Protesters threaten to destroy GMO crop 5/27/12

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Hmmm, in the US you can shoot someone for destroying your property.....

I really really, don't understand why someone would destroy a GMO test crop. It seems like this goes against the whole safety issue as, well, they are testing it to see how it fares and will probably then test it's health and safety stuff after the crop fruits...

I'd be happy if the GMO protestors (since they can't shoot the slime-suckers (US makes it a touch hotter for 'em)) could be sued and imprisoned if they could/would not pay for treble damages. For being poopy heads.

[Battman]

Originally Posted by quarky

Anyway, this is a bit like the kettle calling the African American green.
Can anyone make a link to all the lawsuits that Monsanto has instituted?
Some are truly bizarre.
You aren't allowed to have their patented genes, even if you tried your best to keep them out of your farm.

No one ever said that Monsanto plays nicely, but that's an issue with patent protection laws. Some of their lawsuits, such as suing the neighbour of the farmer that is growing their product for seeds and pollen blowing onto their land, are completely ludicrous and I hope they lose every one of them.

[Battman]

Originally Posted by quarky

Dig deeper. You owe it to yourself.

Have you ever been to a farm?

[geni]

Originally Posted by fuelair

I'd be happy if the GMO protestors (since they can't shoot the slime-suckers (US makes it a touch hotter for 'em)) could be sued and imprisoned if they could/would not pay for treble damages. For being poopy heads.

They can be sued. However again you are dealing with as group that contains a large number of what are effectively professional activists. They don't have very much money. Criminal prosecutions can and have been brought in the past but as I said getting a conviction is tricky.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Battman

Have you ever been to a farm?

You don't know who you're asking.
I've rarely been off the farm.
Have you been anywhere?

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by Battman

No one ever said that Monsanto plays nicely, but that's an issue with patent protection laws. Some of their lawsuits, such as suing the neighbour of the farmer that is growing their product for seeds and pollen blowing onto their land, are completely ludicrous and I hope they lose every one of them.

Bull, name one such lawsuit.

Monsanto only sues where evidence of INTENTIONAL patent violation exists. This stuff about innocent farmers getting maliciously sued is a myth.

Fora skeptics forum, yall sure let some dubious claim slide by and go unchallenged.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Soymilk420

Bull, name one such lawsuit.

Monsanto only sues where evidence of INTENTIONAL patent violation exists. This stuff about innocent farmers getting maliciously sued is a myth.

Fora skeptics forum, yall sure let some dubious claim slide by and go unchallenged.

Yowza.

Who are you working for?

(they aren't paying you enough.)

[quarky]

This thread, more than many, drives home the point of evangelistic, fundamental sciencehood.

Is there a particular reason to not proceed cautiously with bold new types of technology?
Is there no history of the dark possibilities of not doing this?
Is there no possibility of propaganda on the end of this equation that will make a boatload of money?

This is the worst aspect of skepticism and critical thinking.
It becomes evangelistic; often times totally justified...yet, science doesn't let its guard down, or it shouldn't, just because it will make a few people mega-rich.

Critical thinking doesn't stop just because you've decided what team you're on.

This argument reminds me of the fission-power debate.
Can we learn anything from it?

Like, fission is cool, but maybe we need to address the tsunami threat in the future?

I'm totally science.
Its arrogance is why I've come to comprehend idiotic resistance to it.
Not that I'm now in league with the woosters...I'm absolutely not.

I remain true to the method, and when it gets corrupted by mega-bucks and relentless propaganda, I feel dismay.

Science has brought us into a mess. Own up. Science (the effort to extract what is true) has been seriously jeopardized. As a lover of science, this is heart-breaking.

It reminds me of climate change, and how the denial has actually been boosted by quasi-science, in as much as it has been corrupted by business concerns, to the point of real scientists being whores.

I may have to quote Einstein, if no one is willing to address me in a legitimate manner.

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by quarky

Yowza.

Who are you working for?

(they aren't paying you enough.)

really, thats you response..accuse me of being a shill? Sorry you lose. Go back and try again, this time, address the actual issue

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Unfortunately, the same is usually exemplified by those criticizing it based by their own too little knowledge.

Actual cases of copying too much from one plant to another have actually happened. E.g., a case of transferring a gene from Brazil nuts to soybeans in the 90's did end up actually copying a gene too many, and unfortunately it was actually the allergen that was the gene too many. So, yes, it was a danger to people with an allergy to that specific nut.

The problem of how much you copy is a very real one, and the reason for much of the regulation and for that matter of the research and testing costs.

If such concerns sound stupid to you... well, maybe now you know at what end that problem of too little knowledge is

You should note that the soybeans with Brazil nut gene you speak of were never commercialized specifically because they considered and tested for the risk. Rather than evidence that GMOs are dangerous, this case is actually evidence that proper safety regulations are in place to protect the consumer and so far have worked quite well in this area.

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by quarky

I may have to quote Einstein, if no one is willing to address me in a legitimate manner.

like calling me a shill and avoid calls for evidence, get real...pony up of STFU

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by geni

Golden rice has been on the books for over a decade now. Still not happening. So worth paying attention to if you want to see some cool science but not if you want to know about actual GM deployment.

Do you ever think that the militant anti-GM opposition might have something to do with slowing it down...

I really hate this argument, "We dont have any of the really good GMOs they promised us yet so Gmos are therefor bad and o be opposed"
It just doesn't make sense, every aspect of this takes time, research, breeding, testing, retesting, submitting paperwork, waiting on bureaucrats all the while fighting activists that just wanna shut you down.
What is vaccine development was ended in the 1800 because we didnt have vaccines for diphtheria, measles, mumps, and rubella yet and we didnt have enough long term clinical trials? Caution is great, when its based in sound reasoning and bayesian probability, but continuing to promote undue fear in the face of little real or rationally realistic risks is irresponsible

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

Is there a particular reason to not proceed cautiously with bold new types of technology?

Sure. For how long? How much testing much be done? That's one question the anti-GMO nutwads I've encountered refuse to answer. They've already concluded that "frankenfoods" are harmful, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. GMO crops have been around for decades now. When will you accept they are safe?

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by geni

The counter to that is the issue of pollination. Basically the issue is that the crop will spread pollen into the surrounding area which means that in theory the genes could end up in the general UK wheat population in which case health and safety testing would be a little late.

GM genes are indeed known to have spread from time to time but it is usualy pretty limited.

the issue of pollination has been address and number of times by the scientists involved.

From a Q&A

Quote:

2. "Why do you say insects can't carry off the GM wheat pollen?"

WH: Insects do not pollinate wheat so wheat pollen will not be carried off by pollinating insects. If pollen was ‘carried off’ it is only viable for a very short time (a few minutes) so would not be a problem.

HJ: Wheat is not insect-pollinated. Wheat flowers fertilise themselves before they open. Excess pollen, which is heavy and lives for only a few hours, then falls to the ground around the plant.

Quote:

"How does a small fence stop animals and birds spreading dangerous GM pollen and seeds?"

HJ: Pollen is not a problem, however, there is a potential hazard of birds or animals picking up seeds, either at time of sowing or around harvest time. Small mammals are excluded for the whole trial period by the fence which has small mesh (around 1cm). Birds are actively excluded for a month after sowing and at harvest time by management practices including bird kites, gas guns and tape.

WH: The trial has a variety of measures in place to deter birds and animals.

Quote:

5. "Are you going to feed potentially contaminated wheat in nearby fields to rats to test its safety?"

HJ: No, and this suggestion is outrageous. There will be no contaminated wheat in nearby fields and there are simply no risks in our field experiment that justify the use of any animal experimentation.

WH: Pollen from the trial is extremely unlikely to be able to spread to nearby wheat fields. Rat feeding trials would not therefore provide useful information and the gene used in this wheat is already found naturally in other plants.

Quote:

7. "In Guardian letters today Eddie Dougall says "birds and insects will carry GM pollen miles and wind will carry it hundreds of miles, with the inevitable effect of contaminating non-GM wheat." You can't control that. Why isn't the experiment being carried out under laboratory conditions?"

WH: If wheat pollen is carried by birds, insects, or the wind it will not be a problem as it is only viable for a few minutes so would not be able to pollinate non-GM wheat a long distance away.

HJ: These risks were considered by an independent panel of experts on the ACRE committee. Birds and insects do not collect wheat pollen. High winds at the time of flowering could in theory spread pollen but wheat pollen is heavy and lives for only a few hours. Combined with the self-pollinating nature of wheat and the absence of wild relatives, the risk of outcrossing was considered effectively zero.

8. "In the US, modified genes have transferred into local wildplants creating 'superweeds' which are resistant to herbicides. Farmers are now having to use stronger banned weed killers, as they are the only ones effective against the new weeds. Won’t this happen here?"

HJ: Wheat is 99% self-pollinating and it is a real challenge to make wheat-to-wheat hybrids, let alone cross wheat to something else. The only wild plant theoretically capable of crossing to wheat in the UK is couch grass. There have been some lab experiments that have made hybrids between wheat and couch grass but this needs man’s help and has never been seen in the wild. However, as part of the conditions of the consent, we will ensure no couch grass grows in our trial or in the surrounding 20m.

9. "By growing wheat outside they have already put the seeds into the environment. So what would happen if it was found to be toxic? You can't unpollinate plants!!!"

WH: The gene used in this wheat is already found naturally in other plants so is already in the environment. Also wheat is mainly self pollinated and there are no wild plants that could be pollinated by it.

10. "You said insects don’t pollinate wheat but surely they land on the flowers?"

WH: In wheat the male and female parts of the flower are enclosed when pollination occurs. Therefore even if an insect landed on a wheat flower the pollen it might pick up would probably be old and not-viable.

HJ: Can I add, insects are not attracted to wheat flowers because they do not make nectar or scent. I’ve never seen a pollinating insect on a wheat flower.

Brendan Armstrong 11. "If modified genes from the experiment get into other crops what are the chances that these genes will mutate into something harmful, and how long would it take in years?"

WH: The genes introduced into the wheat could not get into other crops as wheat cannot cross with other crops or any wild plants to transfer the genes. The genes are no more likely to mutate than any other genes.

12. "What about the concerns around the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes?"

HJ: The antibiotic resistance (ab) genes were used as part of the experimental procedure and are non-functional in the final plant. People are concerned about these genes somehow jumping from the plant into bacteria in the soil to make antibiotic resistant bacteria. Genes can jump like this in nature but is extremely rare. The ab genes used in these plants came from bacteria anyway and there are lots of soil bacteria with ab genes. This potential risk was considered negligible by the group of independent ACRE scientists.

13. "Perhaps, if successful, the crop will negate the need for added chemical pesticide (a good thing). But then again, if the plants repel aphids there will be no aphids, and no insects eating the aphids, and no birds eating the insects, and no food chain. What if this research kills off all the aphids?"

WH: Even if this wheat was eventually grown commercially it would only repel aphids not kill them all. It would also attract natural predators of aphids. However, the possible effect on the food chain is something that would need to be considered if it was ever to be commercialised.

14. "Someone said the wheat pollen dies very quickly. What does that mean? I didn't know pollen could die."

WH: What we mean is that the pollen would no longer be able to pollinate another wheat plant after a short period of time as it would be ‘non-viable’. Pollen is ‘viable’ for only a short period of time after being released from the anthers.

@eskoala 15. "What are the potential benefits of the research?"

HJ: Less pesticide use and more biodiversity. Aphids (green- and blackfly) are major pests that are normally controlled by spraying insecticides which kill them but also other beneficial insects. Our wheat plants control aphids by ‘scaring them off’ using an natural alarm pheromone normally made by aphids when they are attacked. Other insects are not affected. We know this works in the lab and think the aphids in our experiment will retreat to the wild flowers in hedges and field margins but we need to test this in the field.

Jeroen Crappé 16. "Re: Question 8 Is it really the herbicide resistance gene that is transfered to wild plants? Or is it in fact the overuse of glyphosate that enables those wild plants to become resistant via evolution?"

HJ: It’s a bit of both. If a herbicide resistance gene did transfer from a GM crop to a wild relative, that wild plant would also be able to tolerate that particular herbicide. A farmer would need to use another type of herbicide to kill it. It is also true that constant use of one type of herbicide on any (non GM) plant species will eventually generate resistant plants through the selection of random mutations.

[Soymilk420]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Sure. For how long? How much testing much be done? That's one question the anti-GMO nutwads I've encountered refuse to answer. They've already concluded that "frankenfoods" are harmful, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. GMO crops have been around for decades now. When will you accept they are safe?

how about over 400 independent safety studies?

Or how about 15 years of research in the EU involving hundreds of teams?

How about billions of consumers human and non-human?

no, I think you are right, they arnt willing to entertain opposing ideas. The least we can do is not let the false claims go unchallenged in the hopes of influencing those who are on the fence. One of the worst things pro-science people can do is to clam up and allow the antis to dominate the public discourse, when people keep hearing the same myths repeated from multiple sources it makes it hard for them not to buy into it.

[jj]

Originally Posted by geni

Just conventional cross breeding so not really relivant.

So, only some kinds of genetic manipulation are relivant (sic)?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Soymilk420

Do you ever think that the militant anti-GM opposition might have something to do with slowing it down...

Unlikely since multiple GMOs have been brought to market.

Quote:

I really hate this argument, "We dont have any of the really good GMOs they promised us yet so Gmos are therefor bad and o be opposed"

That is not the argument. The argument is that we've don't have any of the shall we say PR friendly GMOs on the market (well other than the luminous fish) despite them being in the inventory for about a decade. As a result anyone using them as an argument to promote GM can be written off as a starry eyed idealist who probably thinks fusion power is just around the corner.

Quote:

It just doesn't make sense, every aspect of this takes time, research, breeding, testing, retesting, submitting paperwork, waiting on bureaucrats all the while fighting activists that just wanna shut you down.

And yet there are multiple GMOs on the market. Still no golden rice though.

Quote:

Caution is great,

No it isn't.

Quote:

when its based in sound reasoning and bayesian probability,

The misapplication of bayesian probability is a seperate issue.

Quote:

but continuing to promote undue fear in the face of little real or rationally realistic risks is irresponsible

You've just described a sucessful business model (the daily mail actualy makes money) as irresponsible. People are going to promote fear because they can make money doing so. Why should I care if monsanto's PR people aren't good enough to counter that?

[geni]

Originally Posted by jj

So, only some kinds of genetic manipulation are relivant (sic)?

Pretty much. But hey you already knew that.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Sure. For how long? How much testing much be done? That's one question the anti-GMO nutwads I've encountered refuse to answer. They've already concluded that "frankenfoods" are harmful, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will convince them. GMO crops have been around for decades now. When will you accept they are safe?

I don't care about the frankenfood nutwad stuff. My beef is Monsanto selling glyphosate, and seeds, and the % of the gmo market it represents, and the corruption this fosters. What became of anti-trust laws? To allow a corporation to gain control of global seed stock is insidious.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Soymilk420

the issue of pollination has been address and number of times by the scientists involved.

From a Q&A

I do like how they burried the line about couch grass halfway through a bunch of irrelivant stuff. Do you think their PR person got a bonus? I hope so.

So nominal 20 meter barrier on couch grass. No mention of wild growing wheat but thats pretty uncommon. Enough to get them DEFRA aproval. Still its just an odds game. The risk is still there just reduced. Enough? Well I guess that depends on what level of risk you are prepared to take with one of the world's staple crops.

Hmm on an unrelated note has anyone looked into using GM to resurect the Gros Michel banana? Supposedly better than the cavendish and of course a pretty much perfect target if you don't want to have to worry about gene spread.

[Battman]

Originally Posted by quarky

I don't care about the frankenfood nutwad stuff. My beef is Monsanto selling glyphosate, and seeds, and the % of the gmo market it represents, and the corruption this fosters. What became of anti-trust laws? To allow a corporation to gain control of global seed stock is insidious.

So if I understand what you're saying, you don't exactly have a problem with GMO's in general. You have problem with Monsanto. You're not alone and on this point, I wholeheartedly agree with you. And yes, I've been to lots of different places.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...-progress.aspx

Originally Posted by GlennB

That's a good and heartening story. The initiatives appear to be Govt. led and hopefully there are no heavyweight issues over patents, seed-retention and so on.

Related article

Awesome. Thanks for that.

Originally Posted by geni

Just conventional cross breeding so not really relivant.

You wanted evidence of drought-tolerant crops, and you got it. But it's not truly Scottish? Hmmm.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by quarky

Is there a particular reason to not proceed cautiously with bold new types of technology?

Opportunity cost.

Say we've got a new technology, but we don't know if it's safe or not. We could do the 20 years of testing first, but then we know we're missing out on 20 years of the benefits of that technology.
We could simply forgo the testing, but then we're risking the possibility that it's not safe.

Say the technology's benefits lead to economic development in Africa that itself leads to a reduced child mortality rate and, over 20 years, 10 million fewer deaths in young children.
Say that the "not safe" scenario means it could lead to the death of 1 million children over that 20 year period.

Should we test first or not?

That's an obviously concocted scenario, of course, but the point is that those opportunity costs should at least be considered. In many or perhaps even most cases testing first makes sense. But being overly cautious might have greater costs than not being cautious at all. There's likely a happy medium.

Quote:

Is there no history of the dark possibilities of not doing this?

There certainly is. Here's an example that springs to mind: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0632079291248Q

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

You wanted evidence of drought-tolerant crops, and you got it. But it's not truly Scottish? Hmmm.

It's not a GMO, so I don't see how it's applicable to the discussion of GMOs.

We're discussing a particular method of genetically modifying crops. Some people have issues with that method. Bringing up the success of a different method that they don't have issues with is a little odd.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's not a GMO, so I don't see how it's applicable to the discussion of GMOs.

We're discussing a particular method of genetically modifying crops. Some people have issues with that method. Bringing up the success of a different method that they don't have issues with is a little odd.

Hmm, fair enough.

However, I have found that drought-tolerant GMO maize is being trialled in Africa.

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1242.d...ant-maize.html

ETA: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...ent-maize.aspx

http://www.aatf-africa.org/projects/...rojects//wema/

[geni]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Hmm, fair enough.

However, I have found that drought-tolerant GMO maize is being trialled in Africa.

http://www.gmo-safety.eu/news/1242.d...ant-maize.html

ETA: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...ent-maize.aspx

http://www.aatf-africa.org/projects/...rojects//wema/

Trialled. So golden rice Mk2.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by geni

Trialled. So golden rice Mk2.

So, you agree commercial GMO crops like these can't come soon enough.

Interesting global stats on biotech crops:

http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publi...16/default.asp

Note:

"The future of biotech crops looks encouraging. Commercialization of drought tolerant maize is expected in 2013; Golden Rice in 2013/2014".

[geni]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

So, you agree commercial GMO crops like these can't come soon enough.

I don't think it matters if they come soon enough or to late or not at all (there are other options with regards to improving food security). Its all PR games see and thats where the mildly interesting stuff is. Well that and the glow in the darkbacon.

As a benchmark the geneticaly modifided bacteria that produce insulin took 5 years to get from the lab to the market.

Quote:

"The future of biotech crops looks encouraging. Commercialization of drought tolerant maize is expected in 2013; Golden Rice in 2013/2014".

Can I get these guys estimates on fusion power?

Frankenfoods vs "no really Golden Rice is going to happen this time". Should be interesting to watch no?

[BravesFan]

Don't you think you have crossed the line from "critical thinking" to "cynical" on this issue?

It's like you see the benefits of GMO's to help feed the world, but since it takes so long to develop them from idea to market it is a waste of time. or a big PR scam or whatever.

Why does it matter how long it takes to happen as long as it happens?

[geni]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

Don't you think you have crossed the line from "critical thinking" to "cynical" on this issue?

The thread appears to be about a protest and that is PR not botany or molecularly biology.

Quote:

It's like you see the benefits of GMO's to help feed the world,

We already have the capacity to feed the world. There are far more interesting things you can in theory do with GM (chemical feedstocks, drug manufacture, cheaper ink) however at least some of those require technologies that don't currently exist.

Quote:

but since it takes so long to develop them from idea to market it is a waste of time. or a big PR scam or whatever.

Its a marketing strategy. GM has been promoted as a method of feeding starving Africans or whatever. However this isn't what is actually being done. Programs in that direction look very much like cute PR set-ups but without the actual resources needed to get them to market. Or I suppose its possible that there simply is no market.

Quote:

Why does it matter how long it takes to happen as long as it happens?

Because its one way of telling what the actual focus of the industry is rather than their PR fluff.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

I don't care about the frankenfood nutwad stuff. My beef is Monsanto selling glyphosate, and seeds, and the % of the gmo market it represents, and the corruption this fosters. What became of anti-trust laws? To allow a corporation to gain control of global seed stock is insidious.

So yours is a political, not a scientific argument.

But, FYI, they don't control the global seed stock.

[geni]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

But, FYI, they don't control the global seed stock.

They are working on that problem.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by geni

They are working on that problem.

As are all companies, regardless of the industry.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

As are all companies, regardless of the industry.

You see no issue in the fact that users of the gmo seeds are not able to save them, for the following year's crop, as has been done for millenniums?

As for the famous golden rice, which has added beta-carotene, do you realize how easy it is to get this additional nutrient through other plants, easily grown in all areas wherein there is malnutrition due to a lack of easily grown green leaves?

Hence, to some extent, my beef is that this technology has invented a problem that it comes to rescue. This is disingenuous, at best.

last I looked, Monsanto had 80+% of the gmo market, and 85% of the modified plants were designed for the use of glyphosates, which Monsanto has the lion's share of the sales.

Nothing suspicious? Nothing for concern here?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

You see no issue in the fact that users of the gmo seeds are not able to save them, for the following year's crop, as has been done for millenniums?

I don't recall the ancient Sumerians signing contracts with Monsanto.

If you want to save your seed for use next year, don't buy your seed from Monsanto. Is this concept really that difficult to grasp?

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I don't recall the ancient Sumerians signing contracts with Monsanto.

It would be productive if you (and others) would cut out this "selective breeding = GM" silliness.

Our Labrador is the product of selective breeding, but in a modern context nobody would claim he's a GM organism.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by GlennB

It would be productive if you (and others) would cut out this "selective breeding = GM" silliness.

Our Labrador is the product of selective breeding, but in a modern context nobody would claim he's a GM organism.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[!Kaggen]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I have no idea what you are talking about.

No surprise there.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I don't recall the ancient Sumerians signing contracts with Monsanto.

If you want to save your seed for use next year, don't buy your seed from Monsanto. Is this concept really that difficult to grasp?

Its not hard for me to grasp.

Perhaps you don't understand how commodity export agriculture works?
Or how it can be that the countries in Africa with the poorest nutrition are actually exporting more food than they keep?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

Its not hard for me to grasp.

Perhaps you don't understand how commodity export agriculture works?
Or how it can be that the countries in Africa with the poorest nutrition are actually exporting more food than they keep?

Railing against Monsanto will not solve the problems of Africa. If they are exporting more food than they keep, they probably need to take it up with their government.