The great GM debate

[Johnboy]

Hi NB,
At the very outset I must say that had there been more players of the stature we have in Europe there would not have been the rest of the world for Monsanto to spread their form of GM and for this I am afraid that I do blame the Anti GM Lobby because they are still at it now!
You must be aware that every ploughed field in this country has to have margins and farmers are no longer allowed to plough right up to the edge of the field. These safeguards are already in place here in UK. The only snag with that is that the conservationist are never satisfied and now they want great swathes of land to be left which we do not have sufficient land to spare. Wildlife finds its own way and I have just witnessed a charm of Goldfinches numbering some 40 birds feeding on the margins of my field of Barley.
However when I asked you to look beyond Monsanto I really mean such things as the GM Potato Blight and the GM Wheat announced this week.
These field trials are essential but they run the risk of being trashed by the Anti GM Lobby and I would suggest to you that this should never ever be tolerated.
With the Farmer To Farmer clip there were things that were just a bit tongue in cheek. Irrespective of the fact that the Canola was roundup ready the seeds would be transferred by the Geese and the farmer would have the same problem. If the crop they were infesting wasn't GMRR he would still have the same problem of getting rid of them. So the crop was 7.8 square miles but the infestation was very light and going down the lines on an ATV would very soon have the weeds out of the way.
Lets face it Organic Wheat for seed in UK is hand weeded as part and parcel of the job in hand. This is where UK and USA differ quite widely.
An American Farmer is so used to not getting off his backside that he cannot contemplate hand weeding. Hard work never killed anybody.
I do not propose to answer the part of your letter regarding overseas aid and GM because I feel that it is not part of the brief within the remit of this thread. However I will PM you and we can have an exchange of views and I can assure you that my views are very similar to your own.
JB

[alan refail]

GM wheat scientists at Rothamsted make plea to protesters

The plea being: "Talk rather than trashing the experimental crops".

I wonder if the protest lobby is going to be capable of rational discussion.

Full story here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17906172

[Geoff]

"I wonder if the protest lobby is going to be capable of rational discussion."
You jest - read this and thought somebody's left the asylum unlocked again. There is something seriously wrong with the education systems all over the world that allows all these groups from extreme environmentalists to religious fanatics to flourish, is it the oxygen of publicity and politically correct balanced views being allowed?

[alan refail]

To fill out the story a little more, here is what Rothampsted have to say about the trials

http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php ... AphidWheat

Here is Take the Flour Back's campaign site

http://taketheflourback.org/

Here is the letter from scientists in response

http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content/Aph ... Letter.pdf

My apologies for all the links - read and make up your own mind.

[Tony Hague]

Well, in this case the GM wheat sounds like a quite clever idea.

I do wish that the scientists would go steady on the argument that all crops are in fact genetically modified; I think this does them no good. The protesters may not understand the full processes involved in GM, but they certainly know that lab based GM differs in important ways from conventional plant breeding, and accept the latter but oppose the former. If the scientists want to say that GM carries no more significant risks than conventional breeding then they need to explain why, not just sweep it under the carpet as if it's all the same thing really.

[Nature's Babe]

If all GM was clearly labelled then at least people would have choice in the matter, many don't realise if you eat meat, most animals are fed on imported GM. Organic meat is GM free. If you eat fish and chips out it is probably cooked in GM oil.
http://www.genewatch.org/sub-568547

[alan refail]

Well, in this case the GM wheat sounds like a quite clever idea.

I do wish that the scientists would go steady on the argument that all crops are in fact genetically modified; I think this does them no good. The protesters may not understand the full processes involved in GM, but they certainly know that lab based GM differs in important ways from conventional plant breeding, and accept the latter but oppose the former. If the scientists want to say that GM carries no more significant risks than conventional breeding then they need to explain why, not just sweep it under the carpet as if it's all the same thing really.

Fair point Tony - though all they say is:
Remember – all plants in all types of agriculture are genetically modified to
serve humanity’s needs, and the (E)-β-farnesene compound our wheat produces is already found in
over 400 species of plant, many of which are consumed as food and drink on a daily basis (including
the hops used in beer, to give just one example)

The anti-GM protesters certainly understand very little when they can come out with nonsense such as:
Rothamsted have planted a new GM wheat trial designed to repel aphids. It contains genes for antibiotic-resistance and an artificial gene ‘most similar to a cow’.

Whether one supports GM of not, it's clear who has the brains!

[Johnboy]

Whenever two plants are hybridized there is a modification to the gene pattern. With GM you actually know what the new gene structure will be. If you simply cross two (lets say cabbages) you haven't got the foggiest idea what the new gene pattern will be and it is therefore infinitely more dangerous than any GM.
If those against this GM Wheat Trial at Rothamsted Research Station manage to trash the crop,as threatened, I sincerely hope those responsible receive hefty custodial sentences.
Certainly there are types of GM that were in the first generation that I am not at all happy with.
Had those who have campaigned against GM had not made so many untruthful statements by spreading scare stories then GM would have been entirely different today. It seems that those who dislike conglomerate companies did not have the foresight that they were playing into the hands of the very people they dislike because they are the only ones that have had the money behind them to ride out the ridiculous and scandalous campaigns run against GM.
But when it comes to the oldest research establishment in the land they are treated in the same way as Monsanto have been and for that you should all hang your heads in shame!
JB.

[Tony Hague]

With GM you actually know what the new gene structure will be. If you simply cross two (lets say cabbages) you haven't got the foggiest idea what the new gene pattern will be and it is therefore infinitely more dangerous than any GM.

This strikes me as a very peculiar view. Conventional hybridisation uses the normal reproductive methods of plants, which has fairly selective constraints on cross fertility. You cross two cabbages and you know with good confidence that, although you may not be able to predict it's gene sequence, you will get a cabbage, with some of the characteristics of each parent. And it is not likely to be dangerous

With GM you can effectively bypass nature's gatekeeper and force your way in through the back door, inserting whatever genes you wish. For the results to be predictable assumes that you have a full understanding of the influence of the genes upon the characteristics of the resulting plant.

[Nature's Babe]

I think the argument with monsanto is more about their use of chemicals and their patents and monopolies than the plant breeding. Agent orange / vietnam for example - many are now dying and gene damage has been passed down to children and grandchildren , they are fighting for compensation through dire illness, parents and children ill and while trying to cope with that having to do battle to try and get some compensation
http://www.facebook.com/pages/zipperhea ... &filter=12

[Colin Miles]

Code: Select all

This strikes me as a very peculiar view. Conventional hybridisation uses the normal reproductive methods of plants, which has fairly selective constraints on cross fertility. You cross two cabbages and you know with good confidence that, although you may not be able to predict it's gene sequence, you will get a cabbage, with some of the characteristics of each parent. And it is not likely to be dangerous :) 

Johnboy may be exaggerating a bit for effect, but technically he is probably correct. We share half of our genes with bananas but that does not make us half-bananas - or maybe it does with some of us! Genes are not specific to species, it is the combination of genes that makes a species. So 2 cabbages could 'mate' and produce something that is not a cabbage - unlikely but that is one way in which a new species are produced.

[Tony Hague]

I will confess that I am no biologist, but an engineer. Taking an engineering parallel - If I am modifying a complex bit of software, or an electronic design, I approach it with a good deal of caution, a good understanding of the system I'm working on, and a bunch of documentation. But the most important thing is that it is an engineered system; software has been designed to me maintainable, obscure side effects of functions are avoided by design.

With a genome, you're hacking around at something that is "designed" (for want of a better word) by trial and error on a grand scale. The possibility for surprising outcomes must surely be significant ?

[alan refail]

It occurs to me to wonder whether anyone has ever died or become ill by eating food containing GM ingredients. Given that America is probably the country where most GM is produced and is also the most litigious nation on earth, it seems strange that we hear nothing of court cases claiming compensation.

Having said that, I must say that I have never, to my knowledge, eaten anything containing or fed on GM ingredients.

[Colin Miles]

Having said that, I must say that I have never, to my knowledge, eaten anything containing or fed on GM ingredients.

Alan, I was under the impression that we all ate GM food, whether we like or not - due to the fact that a certain small percentage is allowed in certain foodstuffs - up to 0.9% if this link is to be believed.

http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/consultation_responses/a_submission_to_the_doe_co.pdf

And as you say, noone has died from eating GM food. As America is so litigous you would have expected class actions galore.

As for your analogy Tony, I think living things are infinitely more complex than even the most complex software - I too have been programming for 50+ years. If we adopted the precautionary approach conventional 'breeding' would never happen.

[alan refail]

A question: does eating meat from an animal which has had a small (less than 1%) amount of GM material in its feed count as "eating GM food"?

In the same vein, I wonder whether eating eggs from my hens, which eat a fairly large amount of grass, counts as eating grass!