Robert Wager: Science sides with genetically modified crops

[HuckleB]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/Wager+Science+sides+with+genetically+modified+crops/4289604/story.html

"...

First, it must be made clear that genetically modified crops are as safe as, or safer than, any other type of food production. Decades of research have demonstrated the safety and sustainability of genetically modified crop technology.

A few months back, the European Union released a report called A Decade of EU-funded GMO research 2001-2010. They concluded, "There is no scientific evidence associating (genetically modified organisms) with higher risks for the environment or for food and feed safety than conventional plants and animals".

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences released a 2010 report on GM crops and sustainable agriculture. It contains documentation of the first 15 years of GM crop contribution to sustainable agriculture.

These documents deal with the science of genetically modified crops. The politics of genetically modified crops are very different. While European science agrees with the rest of the world on the safety of GM crops and food, their politicians do not. Europe has been very reluctant to allow GM crop imports. In fact, only 17 out of 120 applications to import GM crops have been approved.

..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further...

GM food tarnished by urban myths
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/gm-food-tarnished-by-urban-myths-20110216-1awim.html

GM Crops Vital to Combat Global Hunger - UK Report
http://www.suite101.com/content/gm-crops-vital-to-combat-global-hunger---uk-report-a337098#ixzz1EAv9MVdr

The risk is similar whether or not the seed was developed using GE or non-GE approaches
http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2010/11/the_likelihood_of_pollen_from.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yes, I know there will be few who care to read these pieces, and even fewer who would care to read further. I used to be anti-GMO until I started to dig into the research that was being presented by both sides of the "argument." I'm not in the mood to spend much time debating this. Maybe I don't want to debate at all, but maybe, just maybe, GMOs aren't as evil as some say they are.

:hi:

[Boswell]

1. there needs to be a seperation

btween the crops themselves and what evil destructive companies like Monsanto does to ensure their hold on every farmer forever

[Ohio Joe]

2. .

:popcorn:

[HuckleB]

3. Is that GMO corn?

[Ohio Joe]

6. heh

Yes but I think all of the butter I put on it is worse for me :rofl:

[mike_c]

4. as a scientist, it heartens me to read that you've considered the data...

...before making your mind up. The actual data, not all the hysterical screaming and hair pulling. That's the most important thing. And as others have pointed out repeatedly, including many of us in the scientific community, the business models of GMO corporations are often the real source of toxic outcomes, not the GMOs themselves.

[HuckleB]

31. I think this is less common these days, unfortunately, even at DU.

[Dorian Gray]

57. I think that's true...

[Indydem]

5. Glad to see I'm not alone.

The anti-science attitude of some on this board continues to amaze me!

Science holds the keys to a better tomorrow.

[MadHound]

7. OK, even if there are absolutely, completely, utterly no negative side effects from GM crops,

Which, by the way, I am in no way convinced of, there is still one huge problem.

Namely the fact that these GM crops will pollinate, not just the plants around them, but others for miles around.

As one who raises organic, heirloom fruit trees (and other goodies), my life's work, my money depends upon my crops, my trees, my fruit be completely, totally organic and heirloom, no taint of GM crops or pollen whatsoever.

But say my neighbor decides to set up his land for growing apples for cider processing, and uses GM apples. I'm screwed, I have little or no recourse. And it's not just my next door neighbor that I have to worry about, but my neighbor three, four miles down the road.

Yes, I could bat each and every single bloom on each and every single tree, and then go on to hand pollinate. But that is far to labor intensive and it costs money, eating into my profit margin to the point where I will be operating at a loss. No, I can't simply pass the cost on to the consumer, because they have, at least until GM crops become ubiquitous, the ability to get the same product from my competitors at a lower cost.

So I would be screwed, and my life's work would be down the drain, all because of GM crops. And this isn't some relatively rare occurrence, organic crops are a ten billion dollar a year business, and growing. It is little farms like mine, that are growing organic, heirloom crops that are saving the small family farms. Do we really want to toss all of that overboard and leave our food in the tender hands of corporate operations like Monsanto and ADM?

Until they get the whole issue of pollen control under control, that is the biggest drawback in my book, and they shouldn't be allowed to go forward.

[HuckleB]

8. What do you do about your neighbor's crops now?

What do you do if your neighbor sprays pesticide and a wind gust hits, spreading it to your trees?

[MadHound]

10. Fortunately my neighbor raises organic beef,

And since wind can't carry pesticide very far (pesticide is, after all, sprayed at plant top height, pointed downwards) I have no worries from my neighbors down the road.

However this scenario is being played out in California, and right now it is a mess. Suits, countersuits, all that which could drag on for years and wind up costing a person more in legal fees than any settlement they get.

Sorry, but until they have either a legal or scientific solution to this problem, we need to keep GM crops out of the field.

[HuckleB]

11. So if your neighbor plants something else, even if it's not GMO, what will you do?

Further, are you sure the wind can't carry small particles of sprays quite far?

[MadHound]

14. I'm not sure where you're wanting to go with this,

Rather than beating around the bush trying to be cute and play "gotcha" games, come out and be straight about it.

[HuckleB]

15. I asked a very straight question. You gave an answer that allowed you to avoid it.

So I asked it again, hoping you would give a straight answer.

[MadHound]

16. What is the point you are trying to pursue here

Either spit it out or move on to something else. I'm not going to play these what if games with you.

[HuckleB]

17. It appears that a simple answer to a simple question is not forthcoming.

:eyes:

BTW, please don't accuse me of playing games, when its clear that you're the one who is choosing to play the usual games of avoidance.

[MadHound]

18. Well, since I gave you an answer, what else am I supposed to surmise?

You don't like the answer I gave, oh well, tough shit, move on with it. Don't badger me trying to play whatever little game you're playing. Deal with the answer I gave you or move on.

[HuckleB]

19. Baloney.

You don't want to give an answer to a very simple follow-up question. If you don't want to answer, don't answer. No one is making you. No one is at your door "badgering you."

[MadHound]

20. I think that you are mistaking your one sided conversation for a two sided one

I gave you an answer to your original question. It even included a real world result of what is going on in these situations out in California. That was my answer.

Now you are saying I'm avoiding answering your question, even though I gave you an answer. And now this bizarre statement: "You don't want to give an answer to a simple question, and, by now, we both know why." Umm, bub, this ain't some big conspiracy, and while you may "know why", I certainly don't, which means you are holding a one sided conversation here and inserting your own thoughts and motives on my answers. Frankly, I could probably shut up right now and you'll continue to have this conversation with yourself the rest of the night and be perfectly happy.

As far as badgering me, yes, you are badgering me. You've written a number of posts trying to cajole, harangue and harass some magical answer that you want out of me. That is called badgering. Stop it.

Now then, I perfectly willing to continue this conversation with you if you will stop playing these games, trying to badger some sort of answer out of me that only you seem to know. If that isn't to your liking, well then guess what, I've got better things to do than play games with you. The choice is yours, either have a reasonable discussion or be an asshole. Choose.

[HuckleB]

22. Nice try.

If you can't answer a very simple question, don't bother pretending that you want to discuss anything. I started this OP, and you have no reason to post here unless you choose to do so. Thus, your claim of being badgered is quite ludicrous. Answer the question or move along. Further, if you can't answer the question, it appears that your concern (as you know) has no real basis in fear of GMOs, but in fear of any type of crop.

[MadHound]

23. Well, I answered your question,

And since all you seem to want to do is harangue and harass me until you get the answer YOU want, I guess I'll be moving on. :hi:

[HuckleB]

24. No, you didn't.

You refused to a very simple follow-up question, and your excuses are many and have been noted. Thank you for moving along.

[MadHound]

25. You say you aren't badgering, but you keep coming back time and again

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bye:hi:

[HuckleB]

26. So now you confess to badgering me on my OP.

Thanks!

[Ignis]

39. Here's a gem from the OP:

I'm not in the mood to spend much time debating this. Maybe I don't want to debate at all...

...except for the weekly proselyting on behalf of GMO crops, of course. :eyes:

[HuckleB]

40. Now that's a claim I would like to see you prove.

Thank you.

[HuckleB]

43. So, are you going to back up your claim?

:shrug:

[Ignis]

49. No, no, it was hyperbole. Mea culpa.

Let's call it monthly, instead. :hug:

[HuckleB]

50. Well, then prove THAT hyperbole!

:hi:

[Indydem]

9. Yes, organic farming is the answer.

Of course, it results in half of the earth's population starving to death, but hey, whats a few billion people when your life's work is at stake?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ignis]

38. Source for the figure you cited, please.

[HuckleB]

52. Hmm. I thought you were good at recognizing hyperbole?

:evilgrin:

[cynatnite]

12. Controlling pollen is like trying to control the droplets from a person's sneeze...

It's not going to happen.

You shouldn't be able to decide what your neighbor grows any more than they should be able to decide what you grow.

[MadHound]

21. Ah, so my neighbor down the road has the right to destroy my livelihood?

Sorry, but that doesn't fly either. I've invested serious time and money into these trees, and it simply isn't right that somebody down the road can destroy all of that in one season.

Would you put up with that?

[cynatnite]

29. You shouldn't have the right to do the same to someone else either. n/t

[mike_c]

35. see #32 below-- the only threat to your livelihood is your own irrational fears....

eom

[HuckleB]

27. .

http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2010/11/the_likelihood_of_pollen_from.php

[cynatnite]

30. Good link. n/t

[mike_c]

32. that sounds suspicious to me....

I gather from your post that you're in the business of raising heirloom FRUIT, not producing heirloom fruit TREES for sale, although I'll say more about that, too. First though, your comments either reveal a distressing misunderstanding about plant reproduction or you're deliberately trying to confuse the issue with half truths and untruths. Let's assume you're just misinformed.

First, I presume that your heirloom fruit trees are clonally reproduced, probably grafted onto different root stock (but not necessarily). Nonetheless, the somatic tissues of your trees are completely and utterly unaffected by "GMO pollen." Since few fruit tree varieties breed true, the only opportunity for gene flow from GMO pollen to your tree varieties is probably already precluded by your practice of clonal propagation-- so your trees and any you are likely to produce (in the same varieties) are completely safe from any effects from cross-pollination by GMOs.

You probably think the fruit is a different matter if that's what you're in the business of producing, but you're wrong. Fruit is maternal tissue, expressing ONLY the maternal genome. The fruits your trees produce will ALWAYS be untainted by cross-pollination no matter what the source of pollen. The fruits they produce are derived wholly from the heirloom genome of the trees themselves-- pollen contributes nothing to the fruit tissues. That's why my Fuji apple trees always produce Fuji apples, even when the neighbors' Golden Delicious and Winesap trees contribute the pollen.

The only thing GMO cross pollination affects is the embryo tissue within the seeds contained inside the pericarp of those fruits-- which, if you want to preserve your heirloom varieties, you don't ever use anyway (and they're already "tainted" by non-heirloom genomes if anyone grows other varieties within pollination range of your orchard, so you can give up any hope of maintaining that heirloom genome in your F₁s). And ONLY the embryonic tissue is affected-- the seed coat, the endosperm, and all the rest is also expressed from maternal genes just like the fruit is, not the "tainted" zygote. Simple pollination from other NON-GMO varieties will ruin the phenotypes of any resultant offspring, and even fully within-variety pollination will result in a near random assortment of F₁ hybrids expressing many phenotypes that are NOT consistent with the heirloom qualities you want to maintain. In other words, your fear of "tainted" fruit is irrational. No such tainted fruit can possibly result from cross-pollination. Only "tainted seeds," but all F₁s are "tainted" regardless.

[NickB79]

33. +1000. Excellent explanation of basic plant reproductive biology. NT

[Motown_Johnny]

36. Wow, that may be the best rebuttal I have ever seen

well done

[HuckleB]

37. Thank you.

This post is quite impressive. Thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[Motown_Johnny]

34. well, I am now convinced that we should not try to end world hunger by

increasing the yield of crops through genetic modification



it might cost you a couple bucks to hand pollinate



let 'em all stave instead






Or, Maybe... Just MAYBE this isn't all about you

[eridani]

51. There is no increased yield. That is mythology n/t

[Iterate]

28. It's not just about science, it's about sovereignty.

The EU has arguably the best food and food culture in the world, with great variety and several of the world's great cuisines in close proximity. Their agriculture is generally healthy and there is still such a thing as a small family farm and family-owned restaurant.

They value that culture and the health that goes with it. They don't want GM crops, monoculture, junk factory food, and the agricultural distortions that come with it.

No, Monsanto, fuck off. No. Go away.

There is hardly an hour that goes by that someone on DU isn't pointing out the bad consequences of the American empire - and here you see the seeds, if you will, of how it is sown as Monsanto and others pressure EU ministers to violate the will of the public. And they also enlist the state department to do their sales job. Read the cables.

And where do you think Monsanto would spend that money you would have them making with the increased sales and larger farms? Do you think it would go to the good solid Democrat? Do you think that it's just coincidence that the rise of the whacko right on the plains and prairie states occurred at the same time as the demise of the family farm?

One Kansas is enough; no reason to spread the joy.

[Ignis]

41. "One Kansas is enough; no reason to spread the joy."

:yourock:

[HuckleB]

42. They might value culture, but health is not the issue.

The scientific evidence makes that much quite clear.

[Iterate]

44. The two are inextricably linked; food culture is a health issue.

I don't think you would argue that the entire food system within a nation (what I was calling a food culture) from farm to plate isn't in itself a matter of public health, and you can't separate Monsanto and GM crops from American style agribusiness -they're at the spearhead. It is an aggressive and predatory system that corrupts local politics, concentrates land ownership, lends itself to monoculture, factory farms, and factory food. As a system, it degrades the health of the population.

Do you really want to promote a that system? I've quit caring about the merits of the so-called scientific studies because they are irrelevant. Bad politics kills more than GM crops ever will.

[HuckleB]

45. If you choose to ignore the reality of the science, then there is no discussion about actual health.

You are spinning propaganda with big scary language, rather than trying to discuss anything that is actually a concern. That serves no good purpose for health or culture.

[CanSocDem]

46. Something that, not surprisingly, you're ignoring...

...and that is the influence of the corporation on this decision.

The real concern in the issue of GMO's is ownership and patent rights for organic seeds and plants that were obviously not invented by, for example, Monsanto. They alter the seed a little bit and suddenly they own it and can market it exclusively. This means that they can use all of the established 'free-market tricks' to increase their profits.

Of course they have to convince their consumers the product is safe. Why control a market if nobody is buying?

Europeans and Canadians are a little more sophisticated when it comes to keeping the 'free market' under control. That's why we have public health systems and you have For Profit health systems. Same with this...we understand that if you allow private ownership of ESSENTIAL goods and services, like public health, economic viability becomes more important than QUALITY.

If it makes money, it's a good business. Only in the USA. Europeans and Canadians watch with a kind of detached amusement, at the struggle between human and corporate rights in the USA. Not to say we're immune to the power of the global corporate philosophy. It's just that all the problems of a corporate society are crystallized and televised, unashamedly, to the rest of the world, as if the free-market is God's gift to mankind.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

"Monsanto, headquartered in St.Louis, makes the popular herbicide Roundup. Farmers all over the Prairies ---Schmeiser among them --- spray it on their fields, whereupon it kills every-thing growing there. Then they plant.

Using the controversial alchemy of genetic engineering, which has alarmed environmentalists and consumers, Monsanto has developed a canola seed completely immune to Roundup. That means a farmer can spray the herbicide over a planted field, kill all the weeds growing there, but not hurt the crop -- as long as it comes from Monsanto's seed.

The company sells the seed -- about half the canola planted in Saskatchewan this year comes from it -- but keeps the rights to the DNA itself."

It appears that Monsanto wants to own the 'science'. Of course, in your mind, "science" is basic. Not for sale. Like DNA....


.

[HuckleB]

48. Not surprisingly, all you have to keep up the hype is yet another red herring.

:boring:

[CanSocDem]

53. What is the point of the OP...???? (eom)

[HuckleB]

54. So you aren't going to read it.

Fine. Then why bother to respond at all?

[CanSocDem]

55. I'm still wondering...

...what you mean by "safe". Please define your terms. Are you saying GMO's are "safe"...?????


.

[HuckleB]

59. .

:boring:

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dorian Gray]

56. There are positives and negatives to them

My biggest problem is with the activities of the corporations (Monsanto), and the ubiquity of corn and soy, common GMOs. Too much of any foods aren't the healthiest way to eat, and almost any food we buy at the supermarket has at least one of the two attached to it. Even our proteins are often corn-fed.

When the seeds are modified and forced upon small farmers because of cross-pollination and an inability to be killed off, I start having a problem with them. But not because I think that the GMO is in itself harmful. (Does that make sense?)

[HuckleB]

58. Indeed.

There are very real concerns about the corporations, though not just Monsanto. It seems like a huge part of the food industry focuses on the use of corn and soy, GMO or not.

Yes, your post makes good sense.