In The News

[jethro]

I think those that are tinkered with to be Round-Up ready (resistant to the famous brand of weedkiller) are potentially quite dangerous...

In what way are they dangerous?

[Nick B]

In what way are they dangerous?

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/05/06/overuse-of-gm-crops-becoming-a-serious-problem.aspx

I know some people like to discredit Mercola. I prefer not to go down the route of ad hominem attacks and look at the evidence he's collecting and presenting. Sometimes it's quite overpowering...

[jethro]

http://articles.merc...us-problem.aspx

I know some people like to discredit Mercola. I prefer not to go down the route of ad hominem attacks and look at the evidence he's collecting and presenting. Sometimes it's quite overpowering...

I've never heard of the bloke and ad hom attacks are not my style; to be honest I find your answer a tad disconcerting when all I did was ask a reasonable question.

It's difficult to read much from the link you posted as it requires registration but from the bit I did read, it appears he says farmers are using selective weedkillers to get around the problem of weeds resistant to Round-up. There's nothing new in using selective weedkillers, it's standard practise, has been for years and is not indicative of resistant weeds. Merely using the best tool for the job.

Using herbicides other than Round-up does not mean using more toxic means, that's purely hyper-bole and scaremongering. Different does not mean worse.

GM technology means it is possible to grow crops which will require far less use of both herbicides and pesticides, that means even less risk of soil contamination, environmental damage and unintentional killing of harmless insects - not to mention the saving of fossil fuels in the production of these and thus a reduction in greenhouse gases.

[VillagePlank]

We've always interfered with nature and it's evolution. Take dairy cows, dogs, even peas, for example; selectively bred for distinguishing features. GM just makes it faster.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hows about not tinkering with veggies and just freeing up more land to grow them in by showing how little 'meat' we actually 'need' in our diets?

I've seen mankind try and 'sidestep' an issue by introducing a 'cure' before we've tested it over a few generations (Cane toads spring to mind?).

[PersianPaladin]

Keep GM foods in the laboratory where they belong. If any start growing near here, I will burn them.

[Interitus]

I've never heard of the bloke and ad hom attacks are not my style; to be honest I find your answer a tad disconcerting when all I did was ask a reasonable question.

It's difficult to read much from the link you posted as it requires registration but from the bit I did read, it appears he says farmers are using selective weedkillers to get around the problem of weeds resistant to Round-up. There's nothing new in using selective weedkillers, it's standard practise, has been for years and is not indicative of resistant weeds. Merely using the best tool for the job.

Using herbicides other than Round-up does not mean using more toxic means, that's purely hyper-bole and scaremongering. Different does not mean worse.

GM technology means it is possible to grow crops which will require far less use of both herbicides and pesticides, that means even less risk of soil contamination, environmental damage and unintentional killing of harmless insects - not to mention the saving of fossil fuels in the production of these and thus a reduction in greenhouse gases.

This is a little blasé and ignores that transgenic crops do hybridise with weed plants - the most common in this country being rapeseed and wild brassicas. Whilst potentially there are benefits with GM crops, using less herbicides and pesticides is not necessarily one of them rather it encourages the use of specific ones with impunity. Obviously the commercialisation of GMOs has little to do with altruism.

The effects of gene flow may be largely benign but we do not yet know the long term ecological risks-

Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops

[jethro]

We've always interfered with nature and it's evolution. Take dairy cows, dogs, even peas, for example; selectively bred for distinguishing features. GM just makes it faster.

Exactly. The difference is we are now able to do it at a molecular level and within the controlled environment of a lab - field trials come after many, many studies.

Hows about not tinkering with veggies and just freeing up more land to grow them in by showing how little 'meat' we actually 'need' in our diets?

I've seen mankind try and 'sidestep' an issue by introducing a 'cure' before we've tested it over a few generations (Cane toads spring to mind?).

GM crops aren't just about increasing yield, they're also about making it viable to grow crops which are more able to with stand drought, cold, heat and higher salinity. Many parts of the world don't consume high levels of meat, take the African continent as an example, lots of land but too arid or unpredictable rainfall and prone to drought.

I'm not convinced we have time for generations worth of testing if the population predictions are any where near accurate.

Keep GM foods in the laboratory where they belong. If any start growing near here, I will burn them.

And on what basis do you have the authority to decide for every one else?

[jethro]

This is a little blasé and ignores that transgenic crops do hybridise with weed plants - the most common in this country being rapeseed and wild brassicas. Whilst potentially there are benefits with GM crops, using less herbicides and pesticides is not necessarily one of them rather it encourages the use of specific ones with impunity. Obviously the commercialisation of GMOs has little to do with altruism.

The effects of gene flow may be largely benign but we do not yet know the long term ecological risks-

Gene Flow, Invasiveness, and Ecological Impact of Genetically Modified Crops

None of those things are insurmountable, the scientists are absolutely aware of the potential problems and risks and are working hard to over-come them. If the research reaches a point where those or other problems cannot be over-come, then decisions will have to be made on a risk /cost analysis basis.

It is not transgenic crops which hybridise with weed plants. All brassicas, whether that be Oil Seed Rape, Brussell Sprouts, Cabbages or Broccoli originate from wild Brassica - a classic example of our already "artificially tinkered with" plants. Yes, these can in turn hybridise with the wild Brassica but that is because essentially, they're the same plant. There is an easy solution which is already being practised and that is not to grow the two any where near one another.

Using specific herbicides and pesticides is, and has been for some considerable time, standard practise. Using the correct tool for the job is not acting with impunity, it is using common sense with the additional benefit of not introducing a product where it is not needed. For aeons gardeners used soot to deter slugs, it was of no use for anything else in the garden, utterly worthless against greenfly, earwigs or carrot root fly - were they acting with impunity or using a tool at their disposal which solved a problem?

What's altruism got to do with this? We desperately need to face the impending crisis of not being able to feed the world's population, are you really saying we should rely upon charity to do this? Would we be able to cure so many sick people without the research of multi-national drug companies?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://mediamatters.org/research/201101270013

What a surprise! You couldn't make it up could you (unless you're FOX!)

[jethro]

Hooray for a voice of sanity in this insane debate:

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10148/

[NorthNorfolkWeather]

Since we started keeping livestock we've been '#genetically modifying it haven't we? We may have done it 'long hand' by selective breeding but we are still about the same thing are we not?

When it comes to Simpsarian 'Tommacco' plants then I have to stop and think. Some changes are maybe too rapid for us to fully understand the potential impacts before they are already 'out there' in nature and beyond our control?

I'm also not a fan of 'high yield infertile' crops where the poor farmer has to 'buy' seed from the company each year instead of being able to just 'hold back' his next years seeds from this years harvest.

Can't disagree with anything you say there GW. I think the selective breeding for traits within livestock is OK , but the insertion of a totally foreign gene into a genome should not be permitted.

As for 'high yield infertile crops' they are just the way to make money for agri business mega corporations

In what way are they dangerous?

My understanding is that the gene could possibly migrate to other species. I don't know if you would call it 'dangerous' per se, but what it would mean is that all the plants that are currently killed by Glyphosate, which I believe is most green leaved plants could aquire immunity.

And agricultural yields would fall as weed infestation got worse after 50 years of chemical eradication

[Thundery wintry showers]

What is the general feeling on GM food production on here? Do you all think it's good/bad or are you indifferent? Are folks wary because they worry there maybe health risks we are yet to discover or instinctively recoil against something which goes against nature? Is this worth pursuing as a separate thread?

I'm personally indifferent simply because I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to justify forming a strong opinion on it.

What does irritate me about GM foods is the large number of people who aren't knowledgeable on the subject, yet do form strong opinions on them, generally fuelled by dubious unscientific media sources. I remember having a ridiculous argument with someone where she insisted "GM foods are bad because bees, wasps etc. will spread the genes as part of spreading pollen and contaminate nearby foods", I replied "but maybe you could close some of the GM crops off, placing them in environments where pollinating insects can't get at them" and her response was "no, insects would get at them and spread the genes". It always undermines my faith in a position when people get that defensive over it, and the argument reverts to the form, "X is right because Y is true, and Y must be true, because X is right!"

[Iceberg]

Have to admit I don't have an incredibly strong view on GM crops. GM is such a vague catch all term it's pretty meaningless IMO.

GM can mean simply a combination of two types of wheat at a molecular level(i.e a more drought resistant wheat with a higher yeilding wheat).

Or it can mean creating a wheat which is purple and includes a molecular change so that the wheat creates it's own anti-maleria drug.

The first I am in favour of, the second most certainly not.

I would say though that the ability to cause mischeif with it is so great that level of checks in place much be at least at the precautionary principle level as a mistake could have incredible global issues.

[Hiya]

Can't disagree with anything you say there GW. I think the selective breeding for traits within livestock is OK , but the insertion of a totally foreign gene into a genome should not be permitted.

As for 'high yield infertile crops' they are just the way to make money for agri business mega corporations

My understanding is that the gene could possibly migrate to other species. I don't know if you would call it 'dangerous' per se, but what it would mean is that all the plants that are currently killed by Glyphosate, which I believe is most green leaved plants could aquire immunity.

And agricultural yields would fall as weed infestation got worse after 50 years of chemical eradication

But why should inserting a "foreign" gene into a genome not be permitted? There are examples of the transfer of genetic information in nature. The HIV virus will stick its genetic information into your genome, or bacteria can get genes for useful traits like immunity to antibiotics from other bacteria.

Yes the inserted gene can spread to other members of the same species or those which it can readily produce hybrids with (these often have low fertility), but the roundup gene isn't going to spread to all green leafed plants for the same reason humans won't get a tail from a dog.

[knocker]

Blast these 'natural cycles'!

2 severe Amazon droughts in 5 years alarms scientists

New research shows that the 2010 Amazon drought may have been even more devastating to the region's rainforests than the unusual 2005 drought, which was previously billed as a one-in-100 year event.

Analyses of rainfall across 5.3 million square kilometres of Amazonia during the 2010 dry season, published tomorrow in Science, shows that the drought was more widespread and severe than in 2005. The UK-Brazilian team also calculate that the carbon impact of the 2010 drought may eventually exceed the 5 billion tonnes of CO₂ released following the 2005 event, as severe droughts kill rainforest trees. For context, the United States emitted 5.4 billion tonnes of CO₂ from fossil fuel use in 2009.

http://www.eurekaler...l-tsa020211.php

Edited February 4, 2011 by weather ship

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm sure it's just a s'statistical blip' WS and though shadowing the impacts forecast of AGW in reality it has nothing 'provable' to do with such an effect........yeah ,right!

On the other hand;

http://chimalaya.org/2011/02/02/climate-change-is-it-already-happening/

Edited February 4, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

And perhaps why in past times the earth was as warm with less CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh dear.

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2691

[Gray-Wolf]

And perhaps why in past times the earth was as warm with less CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh dear.

http://www.usgs.gov/...cle.asp?ID=2691

So the more circuitous route taken today makes the warming arrive slower? And how much more CO2 do we have to help 'warm' today compared to then? Oh dear indeed!

[Hiya]

So the more circuitous route taken today makes the warming arrive slower? And how much more CO2 do we have to help 'warm' today compared to then? Oh dear indeed!

Or maybe carbon dioxide isn't the reason why it was warmer then?

You have to look at all sides!

[Gray-Wolf]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

As we approach Ice max in the northern Hem. I'm struggling to see the 'balencing act' that some Deniers dressed in skeptiks clothes bang on about? Either it is happening or it isn't? We have both hemisphere's in deficit (from the 30yr average) atm so what gives?

Seeing as we all have access to Cryosat 2's data I've applied for access so we'll see how the mass balance looks (as soon as I have my access granted). Looks like a fun summer now we have real time volume data to hand (and mass balance of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica!)

[pottyprof]

So the more circuitous route taken today makes the warming arrive slower? And how much more CO2 do we have to help 'warm' today compared to then? Oh dear indeed!

And therefore any cooling will arrive slower?? Nah.. That couldn't possibly happen..

[Gray-Wolf]

And therefore any cooling will arrive slower?? Nah.. That couldn't possibly happen..

Yeah ,P.P. and with all the 'cold drivers' in place it will need watching eh?......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12327530

Seems also that our 'not linked to AGW' preponderence for floods is set to continue (though not linked in any way to climate change....) so we have none linked AO-ve freezing in winter followed by non -linked flooding in summer ...oh joy!

[Interitus]

It is not transgenic crops which hybridise with weed plants. All brassicas, whether that be Oil Seed Rape, Brussell Sprouts, Cabbages or Broccoli originate from wild Brassica - a classic example of our already "artificially tinkered with" plants. Yes, these can in turn hybridise with the wild Brassica but that is because essentially, they're the same plant. There is an easy solution which is already being practised and that is not to grow the two any where near one another.

Using specific herbicides and pesticides is, and has been for some considerable time, standard practise. Using the correct tool for the job is not acting with impunity, it is using common sense with the additional benefit of not introducing a product where it is not needed. For aeons gardeners used soot to deter slugs, it was of no use for anything else in the garden, utterly worthless against greenfly, earwigs or carrot root fly - were they acting with impunity or using a tool at their disposal which solved a problem?

What's altruism got to do with this? We desperately need to face the impending crisis of not being able to feed the world's population, are you really saying we should rely upon charity to do this? Would we be able to cure so many sick people without the research of multi-national drug companies?

You're absolutely wrong, transgenic crops DO hybridise with related weed species thus conferring the improved characteristics, which is one of the key objections. First line from the abstract of the article I linked -

"The main environmental concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops are the potential weediness or invasiveness in the crop itself or in its wild or weedy relatives as a result of transgene movement."

What we do not know is how invasive any affected plants may be - not just through the obvious herbicide resistance but a whole range of tolerances - drought, wet, salt, cold, heat, disease, insects plus morphological improvements that may give advantages over rival plants.

Making a crop resistant to certain chemicals allows those to be used at will, not to use less.

This then may be akin to why we try not to over-prescribe anti-biotics to avoid resistance -

"In the United States there are currently 12 weeds confirmed to be resistant to glyphosate (Heap 2010). Nine of these weeds (annual bluegrass, common ragweed, giant ragweed, goosegrass, horseweed, johsongrass, kochia, Palmer amaranth, and tall waterhemp) are likely to have been selected by the over-use of glyphosate in RR soybean, RR cotton, and RR corn crops. Six of the nine weeds have at least one biotype with multiple resistance (resistant to more than one herbicide mode of action). Some United States growers are already scrambling for options – a few have been forced to grow alternative crops."

Integrated Weed Management in a HT Canola World

Do the drugs companies cure so many sick people?

Hence, will the companies involved in GM crops feed the world?

Edited for clarity

Edited February 4, 2011 by Interitus

[Hiya]

You're absolutely wrong, transgenic crops DO hybridise with weeds thus conferring the improved characteristics, which is one of the key objections. First line from the abstract of the article I linked -

"The main environmental concerns about genetically modified (GM) crops are the potential weediness or invasiveness in the crop itself or in its wild or weedy relatives as a result of transgene movement."

What we do not know is how invasive any affected plants may be - not just through the obvious herbicide resistance but a whole range of tolerances - drought, wet, salt, cold, heat, disease, insects plus morphological improvements that may give advantages over rival plants.

Making a crop resistant to certain chemicals allows those to be used at will, not to use less.

Do the drugs companies cure so many sick people?

Hence, will the companies involved in GM crops feed the world?

What you say and what the quote says are slightly different. To become a weed either:

-the GM plant must become the weed, which in practice may not be so much of an issue as it first seems since cultivated plants don't tend to do very well in the wild past a few generations.

-the GM plant must hydridise with a closely related species AND pass on the inserted gene AND that hybrid has to be viable.

For example if we grew GM maize in the UK it isn't going to hybridise with a dandilion. The inserted genes aren't going to suddenly start appearing in all manner of different plants.