# More ... > Beekeeping and the environment >  Can we talk about GM crops?

## Neils

I spotted this BBCArticle the other day while on my lunch time potter.

It piqued my interest for a couple of reasons. First I'm a bit


When it comes to GM, bayer pays my wages, not Monsanto (joke!!!!!!!) and I'm a bit wary of the idea of it for reasons I'm not sure I can clearly explain.

Perhaps this is because my perception of GM is that it's mostly about Monsanto flogging roundup and being nasty buggers.

What caught my interest, perhaps not co-incidentally given the shenanigans on here over the past few weeks was what these particular varieties were attempting to do:




> The lab's director Prof Maurice Moloney said the act was an attempt to "deny us all the opportunity to gather knowledge and evidence" on a possible new approach for reducing the use of pesticides.
> 
> ...
> 
> The crop being trialled at Rothamsted contains genes synthesised in the laboratory. It will produce a pheromone called E-beta-farnesene that is normally emitted by aphids when they are threatened by something.
> 
> When aphids smell it, they fly away.


On the one hand this sounds pretty good, less pesticide use (sorry Bayer), on the other, given how little we appear to understand about pheromones, is sticking a field of the stuff out in the open that good an idea?

The concerns over pollen distribution on something that is supposedly still being tested do seem warranted to me though.

----------


## Bumble

> I'm a bit wary of the idea of it for reasons I'm not sure I can clearly explain.


Me too, probably because years ago I read of unsavoury practices of selling seed grain to farmers who were used to collecting their own seed for re-use and who weren't warned that the crops were sterile. And there's the thing about taking stuff from one organism and putting it into another, where it has no right to be and the fear that it'll somehow mutate and become, as the worriers suggest, a monster unleashed.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Me too, probably because years ago I read of unsavoury practices of selling seed grain to farmers who were used to collecting their own seed for re-use and who weren't warned that the crops were sterile.


Your fears are well founded, I assume you have seen this excellent documentary: _The World according to Monsanto_

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rml_k005tsU

----------


## Stromnessbees

This article explains the link between dying bees and GM crops:

*GE corn & sick honey bees - what's the link?*
 
Thu, 2012-04-19 15:36      
                                     Heather Pilatic        
 No  farmer in their right mind wants to poison pollinators. When I spoke  with one Iowa corn farmer in January and told him about the upcoming  release of a Purdue study  confirming corn as a major neonicotinoid exposure route for bees, his  face dropped with worn exasperation. He looked down for a moment, sighed  and said, “You know, I held out for years on buying them GE seeds, but  now I can’t get conventional seeds anymore. They just don’t carry ‘em."
 This leaves us with two questions: 1) What do GE seeds have to do  with neonicotinoids and bees? and 2) How can an Iowa corn farmer find  himself feeling unable to farm without poisoning pollinators? In other  words, where did U.S. corn cultivation go wrong?
 The short answer to both questions starts with a slow motion train  wreck that began in the mid-1990s: corn integrated pest management (IPM)  fell apart at the seams. Rather, it was intentionally unraveled by  Bayer and Monsanto.
*     Honey bees caught in the cross-fire* 

 Corn is far from the only crop treated by neonicotinoids, but it is  the largest use of arable land in North America, and honey bees rely on  corn as a major protein source. At least 94% of the  92 million acres of corn planted across the U.S. this year will have been treated with either clothianidin or thiamethoxam (another neonicotinoid).
 As we head into peak corn planting season throughout the U.S. Midwest, bees will once again “get it from all sides” as they:
 
         fly through clothianidin-contaminated planter dust;         gather clothianidin-laced corn pollen, which will then be fed to emerging larva;         gather water from acutely toxic, pesticide-laced guttation droplets; and/or         gather pollen and nectar from nearby fields where forage sources such  as dandelions have taken up these persistent chemicals from soil that’s  been contaminated year on year since clothianidin’s widespread  introduction into corn cultivation in 2003.
 GE corn & neonicotinoid seed treatments go hand-in-hand.
 Over the last 15 years, U.S. corn cultivation has gone from a crop  requiring little-to-no insecticides and negligible amounts of  fungicides, to a crop where the average acre is grown from seeds treated  or genetically engineered to express three different insecticides (as  well as a fungicide or two) before being sprayed prophylactically with  RoundUp (an herbicide) and a new class of fungicides that farmers didn’t  know they “needed” before the mid-2000s.
 A series of marketing ploys by the pesticide industry undergird this  story. It’s about time to start telling it, if for no other reason than  to give lie to the oft-repeated notion that there is no alternative to  farming corn in a way that poisons pollinators. We were once — not so  long ago — on a very different path.
*     How corn farming went off the rails* 

 In  the early 1990s, we were really good at growing corn using  bio-intensive integrated pest management (bio-IPM). In practice, that  meant crop rotations, supporting natural predators, using biocontrol  agents like ladybugs and as a last resort, using chemical controls only  after pests had been scouted for and found. During this time of peak  bio-IPM adoption, today’s common practice of blanketing corn acreage with “insurance” applications  of various pesticides without having established the need to do so  would have been unthinkable. It’s expensive to use inputs you don’t  need, and was once the mark of bad farming.
 Then, in the mid-to-late 1990s, GE corn and neonicotinoid (imidacloprid) seed treatments both entered the market — the two go hand-in-hand,  partly by design and partly by accident. Conditions for the marketing  of both products were ripe due to a combination of factors:
 
         regulatory pressures and insect resistance had pushed previous  insecticide classes off the market, creating an opening for  neonicotinoids to rapidly take over global marketshare;         patented seeds became legally defensible, and the pesticide industry gobbled up the global seed market; and         a variant of the corn rootworm outsmarted soy-corn rotations, driving an uptick in insecticide use around 1995-96.
 Then, as if on cue, Monsanto introduced three different strains of  patented, GE corn between 1997 and 2003 (RoundUp Ready, and two _Bt_–expressing  variants aimed at controlling the European Corn Borer and corn root  worm). Clothianidin entered the U.S. market under conditional  registration in 2003, and in 2004 corn seed companies began marketing  seeds treated with a 5X level of neonicotinoids (1.25 mg/seed vs. .25).
 ... and in the space of a decade, U.S. corn acreage undergoes a ten-fold increase in average insecticide use. By 2007, the average acre of corn has more than three systemic insecticides — both _Bt_  traits and a neonicotinoid. Compare this to the early 1990s, when only  an estimated 30-35% of all corn acreage were treated with insecticides  at all.
 Adding fuel to the fire, in 2008 USDA’s Federal Crop Insurance Board  of Directors approved reductions in crop insurance premiums for  producers who plant certain _Bt_ corn hybrids. By 2009, 40% of corn farmers interviewed said they did not have access to elite (high-yielding) non-_Bt_  corn seed. It is by now common knowledge that conventional corn farmers  have a very hard time finding seed that is not genetically engineered  and treated with neonicotinoids.
*     Enter fungicides* 

 In 2007, what’s left of corn IPM was further unraveled with the  mass marketing of a new class of fungicides  (strobilurins) for use on corn as yield “boosters.” Before this,  fungicide use on corn was so uncommon that it didn’t appear in Crop  Life’s 2002 National Pesticide Use Database. But in the last five years,  the pesticide industry has aggressively and successfully marketed  prophylactic applications of fungicides on corn as yield and growth  enhancers, and use has grown dramatically as a result. This despite the  fact that these fungicides work as marketed less than half the time.  According to this meta-analysis  of efficacy studies, only “48% of treatments resulted in a yield  response greater than the economic break-even value of 6 bu/acre.”
 At least 94% of the 92 million U.S. acres planted in corn is treated with pesticides known to harm bees.
 Back to the bees. Neonicotinoids are known to synergize with certain fungicides  to increase the toxicity of the former to honey bees up to  1,000-fold,  and fungicides may be key culprits in undermining beneficial bee  microbiota that do things like make beebread nutritious and support  immune response against gut pathogens like _Nosema._ Fungicide use  in corn is likewise destroying beneficial fungi in many cropping  systems, and driving the emergence of resistant strains.
 As with insecticides and herbicides, so too with fungicide use on  corn: corn farmers are stuck on a pesticide treadmill on high gear, with  a pre-emptively pressed turbo charge button (as “insurance”). Among the  many casualties are our honey bees who rely on corn’s abundant pollen  supply.
 Keeping us all tethered to the pesticide treadmill is expected  behavior from the likes of Monsanto. But what boggles the mind is that  all of this is being aided and abetted by a USDA that ties cheap crop  insurance to planting patented _Bt_ corn, and a Congress that  refuses to tie subsidized crop insurance in the Farm Bill to  common-sense conservation practices like bio-intensive IPM. Try  explaining that with a waggle dance.


http://www.panna.org/blog/ge-corn-si...ees-whats-link

----------


## Neils

So I guess the short answer is
"No. We can't".

----------


## Rosie

Are you surprised Nellie?

----------


## gavin

I'd be _delighted_ to have a mature chat about the topic.  Two impediments: I'm actually quite busy at the moment, and I don't think that calm, grown-up, thoughtful discussion will go well on the forum at the moment.  Maybe later though.  It is a fascinating topic and I see so many parallels with the pesticide debate - even the people involved are often the same individuals.

----------


## Calum

Best thing to do is probably sell your bees of and buy shares in Bayer.
I use my beekeeping profits to buy shares in the archer daniel midland company. no joke.

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Best thing to do is probably sell your bees of and buy shares in Bayer.
> I use my beekeeping profits to buy shares in the archer daniel midland company. no joke.


Calum, it's good that you have come clean about that. 

So now that you are a shareholder of a company that grows maize, most likely using neonics in the seed coatings, would you please stop contributing to threads about pesticides, as you cannot be expected to give an unbiased opinion.

Thank you. 

Would anybody else here like to declare an interest?

----------


## Jon

Yes I would like to declare an interest.
I am interested in general beekeeping and rearing native queens.

We had better stop contributions on this thread from all those in favour of GM like Calum and those who actively campaign against GM crops in the interest of balance. 
Should be a good lively thread. looking forward to the silence.

----------


## Calum

Doris would you please declare something, a wee interest maybe? Because you clearly have none in debate.
Your request that i stop contributing is risable, but I'll ignore it, as it as no merit.

And for clarity:



> Best thing to do is probably sell your bees of and buy shares in Bayer.


 Joke. 



> I use my beekeeping profits to buy shares in the archer daniel midland company.


 no joke.

----------


## Calum

> Yes I would like to declare an interest.
> I am interested in general beekeeping and rearing native queens.
> 
> We had better stop contributions on this thread from all those in favour of GM like Calum and those who actively campaign against GM crops in the interest of balance. 
> Should be a good lively thread. looking forward to the silence.


Hi 
didn't say I was for GM, I do think that the ideas of it have merit, although I have reservations too.
GM has been going on for hundreds of years through plant selection and cross breeding. 
Direkt from the lab to the field has to be viewed and reviewed in a completely different way. Whether the current methods are adequate is a debate I am very open to.
We need to find a realistic solution to feeding the worlds population and GM and Pesticides are better than just destroying more of the worlds wild areas (rainforest/african plains////) to plant more hectares. Dont love the idea of the direction things are taking but right now it seems to be the only realistic way of minimising world hunger today.

----------


## Jon

:Big Grin:  I think any crops or animals which contain segments of viral DNA should be banned, especially two legged ones.

----------


## Calum

> I think any crops or animals which contain segments of viral DNA should be banned, especially two legged ones.


pigeons or gm chickens? Are those the ones that give you moobs?

----------


## Jon

Might be the apple wine in my case. Too much ethanol can be detrimental to a svelte figure.

As Kate Moss says, nothing tastes as good as skinny feels.

----------


## beeanne

> Hi 
> ....
> GM has been going on for hundreds of years through plant selection and cross breeding. 
> .... Dont love the idea of the direction things are taking but right now it seems to be the only realistic way of minimising world hunger today.


I don't agree that GM is that similar to plant breeding  - i.e. that we can say it has been going on for hundreds of years. 
In the past, breeders would get genes which were ALREADY there to be expressed/suppressed. Now, we can introduce genetic stuff from a completly different organism. It isn't like a speeded-up version of breeding in order to select for various characteristics, it's introducing new genetic material that was never there naturally.
I'm not comfortable with the idea, nor with the idea that we can use slightly-risky, slightly-unknown stuff to enable us to continue to live beyond our means. Look at statistics on how much food is thrown away (globally) and otherwise wasted; really that should be addressed before we get more tools (GM, pesticides) to allow more intensive farming methods. But that just isn't going to happen - prices might rise but we'll continue to waste things whilst the worlds poorest have next to nothing.
Saying "we-need-it-becuase-we-need-more food" puts off the inevitable -at some point even with GM and pesticides we'll still reach a point where population exceeds resources, we're just delaying that point. BUT.... personally I'd much rather global food shortages happened in 200 years rather than in 50years....! 
Am definitely, very firmly but shamefacedly, on the fence.

----------


## Jon

I am also on the fence. I think the technology is amazing but I don't like the monopoly of the technology by a very small number of multinational companies.

beanne, bits of viral DNA get incorporated into the genome of other organisms naturally as well. There is speculation that the honeybee has a chunk of Israeli Acute Paralysis virus (IAPV) DNA incorporated in its genome and it wasn't Monsanto who put it there!

That well known creature the human being has 9% of its DNA of virus origin.

And thankfully Monsanto was not around to stir the primeval soup. A missed opportunity to corner the market.

----------


## beeanne

Jon, I didn't know that... it makes you think viruses are really the ones in control. Actually, I think I read something about a theory that viruses are responsible for controlling lots of hormone responses and brain chemistry in humans, so maybe they really are......

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Hi 
> *didn't say I was for GM*, I do think that the ideas of it have merit, although I have reservations too.
> GM has been going on for hundreds of years through plant selection and cross breeding. 
> Direkt from the lab to the field has to be viewed and reviewed in a completely different way. Whether the current methods are adequate is a debate I am very open to.
> We need to find a realistic solution to feeding the worlds population and GM and Pesticides are better than just destroying more of the worlds wild areas (rainforest/african plains////) to plant more hectares. Dont love the idea of the direction things are taking but right now it seems to be *the only realistic way of minimising world hunger today*.


Calum, when I said that you are now shareholder in a company that uses GM and neonics I did refer to your ADM shares:




> *Fuel*
> 
> ...
> Today, biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel are the only alternative transportation fuels available to consumers, and *ADM is a leading producer of both*.


http://www.adm.com/en-US/products/fu...s/default.aspx 


So how can you on one hand declare that you have reservations with regards to GM, and on the other hand buy shares in one of the leading producers of biofuels?

The sad truth is that biofuels are grown on areas that would otherwise be used for food production. Those areas are now missing from food production and therefore directly contributing to world hunger!


Now that you know what you really have bought into, are you prepared to sell your shares in favour of something more supportive of feeding the world and less destructive to the bees and our ecosystems?

----------


## Calum

No Doris I'm not. The demand for ethanol has been synthetically generated by government subsidy. Not ADM. Ban the governments and the EU. 
You are not very well informed on the issues it appaears.

Please everyone be carefull, I've heard Sacha Baron Cohen has been online working as an agent provocateur to gather material for his coming film Borat the beekeeper. He must be outed!

----------


## Jon

Well I presume he still has his trademark moustache so that puts Rosie in the frame.
He also recently posted some photos of his 3rd world homeplace which is wall to wall with chickens and goats and seems to be permanently flooded.

----------


## Calum

GM and pesticides are a cover for Chemtrails.
It is no secret that the catholic church have large stakes in Bayer, Monsanto and all the major airlines

----------


## Jon

You will be telling me next they are in the market for Rangers!

----------


## Stromnessbees

Calum, the more I look at the company where you invest your beekeeping profits,the more I dislike it:



> *Asia and Pacific Rim*
> 
>              ADMs  worldwide agricultural processing, trading and sales operations  comprise wholly and jointly owned plants and sales offices located  throughout Asia and the Pacific Rim. 
>  A key part of ADMs Asia strategy today is our strategic ownership  interest in Wilmar International Limited, Asias premiere agricultural  processing business. Wilmar operates palm plantations; crushing  facilities for various types of oilseeds; vegetable oil refineries and  packaging facilities; plants that produce oleo chemicals, soy proteins  and fertilizers; and multiple wheat and rice milling facilities.
>  ADM also has ownership interest in Alfred C. Toepfer International, a  global merchandiser of agricultural commodities and processed products,  which maintains an Asian regional office in Singapore that coordinates  the business of branch offices throughout Asia.


http://www.adm.com/en-US/worldwide/a...s/default.aspx

This is their Asia page, for example. It shows their heavy involvement in palm oil production, which is linked to clear felling of rainforests whch are home to many native tribes as well as Orang Utans.   :Frown: 

I stick to the motto 'small is beautiful' instead of golbalization.

Can't you invest your money in buying a piece of land for a local box scheme instead? That way you know exactly what your money is involved in and you would be helping to supply heathy food locally as well as providing natural forage for your bees.

----------


## Rosie

I've been outed by Jon!  I'm off to biobees to infiltrate them now.  They're not as bright as you lot.  If I tell them that my long hive bees are happier than my national ones and that Bayer is run by Satan himself I'll be in.

As for GM I think it's a wonderful idea but I'm not convinced that human beings are clever enough to know that their work in this field is safe.  It's just impossible to test or anticipate every eventuality when developing anything with such potential for harm as well as good.  On the other hand do we just sit around and let people starve.  If there were a God and if it were me I'd get people working on stemming population growth but as we are run by normal humans (at best) any efforts we make to increase food production will just put off the evil day when we hit the buffers.  Our descendants will suffer in the end.

I'd rather talk beekeeping than face reality like this.  Who's for talking about breeding gentle bees?

Rosie

----------


## beeanne

Agree: gentlenessis next to godliness and all that (mis-quoting is a Good Thing).

----------


## Calum

> Calum, the more I look at the company where you invest your beekeeping profits,the more I dislike it:
> http://www.adm.com/en-US/worldwide/a...s/default.aspx
> 
> This is their Asia page, for example. It shows their heavy involvement in palm oil production, which is linked to clear felling of rainforests whch are home to many native tribes as well as Orang Utans.  
> 
> I stick to the motto 'small is beautiful' instead of golbalization.
> 
> Can't you invest your money in buying a piece of land for a local box scheme instead? That way you know exactly what your money is involved in and you would be helping to supply heathy food locally as well as providing natural forage for your bees.


They have excellent share price and dividend performance. I asked my bees and they agree whether or not I invest in a multinational will, on the whole, make no difference. 
Local box schemes tend to have a higher carbon footprint than larger growers. With the German land price in my area at >400€/square meter I'd have to plant hashish or poppy to get a good return. Arable land much further out of the town is cheaper but the carbon footprint goes up the further you go from your market.. 
Do bees polinate marijuana?

----------


## Rosie

I once read about London police who kept bees on a roof somewhere central.  They collected pollen from the foragers and tested it for illicit substances.  They then read the waggle dance which led them to the perpetrators.  How's that for lateral thinking?

rosie

----------


## Neils

I'd love to believe that's true.

----------


## Jon

Maybe an excuse to batter down a few doors!!

----------


## gavin

Shill I post something now?!

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4765/version/1

The human genome is composed of viral DNA: Viral homologues of the protein products cause Alzheimer's disease and others via autoimmune mechanisms.

Christopher J. Carter1

The human genome is composed of millions of fragmented contiguous viral  DNA sequences, dating from the dawn of evolution and reflecting  retroviral insertions over millions of years of coexistence. Herpes and  other viral insertion points correspond to the locations of over 120  Alzheimer's disease susceptibility genes and to linkage hotspots. The  greater the number of pathogen matches, the more important the gene.  These DNA sequences are translated into short contiguous 5-12 amino acid  stretches (vatches), identical in viruses and man, and in other  pathogens implicated in Alzheimer's disease (_Borrelia_, _Chlamydia_, _Helicobacter_, _C. Neoformans_ , _P. Gingivalis_). _C. Neoformans_,  which has been associated with a rare but curable form of dementia,  expresses the most number of hits to Alzheimer's disease proteins.  Vatches are often immunogenic and antibodies to viral proteins may knock  down their human counterparts or activate immune responses killing the  cells containing their human homologues. This is supported by the  presence of the complement membrane attack complex in Alzheimer's  disease neurones and by the ability of tau antigens (homologous to  pathogen proteins) to promote the formation of neurofibrillary tangles  and Alzheimer's disease pathology in mice. Vatches may act as dummy  ligands or decoy receptors and interfere with the interactome of their  human counterparts. Alzheimer's disease is thus a "pathogenetic"  disorder caused by pathogens but dependent on the genes that create  these matching sequences. This scenario is relevant to many other, and  perhaps most human disorders, given the massive genomic extent of viral  coverage. The vatches in the human proteome, dictated by polymorphisms  and mutations, may predict, from birth, the spectrum of pathogens that  match our proteins and which pathogenetic disease we are likely to  develop. These may all be preventable by vaccination, pathogen detection  and elimination and curable by immunosuppressant approaches, perhaps  with a unique, safe, and effective immunosuppressant panacea.

----------


## Rosie

How about this then.  On subject as well!

Rosie

----------


## gavin

LOL!  Pot-potatoes?  We have the technology!

----------


## Stromnessbees

> Shill I post something now?!
> 
> http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4765/version/1
> 
> The human genome is composed of viral DNA: Viral homologues of the protein products cause Alzheimer's disease and others via autoimmune mechanisms.
> 
> Christopher J. Carter1
> 
> The human genome is composed of millions of fragmented contiguous viral  DNA sequences, dating from the dawn of evolution and reflecting  retroviral insertions over millions of years of coexistence. Herpes and  other viral insertion points correspond to the locations of over 120  Alzheimer's disease susceptibility genes and to linkage hotspots. The  greater the number of pathogen matches, the more important the gene.  These DNA sequences are translated into short contiguous 5-12 amino acid  stretches (vatches), identical in viruses and man, and in other  pathogens implicated in Alzheimer's disease (_Borrelia_, _Chlamydia_, _Helicobacter_, _C. Neoformans_ , _P. Gingivalis_). _C. Neoformans_,  which has been associated with a rare but curable form of dementia,  expresses the most number of hits to Alzheimer's disease proteins.  Vatches are often immunogenic and antibodies to viral proteins may knock  down their human counterparts or activate immune responses killing the  cells containing their human homologues. This is supported by the  presence of the complement membrane attack complex in Alzheimer's  disease neurones and by the ability of tau antigens (homologous to  pathogen proteins) to promote the formation of neurofibrillary tangles  and Alzheimer's disease pathology in mice. Vatches may act as dummy  ligands or decoy receptors and interfere with the interactome of their  human counterparts. Alzheimer's disease is thus a "pathogenetic"  disorder caused by pathogens but dependent on the genes that create  these matching sequences. This scenario is relevant to many other, and  perhaps most human disorders, given the massive genomic extent of viral  coverage. The vatches in the human proteome, dictated by polymorphisms  and mutations, may predict, from birth, the spectrum of pathogens that  match our proteins and which pathogenetic disease we are likely to  develop. These may all be preventable by vaccination, pathogen detection  and elimination and curable by immunosuppressant approaches, perhaps  with a unique, safe, and effective immunosuppressant panacea.


Good job we have Gavin, who explains everything in easy to understand language and never tries to baffle us with science! 

 :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## beeanne

But the article itself says the viral insertion took place over millenia. Not that it happened over the shortened period of GM. From my position of ignorance, is the DNA of virus' not relatively simple, and much simpler than of the DNA used in GM? Even if sometimes viral insertions were helpful, and sometimes indifferent, it does seem plausible that there's a decent risk of unintended consequences. 
More importantly: it doesn't give me a warm glow that viral insertions into DNA are Good Things.... but this could be more about the article looking at altzeimers etc rather than longevity or Olympic-level athleticism than owt else!

----------


## gavin

The DNA of retroviruses has remarkable similarities to the casettes used to create a GM line.  Genes with promoters, just a couple essential for the thing to work or maybe one, with flanking sequences to make the transfer work well.

Yes, the paper is about the mechanisms of Altzheimers and possibly a whole other range of conditions, and also the propsects of novel treatments and vaccines.  Amazing stuff.  But it lifts the lid on the fact that the genomes of humans, other animals and plants are not just littered with but in part built on genes from viruses and virus-derivatives.  They replicate and hop around, then they mutate over time and lose their identity.  The constants are the genes themselves and these are mostly maintained as they are by selection - over evolutionary time - essential to the survival of the organism.  Duff ones are dead meat along with the individual carrying them.  Unintended consequences are the norm.  This is nature.  Unintended worse ones are lost from the gene pool.  Unintended changes that are neutral are allowed.  Unintended better changes - for the time and circumstance - persist and thrive.

Does this mean that everyone should relax about GM?  No, of course not!  But a lot of the hysteria whipped up just seems alien to the working biologist.  The act of inserting a gene of known type may have the effect intended from the understanding of the gene.  It might also have unintended effects.  Sometimes, depending on what the gene does and exactly where it sits.  So test it first, that is all.

----------


## beeanne

By "unintended consequences" I only really meant unintended by the scientist, am not sure that Mother Nature sits thinking through the impact of introducing virus' to genes... :Big Grin: . 

GM crops aren't necessarily sterile (or are they?). Can even the most rigourous testing really show that the interaction between various differnt types of GM plants and the various non-GM plants can give us no problem? I'm far from convinced that the testing ever could be "enough".

----------


## gavin

People are now really wound up about GM, at least in the West.  I was speaking to some passing Chinese scientists on Wednesday.  Their society has quite a different attitude.  

In the context of people on edge, no amount of testing can ever be 'enough'.  There will always be some doubt out there.  When society gets in a tizz about something new it can take a generation before people relax, unless of course people see direct benefit to themselves, then they are prepared to take the (small) risk.  Mobile phones and brain cancer maybe, there could be a long list.  Look back and you will see concerns that seem laughable now but perhaps were understandable in their time.  The risks of high-speed transport such as the burgeoning train network in Victorian times when some wouldn't go on them for fear of physiological difficulties due to the forces on the body.  Of course mass transport (and other modern ways of living) *is* seriously damaging for the planet and perhaps we should have thought carefully about that.

My perspective is that of a scientist who, at one time, was partly working on GM for the common good.  The technology was bought up and controlled by a few big companies, and the reaction of the public, amplified by vocal and often misleading campaigning meant that public good work stopped.  As a technology it doesn't scare me in the least, though I am aware that being too gung-ho can lead folk to doing things that have consequences.  It was also over-sold and pushed down people's throats as the answer to everything when it plainly isn't.  But at its heart it is simply a tool that plant scientists could use to do good, in the right context and when applied carefully.

G.

PS  No, they are not necessarily sterile.  Just pretty normal organisms with a couple of extra genes in most cases.  Not much different from the crops they may otherwise be - yet those crops are often quite different from their wild ancestors and taken to parts of the world where they were never found before.

----------


## beeanne

So... at worst it would be like introducing Japanese Knotweed on steriods, and the risk is worthwhile? 
Are we risking interbreeding to make significant range of plants (including wild ones) resistant to insect attack? And if we do that, surely then we've just destroyed huge areas of habitat- not becuase we farm it, but even wild areas would become inhospitable. It won't just be agricultural crops that will be GM; am sure there'll be (eg) roses or whatever that won't "feed" greenfly (poor blue-tits, what will they do then?).
We're continuing to cheerily invent technology that will allow us to have huge areas on mono culture which might as well be concrete as far as insect etc are concerned. 
I can see a humanitarian argument for researching staple crops which developing countries rely heavily on. But that's not where the line is drawn. It won't save the world from starvation, it might delay that point at the very best, and at some considerable environmental cost.

----------


## Jon

It is the monoculture aspect which is disastrous for the environment rather than the tabloid 'frankenfood' headlines.
I don't know how invertebrates or anything else can thrive in that kind of roundup ready environment due to lack of forage.
Like you say, might as well be concrete.

And as in the link Doris posted, there _is_ something odd about almost all current maize varieties needing to be seed treated as I always found it one of the most reliable crops to grow, one which suffered from very few pests and parasites. But I was never involved in growing more than a couple of acres and we grew a heritage variety. The most important aspect was making sure there was enough nutrient/manure in the soil and plenty of water when cobs are forming as maize is a greedy feeder.
Some crops are next to impossible to grow successfully on a large scale without chemicals, chillies, brassicas, potatoes spring to mind.

The only chemical I use on my allotment is bordeaux mix on the spuds, usually get away with just one or two applications when there are optimum blight conditions.
Pests like white fly make growing courgette and pumpkin next to impossible. In a hot climate the pests and parasites can reproduce at an incredible rate.

----------


## Neils

> People are now really wound up about GM, at least in the West.  I was speaking to some passing Chinese scientists on Wednesday.  Their society has quite a different attitude.


But if you disagree with the official view there they shoot you  :Frown: 

I think it's also a very middle class concern to have.

Even if you ignore 'frankenfood' headlines GM has a terrible reputation that the industry involved for profit in it has done nothing except encourage. As a society, herd even we're pretty easily spooked when it comes to science (MMR anyone?) and we'll believe a good scare story given half a chance.

I think when we discussed it last you questioned the place of the need to 'sell' the possibility or reality of what can be done but the perception now is both of scary tech mixing rice with jellyfish, of companies suing farmers because the seeds they've collected contain  'owned' genetics and of 'test' varieties being grown in the open where pollen can spread and once pandora's box is opened....

----------


## beeanne

It is a great source of scaremongery, has lots of good headline material (Frankenfood etc etc), involves scientists messing about with things that they understand but "we" do not, has big business and big $$ behind it, etc etc. But so what? Just because there's lots of scare-mongering nonsense out there, doesn't mean that anyone who has doubts about it has bought into the scare stories.  I don't believe that if you eat GM strawberries then you'll turn green and sart being able to photosynthesize, but that doesn't mean I think GM strawberries are a good idea.

I agree that we are great at jumping onto anti-science scare-stories in the UK, but that doesn't mean that absolutely no sceintific developments can ever be objectionable - because whislt science is simply knowledge and therefore neutral, those developments could be used for ends which are daft, or moraly wrong, or dangerous, or whatever.

----------


## gavin

> I agree that we are great at jumping onto anti-science scare-stories in the UK, but that doesn't mean that absolutely no sceintific developments can ever be objectionable - because whislt science is simply knowledge and therefore neutral, those developments could be used for ends which are daft, or moraly wrong, or dangerous, or whatever.


Of course scientific developments can be objectionable.  And of course powerful techniques can be used for morally wrong or otherwise unsafe purposes.  However the question over GM as a technique, rather than the questions over it as something big business uses to strengthen its hold on a particular market, what is that about?  Philosophical questions on blurring species boundaries, sure, dangerous uses if not properly regulated, or course, but why do people detest it so much so as a technique that even the possibility of tiny quantities of harmless GM pollen in a foodstuff is enough to close markets to certain countries, force people into expensive testing and generally distort markets?  The whole thing has gone very far from commonsense.

G.

----------


## The Drone Ranger

I want a jellyfish gene in my bees so they can fly in winter
Might make the stings a bit more deadly though

----------


## Neils

Because it's seen as "un-natural" and even as I type that I know that most people nowadays have absolutely no concept of how that pack of bacon gets to a supermarket shelf.

Because it's absolutely big business socking it to the small guy at the moment?

Because the vast majority of the coverage on it, isn't pesticide free, herbicide free, high yield food of the future, it's Monsanto et al suing a farmer who never bought their seeds because they own the genetic material in his seeds because the guy next door did buy them and pollination did the rest; and being quite up front that's how they operate?

Looking at the original article I linked to in this thread it's grown plants that emit Aphid alarm pheromone. Cool in some respects a bit creepy in another. 

Because "Science" to some extent is ingrained in us as somehow "unholy" and yes, I deliberately chose those words. Look at MMR. Crap science spun by Hislop et al with a large dose of conspiracy on top so that "Of course the government will tell you its safe..." won over reason.  Tin Foil hats on a mass scale with very real world consequences.




> your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should

----------


## beeanne

Once the technique is perfected, it will be used, regardless of anyones' objections on economic, moral, ecological, religeous or wierd lentil-knitting grounds. If you allow GM to be used "a little bit" then it makes absolutely no sense not to just embrace it wholeheartedly. 

If it was entirely theoretical then possibly perfecting it would be acceptable, but... it has real world applications which here in the real world will not be used to solve world hunger but will instead be used to make profit. I'm not against profitable big companies, but £££ for the developed world should not be the driving force behind deciding what is right and what is not.

I agree that the "ooh, scary Frankenstein food" stuff is just downright silly, with no basis in logic, science or anything else. However, that's a minority view, just a very vocal, memorable one. 

I agree that lots of folk do see GM as going "against nature" or being "unholy" or "blasphemy". But lots of people do believe in God to some extent. If you thought God creates stuff then you probably wouldn't want some bloke in a lab to have a crack at doing the same. It's not a view I hold as I'm not religeous, but if I did believe in God then I probably would think GM was blasphemous, I don't see how you wouldn't.

----------


## madasafish

People who do not want GM should follow the logic of their own thinking. Man made manipulation of genes is WRONG:

So:

no antibiotics.
No stents.
Stop eating wheat and all grain crops and all fruit and veg which are the result of man's tinkering with genes over centuries.


And of course, keep no dogs as a pet: and especially NOT pure breed dogs. Crufts is an abomination.

And horse racing is evil..

All human gene manipulation..

As for drinking cows' milk, give it up now...

Anyone who grows grafted fruit or roses or F1 vegetables of flowers is an evil gene altering monster.

Once they die of food poisoning or the first serious wound infection, the rest of us can use GM crops with a clear conscience.

----------


## Rosie

Now I know why you're called madasafish :Big Grin:

----------


## gavin

New name: sensibleasafish

----------


## madasafish

_Now I know why you're called madasafish

New name: sensibleasafish_

Schizophrenicasafish...now..:-)

----------


## beeanne

BLX. 

I think manmade manipulation of genes is often a Good Thing, and the potential is there for it to be a Very Good Thing (anyone want to cure genetic  ailment by finding the "off" switch?). 

HOWEVER I don't see why GM plants are a good thing.... not in and of themselves, but becuase of what it would enable us to do. Think about what our farmland would look like if GM progressed to it's conclusion.  garden plants that poison slugs/snails/greenfly/whitefly. We can grow vast tracts of the same thing, absolute monoculture. even IF the "anti-pest" effect doesn't pass to non-cultivated plants (and is a big if) the impact on our bugs and beasties would be enormous. 

And justifying it with future world food crisis???!!! Double BLX (well, they do come in pairs I s'pose). We already know that kids die from drinking filthy water, and we let it happen....it costs very little to fix, and kills huge numbers NOW. But no, much more important to develop a way of keeping food prices low.

----------


## gavin

Took me ages to work out what BLX was (they come in pairs, LOL!).  Hope Doris isn't watching, I was ticked off for using that word.




> HOWEVER I don't see why GM plants are a good thing.... not in and of themselves, but becuase of what it would enable us to do.


And corollary is .... I don't see why they are a bad thing!  If plants could fight off herbivores unaided then there would be no need for less discriminating poisons, wouldn't there?  The perfect organic solution.  The plant does it itself, little collateral damage.

Vast tracts of arable monoculture are already happening and it is nothing to do with GM.

Food crises are coming, that is for sure.  So should we let people starve while we think of how to tackle the root problems?  Or should we deliberately let those kids drinking filty water die to keep the population lower?

I still think that we are under an obligation to at least attempt to feed the growing numbers of people on the planet while we try to sort out all the other problems.

----------


## Neils

> People who do not want GM should follow the logic of their own thinking. Man made manipulation of genes is WRONG:
> 
> So:
> 
> no antibiotics.
> No stents.
> Stop eating wheat and all grain crops and all fruit and veg which are the result of man's tinkering with genes over centuries.
> 
> 
> ...


That's a pretty facetious argument surely?

Maybe the next logical step from inbred dogs is wheat that emits aphid pheromones, but that's a leap along the lines of dog with frog's legs to me.

Even that's not a new idea, we're right back to the idea of the Chimera and that's a pretty deep seated idea with no positive connotations. So it doesn't really surprise me that generally there's a fundamental notion that it's not a great idea.

----------


## beeanne

...But surely vast tracts of monoculture aren't good for the future of the planet, so why work on technologies that enable htat to happen more profitably in more areas? 

Why are we claming that a relatively expensive technology is worthwhile on the grounds of helping the worlds poor in the future, yet access to the easily available, very cheap measures to save lives are ignored. It isn't a question of letting people starve, not really. We already stand by and let people die of easily preventable diseases. It will simply enable us in the west to continue to waste vast amounts of food and for that food to continue to be - realtively- cheap.

----------


## madasafish

_That's a pretty facetious argument surely?
_

Yes: it is.

But much of the comments on GM crops come from people who know nothing about the selective breeding adopted by humans for at least 5 millennia..(see wheat,dogs and cats)   and frankly I would expect anyone who knows anything about GM crops to recognise the fallacies in my argument .

*YO*U. did..:-)

----------


## The Drone Ranger

Selective breeding and genetic modification are not just two sides of the same coin.

It seems to me that most people don't object to genetic modification that enables wheat to grow in drought conditions.

They become uneasy when plants are modified to produce toxins which kill insects but they know to some extent that happens in nature.

They do however object strongly to plants being modified to make them immune to particular herbicides so that the crop can be sprayed willy nilly devastating all the other plants in the vicinity in pursuit of monopoly profit.

----------


## beeanne

Agree entirely with Mr Ranger above. There's modification and modification, and for ther record, I've very little against animal GM. Am sure I can think of exception to that, but generally is fine by me.

Robustly disagree with the view that if you don't like GM then its becuase you're a lentil knitting wierdy who sacrifices (vegan) goats at Stonehenge for the solstice.

----------


## voytech104

Generally I regard myself as a open minded person but let me ask you a question: 

Do you think that modification that allows for large monocultures to be created by spraying and killing ALL other plants and microorganisms, insects, worms that feed on them is good for soil and therefore food we eat?
Do you think that food that is grown on artificial NPK feeds will taste the same as grown on "dung?"  :Wink: 

I do not know the answers to that - but lets have some options. As far as I know people in States do not have this option - are they?
You cannot grow non-GM corn there? 

I would like to have at least options open. 





---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?no1qkm

----------


## Bumble

> Do you think that modification that allows for large monocultures to be created by spraying and killing ALL other plants and microorganisms, insects, worms that feed on them is good for soil and therefore food we eat?


I think it's more complicated than that and it's a bit of a spiral of development, with no easily definable starting point. There were fewer people available to work the land post two horrible wars and mechanisation, which needed fewer people, led to bigger fields so management practices changed and some farmers became dependent on sprays and powders, some of which were quite ghastly.

I'm uneasy about some research, and uneasy about some GM, and would, for example, prefer birds to eat aphids rather than the manipulated crops themselves repelling them. But, what land is available for agriculture has to produce large quantities of high quality food, otherwise it gets thrown away because some people will only eat things that look 'perfect'.

Also, not many people in the western world seem willing to get their hands dirty and work the land, so we're to some extent dependent on those who do. I think all farmers are aware of what can, and could, go wrong if soil quality isn't maintained. Think dustbowl?

----------


## The Drone Ranger

> Agree entirely with Mr Ranger above. There's modification and modification, and for ther record, I've very little against animal GM. Am sure I can think of exception to that, but generally is fine by me.
> 
> Robustly disagree with the view that if you don't like GM then its becuase you're a lentil knitting wierdy who sacrifices (vegan) goats at Stonehenge for the solstice.


Thanks for that post very humorous keep up the good work

Here's a thought is it better to manipulate RNA to damage varroa mites reproductive ability
OR
Would it be better to breed bees where the drones only require 24 days to hatch using GM or standard selection 

I'm not certain but I lean toward the second option

----------


## Calum

get stuck into this

----------


## Neils

Oh blimey, tin foil hats are going to melt. Not Bayer or Monstanto, not end of the world AND reported by the Guardian? I think I need to lie down.

----------


## Jon

:EEK!:  So even the Guardian has been co-opted into the vast conspiracy whose tentacles know no limits.

Just goes to show that the battle is going to be even tougher!
The article is just talking about cotton though, I wonder how much can be extrapolated to other crops which are engineered to produce toxins like this.

----------


## Jon

The Independent appeared in our household today instead of the Guardian for some reason and I noticed this article which looks at GM and the oft quoted 'precautionary principle'.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...s-7865639.html




> The precautionary principle is inhumane, counter-productive, and extremely risky. Its superstitious opposition to human intervention in nature – for instance, with stem cell research – often increases suffering needlessly. It causes rogue rather than regulated scientists to take up the cause of human progress. And it hugely limits the likelihood that great discoveries will be made.

----------


## gavin

Always nice to see the Mail get a pasting.  Even if the article is indeed a bit of a rant.

----------


## Stromnessbees

Those big papers obviously know how to secure their advertising money.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

But there are other news outlets that put the record straight:




> *Superbug vs. Monsanto: Nature rebels against biotech titan*
> 
>                  Published: 25 June, 2012, 05:11
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>          Reuters / Victor Ruiz
> ...


http://rt.com/usa/news/superbug-mons...esistance-628/

----------


## Jon

> Those big papers obviously know how to secure their advertising money.


Pile those conspiracies high!

----------


## Calum

my attempt at quote of the week.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle said that, and he is still right.

----------


## beeanne

Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.

Not sure who said that - Marge Simpson maybe?

----------


## HJBee

Now that gets my vote for quote of the week!! 👍

----------


## Calum

> Can we talk about GM crops?.


I think I finally have the answer; no we cannot - but we'll break something trying!

But, the rise of Monsanto and Scientology have many parallels. Is Monsanto just a front for the Scientologists to bring their version of the day of deliverence to us ? 
That would explain quite a lot..

----------


## chris

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19654825

----------


## Jon

I've heard of the wrong kind of snow and now we have the wrong kind of rat.
Interesting study though would need to be repeated with a decent sample size and the right kind of rat whatever that is.

----------


## gavin

The main author seems to be a campaigning type, and campaigning scientists are always likely to mislead themselves and anyone who follows them.  This article is scathing:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymil...that-arent-so/

... although given Seralini's propensity to talk to his lawyers maybe I should say that I don't know the truth of the matter:

http://corporateeurope.org/blog/rali...ibel-case-gmos

The paper in question:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691512005637

I agree that the sample size is really small - and when you look at the detail the claims made are unsupportable.  Look at Fig 1.  The insets show mortality in the different levels of the thing altered in each set.  The highest level of GM maize inclusion (33%) gave numbers of male rats with tumours which were very similar to the control with zero inclusion.  How can it be that the highest inclusion rate gives fewer tumours than the second highest if GM maize causes tumours?

----------


## Neils

The anti GM movement's Harvard study perhaps? 

At face value confirms everything they want to hear but doesn't necessarily stand up to more critical analysis?

----------

