Retracted green light on GM crops feeds suspicions

[Cricket Tragic]

deek, I am not that interested in Murphy’s qualifications or experience at this point, but in what he has to say and what evidence he can marshal to validate his comments. I dare say Murphy can read the literature as well (or as indifferently) as the next scientist and does actually have a lot of experience with canola crops.

Perhaps we should be asking what your qualifications if the following areas are:

Experience and published research in the medical field
Experience and published research in the allergy field
Experience and published research in the Immunology field
Experience and published research in the oilseed rape allergy field

And yet you pontificate in these areas. So where does that leave us? For my part, I am going to deal with the evidence and not worry too much about qualifications, unless it becomes obvious that a person’s lack of qualifications is making them get the evidence wrong.

Now the quotes I used from Murphy were in fact things he should know about given his expertise in canola. Specifically, the point was about the lack of prevalence of these conditions outside the UK despite much larger areas grown and the negative attitudes pertaining in the UK about the impact of the crop on the aesthetics of the UK. Now I think we had agreed that the former comment was correct. You might like to disagree with me about the latter comment, but I have seen enough in the UK press to suggest to me that at least some members of the press hold this opinion.

The rest of what Murphy had to say, I didn’t feel was all that pertinent to the points I wanted to make, so I didn’t really feel warranted in discussing it. Unless there is a particular point you want me to turn my attention to.

As I think I have pointed out earlier, the only way to totally assure the public that canola is not to blame is to find the cause. As we have no cause, there will always be a possibility, however minute, that canola is to blame. I am not in a position to say why no more funding for research on this topic has been forthcoming. You would need to approach the funding agencies to ask that question. However, I would suggest that a balance of probabilities approach to the existing evidence would suggest canola is not the cause (or at least canola alone).

OK, so now we have established that I like evidence, where is that horse data you were talking about?

[deek]

CT, you may not be interested in Murphy’s qualifications or experience but others who post on this thread may well be if this indicates in a conflict of interest/biased reporting. I think Murphy’s “nailed his true colours to the mast” in his final paragraph: -

“Although it is important to continue to investigate potential health hazards, we should not unnecessarily stigmatize an important and versatile crop that can provide, not only a nutritious edible oil but also a huge spectrum of environmentally friendly, renewable industrial products ranging from lubricants and cosmetics to biodegradable plastics.”

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

For my part, I am going to deal with the evidence and not worry too much about qualifications, unless it becomes obvious that a person’s lack of qualifications is making them get the evidence wrong?

In fact Murphy did get the evidence wrong and he was subsequently corrected by Jones, et al in a follow up letter published in Immunology Today in 2000.

“Murphy suggests that patients allergic to oilseed rape pollen are a subset of the more extensive pool of patients with grass pollen allergies who also recognize crossreacting epitopes in oilseed rape pollen.”

“Our findings would not support the speculation that sensitization to oilseed rape pollen was predominantly due to crossreactivity with grass pollen. This finding is particularly important for those individuals occupationally exposed to oilseed rape pollen who may also be sensitized to grass pollen.”

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

...and the negative attitudes pertaining in the UK about the impact of the crop on the aesthetics of the UK. ...I have seen enough in the UK press to suggest to me that at least some members of the press hold this opinion.

Yeah CT, the press frequently quote from the reference included in Hemmer’s article about the “flashy nature of the crop” and also Murphy’s comment that “the anti-rapeseed bias in the UK is linked to prejudice against Brussels' bureaucrats.”

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

As I think I have pointed out earlier, the only way to totally assure the public that canola is not to blame is to find the cause. As we have no cause, there will always be a possibility, however minute, that canola is to blame. I am not in a position to say why no more funding for research on this topic has been forthcoming. However, I would suggest that a balance of probabilities approach to the existing evidence would suggest canola is not the cause (or at least canola alone).

Perhaps it would be interesting to hear the opinion of other contributors to this thread to see if they agree with your thoughts that there is no cause for concern, given the information presented on this thread so far. screener, forfismum, sparky, urbanFarmboy; any comments/opinions?

CT, I do not wish to be drawn into debating the horse data that you requested. I am pretty sure someone with your qualifications and experience would be more than capable of locating this data if you really wanted to.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by deek

Perhaps it would be interesting to hear the opinion of other contributors to this thread to see if they agree with your thoughts that there is no cause for concern, given the information presented on this thread so far. screener, forfismum, sparky, urbanFarmboy; any comments/opinions?

CT, I do not wish to be drawn into debating the horse data that you requested. I am pretty sure someone with your qualifications and experience would be more than capable of locating this data if you really wanted to.

Well ,I freely admit to knowing f*** all about everything so here is my bit.

Originally Posted by forfismum View Post
When I mentioned the ban on growing rape near schools you said that I lived in a funny country.This funny country used the Scottish experience to advise against growing the stuff anywhere near schools,as did HMG.

Not withstanding all the to-ing and fro-ing about the long term damage possibilites of GMO's I want to make just one observation .This technology is about profit and profit alone.

Then we got this bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forfismum View Post
CT is an unapolgetic apologist for the chemical industry
Really, forfismum, I don't think insults are called for, just because I don't agree with you.

Then we got this which has to be an insult.

And yet you pontificate in these areas.

So my point? I try to keep my posts short and on target,I use the word bollocks to describe........well....bollocks.

CT may I just say in all kindness to you...bollocks.

Thank you for your input deek,first class work.

[Cricket Tragic]

deek, I don’t want to be too picky, but the work that Jones mentioned (Welch et al. 2000) was not published until after Murphy’s opinion piece was published. In addition, Welch et al. (2000) were looking at people who had been occupationally exposed to oilseed rape pollen and found 2 who exhibited no cross-reactivity to grass pollen.

It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time for Murphy to suggest that most of those with diagnosed oilseed rape pollen allergy had existing allergy to other pollens. Indeed this is what had been reported by Fell et al. (1992), Hemmer et al. (1997) and Focke et al. (1998 ). More recent work, Focke et al. (2003) has shown at least one allergen in oilseed rape pollen does have cross-reactivity to other pollens, most notably birch pollen.

Oh and what Murphy actually said was: “Because patients experiencing allergic symptoms with rapeseed are generally atopic, it is possible that most of the rapeseed allergic pool is a subset of the more extensive pool of patients with grass pollen allergies, who also recognize crossreacting epitopes in rapeseed pollen.”

So Murphy’s mistake seems to be not knowing about unpublished work?

However, none of this bears at all on the pieces of opinion from Murphy that I did use.

Your failure to point out the intense scientific studies on horses that would apparently clinch your position does worry me. If this research was as good and as extensive as you suggest, surely that would clinch the matter and even I would have to agree? In the absence of your willingness to point out this data that you apparently know about and I can’t find, I can only assume that it contains something you don’t want me to see.

My own search turned up the following.

Preliminary observations on inhalation and intradermal challenges of horses with oil seed rape -- McGorum and Dixon 131 (8 ): 163 -- The Veterinary Record

The concluding sentence of the abstract is “Intradermal testing with the commercial extract of B napus pollen suggested that none of the horses were hypersensitive to this agent.” This doesn’t provide me with great confidence that there is a large body of scientific work showing horses have sensitive reactions to oilseed rape. I will head to the library at the local University and look this paper up to see what it specifically reports.

[screener]

[quote=deek;241916]CT, you may not be interested in Murphy’s qualifications or experience but others who post on this thread may well be if this indicates in a conflict of interest/biased reporting. I think Murphy’s “nailed his true colours to the mast” in his final paragraph: -

“Although it is important to continue to investigate potential health hazards, we should not unnecessarily stigmatize an important and versatile crop that can provide, not only a nutritious edible oil but also a huge spectrum of environmentally friendly, renewable industrial products ranging from lubricants and cosmetics to biodegradable plastics.”

In fact Murphy did get the evidence wrong and he was subsequently corrected by Jones, et al in a follow up letter published in Immunology Today in 2000.

“Murphy suggests that patients allergic to oilseed rape pollen are a subset of the more extensive pool of patients with grass pollen allergies who also recognize crossreacting epitopes in oilseed rape pollen.”

“Our findings would not support the speculation that sensitization to oilseed rape pollen was predominantly due to crossreactivity with grass pollen. This finding is particularly important for those individuals occupationally exposed to oilseed rape pollen who may also be sensitized to grass pollen.”

Perhaps it would be interesting to hear the opinion of other contributors to this thread to see if they agree with your thoughts that there is no cause for concern, given the information presented on this thread so far. screener, forfismum, sparky, urbanFarmboy; any comments/opinions?


It's been a good thread discussion, Lots of pros and cons and like forfismum i have to say it isn't my zone. Therefore I really appreciate it when acronyms or abbreviations of terms are defined. Volatile organics comes to mind right away. Thanks deek. I am still trying to get my head around IgE ....

I know that there are serious concerns for a person suffering from allergies or allergy like symptoms, no matter what the source. ie VO's or IgE's. Since I believe that Canola does cause an allergic reaction which can be fairly debilitating and I'm led to believe that GM canola being outside of our realm of experience might be a little more equal in allergy equivalence to traditional varieties, I think it would be appropriate for governments to have a requirement for funding from promoters for further research.

Canola is definitely a valuable crop, but a line has to be drawn that can't be drawn over a fenceline, where growers and supporters of the product have to accept responsibility for health concerns. That said there are seen in the discussion reference to cross reactivity with tree and grass allergies as well. I would like to see more info on this if there are any suggestions out there. Reducing reactivity to other allergens might be a partial solution.

Staying indoors during the season strikes me as being imposed upon, and worse I suspect there are many farm families where this kind of thing could push some away from the farm. I was wondering why Scotland in particular and my first reaction was the idea that in a denser population there would be more people susceptible, and more opportunity for sufferers to be sneezing at each other and coming to conclusions about where it is coming from. It crossed my mind and hung in there that maybe the Scots are just too cheap or possibly better to say too tough to go out and buy anything like those sissy antihistamine things.

Anyway I hope you are getting a % of what I'm getting out of the discussion Hang in there deek, I think you're wearing cricket tragic down. I've definitely noticed a subtle change in perspective from my first impression that CT was saying that there is nothing in this to the point where each type of causal factor attributable to canola is getting some recognition.

We have a lot of problems in the world but if we don't address them as they come up we just end up with more problems.

[JamesM]

"Perhaps we should be asking what your qualifications if the following areas are:

Experience and published research in the medical field
Experience and published research in the allergy field
Experience and published research in the Immunology field
Experience and published research in the oilseed rape allergy field"

Tut, tut, CT your not in academia now so throwing a wobbly about experience/publications doesn't look very good.

Besides it's all a joke anyway 'safety cleared', no independent scientist can support current GM on the basis of novel genetic constructs/gene escape/mutation and evolution... on the + side though the supporters are brilliantly identifying themselves as rent-a-titles.

So he who pays the piper is entirely accurate...

[deek]

forfismum, I see you are now pontificating too (I do like the new look). Taking the moral high ground I supose

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by forfismum

So you recommend that folks stick their hands in the fire to prove for themselves that it burns? Excellent approach.


Profit for Monsanto el al,that's all its about ,the rest is just sales talk.

I simply love how peoples true colors come out in these debates.

You talk about profit like its a bad thing yet profit is what cloths you and feeds you. Someone is making a profit somewhere, but if it happens to be Monsanto then its bad.

The technology allows farmers to increase their profit which in turn allows them to provide for their families. If you think that feeding people and bettering ones situations are bad, then there is not much sense in debating you.

[UrbanFarmboy]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

screener, I am interested in your comment that people in Canada suffer allergies from flowering canola. I would be interested in seeing any evidence you have for this statement. I have seen nothing from Health Canada on this, nor was there anything in the papers when I lived there. I also never heard anyone mention a problem with canola when I lived on the Canadian prairies. Grass pollen absolutely, but not canola. This does not even get a mention on the anti-canola blogs from Canada.

To be fair, pollen (gm or not) causes people to sneeze. It always has and it always will. Monoculture increases the concentration of pollen and could potentially influence those allergic to pollen who live in close proximity.

I live in Washington DC and the trees here go through a massive pollen release at the beginning of spring. All the cars are covered with it and I sometimes sneeze and have water eyes. But, this is what happens when people live in direct contact with pollen and not some massive conspiracy by biotechnology companies to poison the world in order to make a bit of profit.

[screener]

how about a massive conspiracy to make a bit of profit WHILE incidentally poisoning the planet? what do you think?

feeding people and bettering ones situation is what farmers are trying to do. there is considerable pressure on farmers to fall for that line. but there are alternatives to gmos that are more sustainable, more able to continue producing and feeding people since the cheap oil has gone, and more able to lessen the impact of new gm strains on health and the environment.