happening here without GM, GM
being illegal still.

Only with herbicides, of course. Herbicide resistant crops make it
that much easier and actually possible in some cases.