Rising food prices a boon for GMO

[forfi]

Originally Posted by UrbanFarmboy

The agreement basicaly states that the farmer can not save the seed because the technology is passed to the progeny.

I see,so the truth is that GM material can spread outside of the farms where it is grown.And thus we see the lie exposed .If the manipulation is passed on to the progeny then it will be in seeds taken by birds and vermin and will ,as sure as God made little apples,end up in crops all over the place,maybe thats why the "farming community" are signing up.Or is it the corporate "farming community",the big absentee landowners, who are signing up.

Again, to Crickets point, farmers do not have to sign this contract and they do not have to buy the seed. There are many conventional hybrids out there for farmers to choose from, but the acceptance of GM among the farming community should indicate to you that farmers see giving up their rights to save seed and paying another years technology fee is worth it to them.

And what of the consumer? the backlash against GM's is growing amongst consumers world-wide, so will we see all of these crops used for bio-fuel or dumped on the hungry ? Or will we see farmers going bust because there will be no place in the local market for their output?
I do not know one single farmer who wants to put himself into the pocket of any GM supplier.

[JamesM]

CT I'd be interested in you opinion on the points I posted primarily the following:

"Good news on other fronts though the controversial embryo issue has been resolved by a group in Japan using mature cells and a French company has created artificial cell lines to reduce the need for animal testing. Probably a better approach for scientists to innovate their way out of controversy rather than try a continual banging of their heads against the brick wall of public opinion method."

and

"Personally I don't understand why they are so coy about this contamination issue. Take a few samples from wild related plant populations around GM fields and do a simple PCR reaction for GM constructs and they could resolve the entire issue of a) is contamination occurring and b) to what extent. The two papers I saw were contradictory and almost led to one researcher losing his job. Hardly scientifically conclusive or indicative of an unbiased research community. To fail to do full and conclusive studies creates the suspicion that something is being hidden."

[Cricket Tragic]

JamesM, in response to your questions.

1. I am not quite sure exactly what you are driving at. What specific connection with embryo research and animal testing are talking about here? The advance by the Japanese and French groups may be useful if it can do the research more accurately and more cheaply. I am unconvinced the world should always be a slave to pressure groups (aka “public opinion”). A significant body of public opinion in the US believes creationism rather than evolution should be taught in schools. I remain unconvinced that is a good idea.

2. As to the “contamination” issue, one of the problems is that in most places where GM crops are grown there are in fact no “wild” relatives that could get contaminated. Even where there are wild relatives present, the amount of outcrossing is often extremely low and you might have to run tens of millions of PCR reactions to find one event SpringerLink - Journal Article . The most likely occurrence of outcrossing to wild plants with current crops is to Brassica rapa in Canada. However, this species is an exotic weed in Canada, so nobody really cares that much whether it picks up a gene or two from canola. Certainly with additional crops, the issue would need to be looked at for each crop.

As to Ignacio Chapela almost losing his job, his real problem is a lack of publications. A search of the Web of Science shows only 8 publications since his appointment at UC Berkeley. When I was in academia, the expectation was 3 publications a year as a minimum. I suspect this and his political pursuits had a lot more to do with his problems getting tenure at Berkeley than did his rather poor research published in Nature. His is the only paper that Nature has ever disowned. They did so because it was demonstrated the method used in the work produces artefacts and Chapela refused to retract the work. Chapela may have been correct in that transgenes were present in Mexican maize lines, but the method he used was ambiguous and the results may just have likely been artefacts. A better and more detailed study was conduced some years later was unable to find transgenes Absence of detectable transgenes in local landraces of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico (2003–2004) . Of course this does not mean they were never present, just that they were not widespread or had died out.

In fact, there is a large body of work, mostly done by University researchers, looking at the risks of transgene movement from crops to related weeds. I suspect that a fair idea of the probability and risks involved could be obtained by reading that work. It is not always necessary to reinvent the wheel all the time.

[JamesM]

1. Ahh I see CT so you believe the world should be a slave to the scientific vested interested pressure groups but not to the opinions of other groups? Do you believe that scientists are above other people CT some kind of trained elite to dictate, without being questioned, to the rest of the population? It use to be different of course scientists were known for impartiality and trusted. But now thanks in part to the damage GM has done, the greater scientific community are more and more being seen as just another pressure group.

2. Oh well that kind of solves it then doesn't it out breeding does occur and the progeny will be viable the baby boomer scientist generation will be known as the generation that tried to sell every other generations inheritance of a natural world just because they didn't care or think that it might matter. Darwin would turn in his grave.

They'll probably need to do a whole range of PCR tests for different crops dependent on the proximity of wild relative plants that could breed with the trial crop. The occurrence maybe under certain circumstances be greater than that reported, after all a single case cannot be used to make the rule. But if the industry will do things the complicated and expensive way then I say let them, its their money so if they want to waste billions more on their own pig headedness then so be it. Grandiose Canyon Timelord, no... no... Gurning Cappuccino Travelodge no... no... thats not it either

Three a year? Whatever happened to quality not quantity? Especially considering quantity can involve adding a name on a paper to make up the number purposes. But there again author lists can rarely be trusted with plagiarism and arm twisting going on.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by JamesM

1. Ahh I see CT so you believe the world should be a slave to the scientific vested interested pressure groups but not to the opinions of other groups? Do you believe that scientists are above other people CT some kind of trained elite to dictate, without being questioned, to the rest of the population? It use to be different of course scientists were known for impartiality and trusted. But now thanks in part to the damage GM has done, the greater scientific community are more and more being seen as just another pressure group.

JamesM, I didn’t say anything about being a slave to scientific vested interests. I don’t know there is such a thing, except perhaps in the pursuit of greater research funding. You didn’t answer my question and just opened up a separate point where you attempted to make me say things I didn’t so you could take potshots at me. What is often touted as public opinion is in fact the opinion of pressure groups as my comments about the teaching of evolution in US schools indicates. It is my opinion that policy is better informed by science than it is by the views of small pressure groups. You may choose to differ and I will respect your right to pontificate that Government policy should be dictated by each and every pressure group.

Originally Posted by JamesM

2. Oh well that kind of solves it then doesn't it out breeding does occur and the progeny will be viable the baby boomer scientist generation will be known as the generation that tried to sell every other generations inheritance of a natural world just because they didn't care or think that it might matter. Darwin would turn in his grave.

Have you read Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species”? When you have, come back and tell me what he wrote about pigeons. After that we might be able to have a sensible discussion about what Darwin’s thoughts might have been on the subject.

Originally Posted by JamesM

They'll probably need to do a whole range of PCR tests for different crops dependent on the proximity of wild relative plants that could breed with the trial crop. The occurrence maybe under certain circumstances be greater than that reported, after all a single case cannot be used to make the rule. But if the industry will do things the complicated and expensive way then I say let them, its their money so if they want to waste billions more on their own pig headedness then so be it.

JamesM, you appear to be making the grand assumption here that any transgenes moving out of a crop into a weed species will matter. Whether this matters depends on the situation at hand. As I have said, there is a fair bit of crossing between Brassica rapa and canola in Canada – always has been and it will continue into the future. It is just simply not an issue in Canada because Brassica rapa is an alien species and a minor crop weed. It has relatively little impact on crops or native species and is easily controlled. The fact that it contains a transgene does not make it more or less weedy, more or less invasive or more or less easy to control.

Normal Ellstrand has written extensively about these issues. He identified small isolated populations within the natural range as being most at risk from gene flow. One potential problem would arise if such populations were flooded with pollen from a nearby crop that they could go extinct. However, that is an issue about the crop species and is not impacted on whether that crop does or does not contain a transgene. Transgenes just allow numbers of events to be identified more readily. Why is their no concern about domestication genes moving into these wild populations making them less competitive?

Another area of possible concern would be if the population obtained a gene that made it more likely to be invasive. Allison Snow has looked at the invasiveness part of the crossing equation extensively and has used what might be described as a worst case example of Bt sunflowers in the US. The habitat of weedy and wild sunflowers overlaps with the cropped area. A concern was that Bt could move from sunflowers to weedy sunflowers and make them more invasive. Snow’s research indicated that the genes do in fact move, but insect pressure is not the primary determinant of invasiveness in wild sunflowers and so the moving gene had no effect on the invasiveness of populations. Despite this work, this example would almost certainly not get past the regulators.

Originally Posted by JamesM

Three a year? Whatever happened to quality not quantity? Especially considering quantity can involve adding a name on a paper to make up the number purposes. But there again author lists can rarely be trusted with plagiarism and arm twisting going on.

The expectation always is that an academic will develop a research group with several students and perhaps other researchers. Under such circumstances the bean counters are going to count papers. You have of course heard of the Vancouver Protocol? We had to abide by it.

[Wowbagger]

Different molecules have different chemical properties, and not every molecule is good for us to eat. You can't just make living organisms synthesize new proteins and be sure that eating it will not have any disruptive chemical reactions on our metabolisms. Our organism is really a finely tuned chemical factory.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

Different molecules have different chemical properties, and not every molecule is good for us to eat. You can't just make living organisms synthesize new proteins and be sure that eating it will not have any disruptive chemical reactions on our metabolisms. Our organism is really a finely tuned chemical factory.

Wowbagger, I intend to agree and disagree with your comments. Firstly, humans evolved as omnivores. We are not finely-tuned chemical factories only able to run on special food. We evolved to be able to deal with a wide range of chemicals including many toxins present in plants. We survive quite well provided we get sufficient nutrients and not too much of the toxins. So long as we have sufficient protein sources, minerals, carbohydrates and the various vitamins we can handle quite a lot of rubbish in our diets. This is why human diets can vary as widely from the almost exclusive plant based diets of southern India to the heavily animal based diets of the Inuit.

That said, we do need to concern ourselves with the potential toxicity of new proteins in our diet, whether these come from new food sources of from GM crops. With respect to GM crops, the toxicity of the novel proteins is tested extensively before the crops are brought to market. With respect to new food sources, no such testing goes on. It is perhaps one of the world’s great ironies that if Kiwi fruit was a GM food it would never pass regulatory approval.

[screener]

There is a still the problem that the research that is done into these novel traits is done by and for the companies that stand to gain the most from having evidence that supports their safety and agronomic value.

I find the title of this thread to be just a little misleading. Tell me I'm being petty but I believe that whether food prices go up or not doesn't matter a wit to genetically modified organisms. It does however make a big difference to GM Companies. They do stand to gain big time if there is expansion of gm seeding.

Improved production might or might not be a benefit to society at large if the inputs required for higher yields are coming from fossil fuels, especially if we are closing out conventional or traditional crop seeding options by buying into gm.

[Cricket Tragic]

Regulatory agencies world wide require proponents to demonstrate that their products are safe. Therefore, at least in the early stages the research conducted is done by the companies or commissioned by them. All this researched needs to be conducted under a process called GLP. The research is then peer-reviewed by the agencies and by outside experts. The only alternative would be for Governments to commission research on every product that was patented. Many products don’t even get close to market because the company’s own research shows they will be unable to pass regulatory scrutiny or have issues in process scale up. The Government would be obliged to test all these as well, even though they are not going to get onto the market. Once a product is close to or has been approved, a considerable amount of research independent of the proponents will be conducted by others. Problems are usually quickly identified.

The actual point of the thread seems to be that higher food prices will make GM crops more attractive to consumers because the latter are more efficient and can be grown with less cost. I am not sure that I agree with this proposition, but that is where the thread started. With respect to animal feed, I do think the idea is correct. Improved production will be a benefit to society if the alternative is starvation. Unless starvation itself is considered a benefit to society.

[screener]

We've had discussions dealing with the study of gms new crops. Anyone interested in seeing how that went could have a look here.

Is GM testing adequate?

Whether we get improved production from gm crops in anything resembling a long term is pretty much up in the air. Low- input agriculture, maximizing local use of agricultural capability, and reducing the control within agriculture of the multinationals will provide a more sustainable agriculture within the larger society.