GM Potato Blight trials to go ahead.

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
It appears that one ten metre by ten metre trial plot in the middle of an enormous area of Clover is going to kill more people than the episode that Colin alludes to.
This is simply a total load of rubbish and those that have written it know this very well as they are writing it.
Have we got 40 counties in England and Wales?
The Round-up patent has been time expired now for several years and is now produced by many companies but they have to have yet another crack at Monsanto. What a sad lot of people they are.
JB.

[John Walker]

I don't think anyone would disagree that this is a hugely important topic that should be of concern to all gardeners (growing scientific concern about the effect of glyphosate on the environment is just one intertwined strand of a sometimes complex debate about GM crops).

But I am failing to see any real benefit to this forum of a prolonged exchange between a few pro-gm forum members which might just be better suited to a private chat room.

A few people giving the impression that there is only one side worth listening to in 'the great GM debate' is hardly in keeping with the spirit of what a forum should be:

1 a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged : it will be a forum for consumers to exchange their views on medical research.
2 a court or tribunal.
3 ( pl. fora |ˈfôrə|) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

Could I humbly suggest more of 1. above would benefit us all. I'm afraid phrases such as "the same old rubbish from the Organic faction" are going to encourage no one to join in with a debate, because they are a complete turn-off - they do absolutely nothing to encourage folk to join in.

[alan refail]

An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site where people can hold conversations in the form of posted messages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_f ... faqFORUM-0

The thread seems to conform to that definition, though, I admit, it would be good to see both sides.

[Johnboy]

Hi John,
There is absolutely nothing humble about your postings and when I write the about 'the same old organic rubbish' you could at least give us the benefit of your 'humble' words on the subject instead of crying in your beer!
JB.

[alan refail]

I am probably an "agnostic" when it comes to opposing or supporting GM. What I do stand up for is genuine research, which is what the two GM potato trials which have appeared in this forum are. I do not support "fundamentalist" opposition and vandalism.

I have looked long and hard for a single point of hard, incontrovertible fact from which the "faith" of GM opposition can claim credence. I don't think I've found it. The arguments put forward by the opponents of Irish trials, and the "10 reasons why we don't need GM foods" proposed by GMWatch don't, to me at least, include that single "article of faith", but more a disparate series of possible justifications for a "fundamentalist" belief.

Can any opponent of GM suggest what I am looking for.

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
A rather interested view on the Irish anti GM campaign.

http://www.science20.com/cool-links/gm_ ... yway-92613

PS. Read the dialogue following the article. Hank has the right way to handle things for sure. I find the dialogue amusing.
JB.

[Arnie]

Hi

Will someone invite Hank to the Forum

Regards

Arnie

[alan refail]

Johnboy

Thanks for the link. As so often happens the humour contains so much truth; his final comment is a great example:

Don't you kind of wish for the first decade of the 2000s, when relatively harmless right-wing people only wanted to limit stem cell research and deny global warming? The left-wing nuts of this decade, and their anti-vaccine and anti-GMO agendas, are determined to kill people instead.

I really was hoping for a reply to my recent plea: viewtopic.php?p=104957#p104957
Nothing seems forthcoming,

Despite John Walker's strictures on the lack of debate: viewtopic.php?p=104912#p104912 I find this particular thread, from your first post onwards to have generated more debate than most threads, and with only minimal thread drift too. I took the trouble to read the entire thread over the weekend. With contributions from David Shaw of Sarvari Trust, Simon Foster of Sainsbury Laboratory and the Soil Association I fail to see that anyone can suggest that this thread is one-sided. In fact I would vote it far and away the best "controversial" thread on the whole KG Forum.

[alan refail]

More rational than humorous these contributions from Eoin Lettice, an Irish lecturer in Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences at University College Cork, are worth a read to appreciate the rigorous conditions under which the trials are taking place; there are also some pertinent comments on why the research is needed.

Guardian article Why Ireland needs to test GM potatoes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/ ... m-potatoes

And articles from Mr Lettice's own science blog:

http://www.communicatescience.eu/2012/0 ... eland.html

http://www.communicatescience.eu/2012/0 ... ahead.html

[Johnboy]

In order to genetically modify any seed it is necessary to have an understanding of what function particular genes are responsible for in the genetic make-up of that seed.
With the genetic modification of Potatoes the gene or sequence of genes responsible for combating blight has been sequenced and are inserted into the seed of the target potato. In the case of the British trial Desiree and Maris Piper are the host potatoes varieties.
The object of the trial is an attempt to make both of these popular varieties highly blight resistant. With all the laboratory trials completed these potatoes must undergo field trials to prove the theory. This may be successful or it simply may fail but only a trial lasting two years will give the scientists involved the knowledge they are trying to prove.
The Organic factions are convinced that gene marking will revolutionise conventional hybridizing. In real terms this is simply not the case.
You may know what particular functions that genes fulfil but to then try hybridizing conventionally means that you may not get the particular gene or sequence of genes to transfer or you transfer so many unwanted genes as to render the hybridizing useless.
The only benefit as I see it the shortening of the time of knowing when they have either hit the target or missed it. Quite frankly you could try using conventional methods for years and years and get absolutely nowhere and possibly never.. These years cost time and research money and these years are years that are wasted unnecessarily.
With Genetic Modification the success rate will be higher but obviously not all modifications are successful but these are generally sorted out in the laboratory before it gets to the ultimate trial, the field work.
Now I put it to you that if GM is very precise and conventional hybridizing nowhere near as precise which is the more dangerous in field trials? Something that is precise or one that has gone off half cocked!
I feel that there is sufficient material in this posting to kick off a meaningful debate.
I might add that at least 25% of our potato crop each year is lost to blight and therefore provisions have to be made by sowing that much larger acreage to make-up any possible shortfalls. That extra acreage could be used to grow something else.
The implications for the country’s economy are very clear.
JB.

[alan refail]

I feel that there is sufficient material in this posting to kick off a meaningful debate.

What a well considered posting. It looks as thought the debate is very slow to start.

[alan refail]

Annual losses due to blight in Ireland are estimated at £12m, with as many as 15 fungicide applications needed during the growing season.

Blight chemicals are costing Irish farmers up to £430/ha this year.

http://www.redfoxexecutive.com/3/indust ... fits-of-gm

[alan refail]

Meanwhile back in Norwich ...

Genetically modified potato trial near Norwich yields evidence of success against late blight

Early results from the third year of a GM potato trial at Colney, near Norwich, has shown graphic evidence of success.

Prof Jonathan Jones, group leader at the Sainsbury Laboratory, said that late blight “was wreaking havoc in all the plants that are non-GM.”

Now, the project team plans to submit a report on the trials to the Royal Society’s proceedings journal later this year once the full results have been fully analysed.

The trial involved a total of 192 potato plants in June 2010, which was repeated last year, and again earlier this summer. Prof Jones said that the trial was designed to test the plant’s ability to withstand late potato blight.

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/gen ... _1_1475819

[Johnboy]

Hi Alan,
Oh dear! Tear soaked beer again!

But I am failing to see any real benefit to this forum of a prolonged exchange between a few pro-gm forum members which might just be better suited to a private chat room.

A few people giving the impression that there is only one side worth listening to in 'the great GM debate' is hardly in keeping with the spirit of what a forum should be:

Of course it was totally different with the Peat fiasco! The Non Peat fiasco, ( which is still yet to be resolved.)
I am sure that our postings are not as world shattering as to be " Private chat room only." What a ---ody cheek!
JB.

[alan refail]

The trial results rather put an end to the "GM is a failed/outdated technology" justification for opposing trials.