Wiscidea raises an interesting question: Could GM be used to reduce the need for fertilizers and pesticides and boost the organic-food market? Would the sustainable-food movement accept genetically modified organic food?
Put aside for a moment the execrable global corporate-welfare copyright clusterfuck that is the current GMO industry.
Imagine instead collaborative, transparent open-source biotechnology, fueled by volunteers or money from progressive foundations, wealthy donors, and NGOs. Unlikely? Yes. But imagine.
Would environmentalists accept it, or is there something intrinsic to genetic manipulation that greens are supposed to object to?
What do y'all think?
Comments
View as Flat
Heidi Posted 11:04 pm
18 Oct 2006
The idea of open source tech for GMO does sound infinitely more appealing than the current set-up, but if the side effects include slowly wiping out native vegetation, I imagine environmentalists would still stand in opposition.
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 12:36 am
19 Oct 2006
I think I would not object to GMO absent patents on lifeforms, engineered dependance on chemicals and ownership of genetic material.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will lie forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 1:10 am
19 Oct 2006
There are many problems with GE crops. To me the most problematic are contamination of non-GM crops, escape into the wild (as has already happened with GE canola [rape seed]); and the impacts on pollinators like bees and butterflies who are killed by GE crops with their own Bt. There are real health issues for people, and animals fed GE grain as well, including increased antibiotic resistance.
Not to mention that the increased yields promised by biotech firms just has not played out. Neither has reduced pesticide use. Crop pests quickly develop resistance requiring more and more pesticides and eventually different ones.
Frankly I don't understand how GE crops can feed the world any better than conventional crops. GE was created to make money for its corporate creators. If we really want to grow more, healthier crops, the way to do it is to move away from industrial agriculture toward smaller, more diverse operations. Building the soil rather than adding nitrogen in the form of chemical fertilizers will result in healthier plants. I doubt biotech crops can be grown organically in any case (assuming organic allowed such things).
Permalink
Danothebaldyheid Posted 1:41 am
19 Oct 2006
I tend to think that, sooner or later this will have to be the way things go. Unfortunately such a route would entail the destruction of the current, ridiculous property rights system of gene management ( since when has discovering something been enough to patent it as happens now with genes?! Good thing Columbus never patented America or you would all owe his descendants a pretty packet).
The probability of that happening without a serious fight is surely remote....
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:47 am
19 Oct 2006
GTOs are more like computer viruses---once released into the user space, they reproduce where not desired and wind up corrupting the systems of those who would abjure their use.
The corporate criminal fix to all this, of course, is yet more hubris, the "terminator gene"--- so corporate agribusiness tells us we must accept GTOs but, it's ok, they are sterile ... forgetting that the terminator gene--the gene that destroys plants' ability to reproduce--is itself a pathological feat of tampering that threatens the entire agricultural base of civilization.
So, no, you cannot have an organic sustainable agricultural system based on gene tampering, because systems built on GTOs are inherently destructive of the natural system. Administrative controls do not work with these technologies--e.g., we are already seeing GT maize in places of Mexico that have prohibited GTOs.
(Also--it would be well to insist on the the term "genetic tampering" becuase the terms "genetically modified" and "GMO" are corporate propaganda tools, intended to create the suggestion that the people doing it have attained the kind of control implicit in the benign term "modified." [Like calling sewage slugdge "biosolids."] We tamper with something when we play with it without understanding it or what our tampering is likely to do---exactly the case with messing with genotypes.)
Permalink
mihan Posted 3:38 am
19 Oct 2006
The GMO soybean is created with only one goal: maximize profits for ADM/Cargill. It doesn't take into account what consumers want from their soybeans or what the growing environment demands.
If GMO crops can actually take into account the consumer, then I'll be for them. I don't really think that's possile under our current political/economic structure, though.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:09 am
19 Oct 2006
Fish and tomatoes don't interbreed and create Flavor-Savr(R) hybrids --- that's a product of gene tampering.
Permalink
gleef Posted 4:25 am
19 Oct 2006
Just look at how much unplanned damage has happened to traditional corn and rapeseed/canola crops thanks to the introduction of GMOs: their pollen is hard to control, which has resulted in millions of unintentional GMO/traditional hybrids. This damage would have happened whether or not Monsanto and other corporate pushers of GMOs wanted to alter the crops of people who aren't their customers. Now, we can't honestly say that any canola grown in the US is truly Organic, and it's getting close to that point for corn as well.
For a tried and true "Open Source" green organic option, pay attention to what is arguably the first "Open Source" development system, traditional husbandry.
You pay attention to what crops are growing, what you want the crops to do better, and you breed the plants accordingly. It takes a while for results, but millenia of experience lets us know it results in good food, rather than just guessing and hoping for GMO crops.
Permalink
claxton6 Posted 8:10 am
19 Oct 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:44 pm
19 Oct 2006
J.S.
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 3:57 am
20 Oct 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 4:22 am
20 Oct 2006
Assistant Professor,
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 6:17 am
20 Oct 2006
Here's a brief excerpt from an article I wrote about GE a few years ago (the information is still accurate): Genetic engineering is the genetic modification of organisms by isolating genes from other plants, bacteria, viruses, and animals (including humans) and inserting them into the embryonic cells of the plant or organism of choice. Unlike conventional crossbreeding, which farmers have used for thousands of years to improve crops and animals, GE crosses species boundaries. For example, broccoli can be crossbred with cauliflower because they're members of the same family, but not with a fish or tomato -- at least not until GE came along.
Here's a quick overview of the process: First scientists identify the genes used to control a desired trait. Then, with the help of various chemicals, these genes are extracted from the DNA strands. Next an insertion package is prepared that, in addition to the desired genes, contains promoter genes to keep the desired trait turned on in the host; penetration genes which come mostly from viruses or bacteria, to overpower the host cells' defense mechanism against invasion; and marker genes, which make cells resistant to antibiotics, to help researchers determine successful insertion. The package is then forced into the host's cells using a vector or delivery system, most commonly a bacterium. Retroviruses are often used for mammals; AIDS is a retrovirus. Other methods of insertion include exposing cells to electric fields or inoculating cells with a solution of the desired genes.
One of the most serious human health risks associated with genetic engineering is antibiotic resistance and the resurgence of infectious diseases. As the above explains, genetic engineers use antibiotic "markers" in virtually every GE product. Modified cells are exposed to an antibiotic, the survivors contain the desired trait -- as well as the marker gene. An increasing number of bacteria are resistant to many, some even to most, of the available antibiotics. According to a press release dated April 6, 1998 from Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, professor of biology at Open University in the UK "Vancomycin resistance rose from 3% to 95% in San Francisco hospitals in the four years between 1993 and 1997. And Staphylococcus (toxic shock syndrome) is now invulnerable to all known antibiotics".
The resurgence of infectious diseases may also be linked to GE products. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho explains, "At the heart of the issue is the . . . transfer of genes by vectors such as viruses and other infectious agents. . . . While natural vectors respect species boundaries, the barrage of artificial vectors made by genetic engineers are designed to cross species boundaries, thus greatly enhancing the potential for creating new viral and bacterial pathogens, and spreading drug and antibiotic resistance . . . Recent statistics are frightening. Infectious diseases were responsible for one-third of the 52 million deaths from all causes in 1995. Multi-drug resistant tuberculosis is now estimated to affect 10 million each year with 3 million deaths. At least 50 new viruses attacking humans emerged between 1988 and 1996. . . . The first genetic engineers called for a moratorium on the Asilomar Declaration of 1975, precisely because they were afraid of inadvertently creating new viral and bacterial pathogens. The worst case scenario they envisaged may be taking shape."
The article these paragraphs came from was written in 1999. Still, the information is accurate. Antibiotic resistance continues to be a serious problem, along with infectious diseases. Check Dr. Mae-Wan Ho on the internet; her credentials are impeccable.
Even if we could solve the huge issue of who really benefits from GMO, there's still the process itself which is violent (at the cellular level) and dangerous to people and the environment.
And I agree with JoeSchmoe about the moral issues surrounding GMO. We're like mad scientists playing god. And then there's the genetic manipulation of animals. "Pharmed" goats by Genzyme Corp in MA and Nexia Biotechnologies in Canada created to give milk that contains pharmaceutical chemicals; monkeys with jellyfish genes that glow green under ultraviolet light, salmon produced by Aqua Bounty Farms in MA designed to grow fast and eat less, pigs with human growth hormone . . . It seems we just don't know when to stop.
Life is more than chemical reactions and strands of DNA telling cells and organs what to do. Unfortunately few scientists don't see it this way. If we can do it, then we should, seems to be the general thinking. But what about the nature of the organism itself? It's an important question that we, as a society, should be asking ourselves before we do more damage than we have already.
The argument here seems to be that if GMO can be somehow be taken away from the corporations that now control it for profit (which under our current political/economic system is just not going to happen), and if it can be used to the benefit of the starving millions, without undue damage to the environment or people (which the jury is still out on and in fact the more we learn, the more dangerous GE appears), then why not use the technology?
I still say there's no reason why the way farmers have been manipulating seed crops through cross breeding, creating hybrids, grafting, etc. isn't good enough. Further, we can listen to what the plants have to say. I know this sounds new agey but it's how Barbara McClintock, a biologist who received a Nobel Prize for her work on gene transposition in corn plants, did her work. She watched the corn each day, came to know each plant intimately. She respected life and widened her vision so that she could literally see and hear deeply into the mysteries of the plants she studied. She translated what she heard and saw into the language of science. This is what we need to be doing more of, not violating the basic makeup of life itself. We know a lot, but we just don't know enough.
Permalink
wordwright Posted 12:13 pm
20 Oct 2006
Permalink
jscorse Posted 4:57 pm
20 Oct 2006
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 12:38 am
21 Oct 2006
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 3:36 am
21 Oct 2006
The moral claim I base my statement is this: things which have a good or bad independent of human desires--an inherent worth--deserve respect. The natural world has inherent worth, therefore it deserves our respect. Respect involves not placing your desires above that of the thing with inherent worth. Genetic engineering disrespects the natural world in putting our perceived good above the inherent good of the natural world. Thus, is immoral.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:16 am
21 Oct 2006
"...look at how much unplanned damage has happened to ... rapeseed/canola crops thanks to the introduction of GMOs"... and "... we can't honestly say that any canola grown in the US is truly Organic..."
Let's consider the history of canola. It was derived from rapeseed by means of traditional breeding -- including techniques such as chemical mutagenesis or irradiation used to alter the level of expression of or knock out undesirable genes. Chemicals and radiation were used to convert rapeseed from a source of industrial lubricant to a source of edible oil.
Wow. Now that is tampering with nature. It isn't even informed tinkering; it is violently shaking things up and hoping for the best. If inserting a single gene of known function into a known location of a plant chromosome is considered dangerous, immoral, or an abomination of nature, what would be the product of actually treating a plant with chemicals or radiation to create random and largely unknown changes in its DNA? What might be the unintended consequences?
Canola is just one edible plant that was the product of chemical mutagenesis or irradiation. See "Global Impact of Mutation-Derived Varieties" by B.S. Ahloowalia, M. Maluszynski, and K. Nichterlein in the Journal Euphytica (135: 187-204, 2004) for a review.
Can canola really be classified as organic, even if it is free of transgenes? And how many other plants should be removed from the organic list?
Permalink
jscorse Posted 3:26 pm
21 Oct 2006
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 10:26 am
22 Oct 2006
It doesn't matter what strikes you as fantasy, it is your argument that matters. You haven't provided one, or responded to the arguments of others--you've only dismissed them.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:20 pm
22 Oct 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JoeSchmoe Posted 11:25 pm
22 Oct 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 4:55 am
23 Oct 2006
" ...I am under the impression that they would threaten native species the same way invasives do..."
I need to look into this, but here is my preliminary opinion. I am currently attempting to save and expand a small prairie remnant in Wisconsin. The primary threat to my project is invasive plants. Eurasian plants, like thistles and sweet clover, that rapidly colonize exposed soil, quickly grow, and shade out the native plants are a problem. Perennials that spread rhizomally are especially problematic, while annuals can be reduced by simply preventing seed set. Plants that develop into a dense uniform stand, like honey suckle or buckthorn, and eliminate competition are a problem.
I suspect most if not all of our agricultural crops are so dependent on humans for survival that even improved varieties will not become invasive... unless they are turned into agressive perennials that spread rhizomally and produce massive amounts of wind-dispersed seed... and I would oppose the sort of project that would create such a monster.
In her book "Shrinking the Cat", Sue Hubbell briefly describes how corn would quickly fail in the wild. According to her... the seeds, which have to be tightly attached to facilitate harvesting, do not disperse well. If they do germinate where a cob falls, the young shoots die from overcrowding.
In her book "Mendel in the Kitchen", Nina Federoff describes similar problems for other grains... growers want seeds that stay attached to the stalk, have lost the ability to naturally work their way into the soil, and display uniform germination. Such plants are not fir for survival wild.
GMOs might be even more dependent on humans for propagation. Or they could be engineered to be so.
Please keep in mind that I am not advocating unrestrained use of 21st-century biotechnology.
Heidi might have presented the best case against GMOs. If anyone has information showing that GMOs are invasive simply because they are GMOs, please let me know.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:19 am
23 Oct 2006
"...the impacts on pollinators like bees and butterflies who are killed by GE crops with their own Bt..."
It would be foolish express Bt in the pollen or nectar of a crop pollinated by bees. I doubt this is being done. There is aleady a threat to fruit production in the U.S. due to a declining bee population. Grains are wind-pollinated, so bees are not affected. And the Bt-Monarch problem does not exist.
Regarding...
"There are real health issues for people, and animals fed GE grain as well, including increased antibiotic resistance."
Increased antibiotic resistance is due to excessive use of antibiotics. I disapprove of excessive use of antibiotics, especially if it is necessary for maintaining the health of otherwise very poorly treated animals. You might be surprise to learn I drink only organic milk.
Regarding...
"Building the soil rather than adding nitrogen in the form of chemical fertilizers will result in healthier plants."
Research in biotechnology includes figuring out how to engineer plants to fix there own nitrogen or improve plants that naturally fix nitrogen. GMOs do not necessarily demand more chemicals. Indeed, with the increasing cost of energy, research should focus on reducing chemical inputs, especially nitrogen. This is what farmers -- small and large -- will need VERY SOON.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:34 am
23 Oct 2006
"Genetically tampered organisms (GTOs) are the antithesis of the open source movement, because the open source movement allows each user to determine for his or herself the version that will be used."
Several peope have brought up the patent issue and I'm starting to think that is the real problem with GMOs. I do not know enough to comment except that much biotech research is done by academic institutions and there are people who release it to the public domain. Perhaps rather than rejecting GMOs because corporations are controlling the distribution and use of many of them, those who might benefit from GMOs should focus on moving them all into the public domain.
If this could be done, GMOs would be compatible with open source in that anyone could use the engineered plants in their own breeding programs. If a univeristy were to release, say, a tomato that fixed nitrogen, you would be free to cross it with any variety you wish. No more flavr-savr tomatoes. Put the desirable gene into a variety YOU want to grow. Perhaps small growers could use the newly introduce trait and their personal knowledge to create even better varieties to sell for a greater profit at the local market.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 10:23 am
23 Oct 2006
Increased antibiotic resistance is happening because of over use of antibiotics, yes, and the antibiotics in factory raised meat also add to the problem. GMOs do too because of what happens in the lab. Did you read my post a while back that explains this and quotes Dr. Mae-Wan Ho who is an extremely credible scientist? Her papers go into detail on this and other related issues with regard to GMOs. There are numerous books out there that lay out the many problematic issues - culturally, economically, environmentally, and with regard to human health - of GMOs. Just because someone has an opinion on something does not make it so. There is something called the Precautionary Principle, which basically says that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to things like chemicals in the environment, "allowable" amounts of pollution, food irradiation, and GMOs. As I've stated before, we've only been eating GMOs for ten years, and it's only been in the past five or six years that they have become insidious. So we're the guinea pigs. Maybe that 's okay with Jason and Wiscidea but it's not okay with me. Vandana Shiva speaks eloquently about this issue, and writes about it as well. Brian Tokar has written many articles and a book on the subject. http://www.thecampaign.org has lots of information. Of course their an organization that's opposed to it so that might lessen their credibility in the mind of someone who likes the idea, but facts are facts. And yes, you will find scientists, well-meaning scientists, who will insist that biotech is worth the risks. You'll also find those who say it's not. I've read and researched and spoken with various experts over the years and come to the conclusion that the money spent on it could be better spent on other ways to feed the world. I happen to think it's morally wrong, and one of the reasons is because of what I've learned over the years.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:32 pm
23 Oct 2006
"... plants are in fact being raised that have Bt in their pollen. And yes, this is killing pollinators. This is a fact. But you're right, it's foolish. Still, it's being done. Corn and potatoes specifically."
I'm having a bit of trouble with this. Bt is killing pollinators? If you refering to the Bt-Monarch problem... that has been discredited.
I truly want to understand this issue and will look into the example of GMO feed causing antibiotic resistance, which you mentioned in an earlier post.
In the mean time, could you direct me to info about Bt plants killing pollinators? You metioned corn and potatoes as specific examples. I'm skeptical about the corn issue because corn if wind pollinated. It seems unlikely that large numbers of pollinators are hanging out on corn plants and consuming sufficient Bt pollen to die. You could be correct about potatoes. I don't see much bee actvity around my own plants, but perhaps large fields attract pollinators. I would like to learn more about this.
Goung back to my notion that the technology itself is not the problem, please share your concerns regarding my specific example. How will a ucltivated potato containing a wild potato gene conferring resistance to late blight adversely affect the environment? The gene does not seem tot adversely affect whatever organism pollinates wild potatoes.
Permalink
willa Posted 12:32 am
24 Oct 2006
But what I'm opposed to is the corporations, not the science. They have taken a fascinating thread of science and woven it into a net to catch profits (we're the by-catch, to strain an analogy to breaking). It is an unquestionable evil in my mind to risk people's health for the corporate bottom line, not to mention the evil of severing farmers from their cyclical relationship with plants by making their seeds sterile.
But I have to agree with Wiscidea that fundamentally it's a promising technology. It could be used alongside other environmentally and otherwise sensitive techniques to actually help people and the environment at the same time. That would be great, and if everything were out in the open and explained to the public's satisfaction, I would have no problem seeing it labelled organic.
I'd like some more hard evidence regarding the Bt and antibiotics and whatnot, too. Calling a scientist "extremely credible" doesn't make everything she says true (and the fact that the "Institute of Science in Society" website glorifies her without mentioning that she is the organization's founder makes me skeptical). I looked around http://www.thecampaign.org and I didn't find anything that really addressed the issues we're discussing. If you have facts, please post them, though!
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 3:59 am
26 Oct 2006
To Bt or Not to Bt:
The Sound Science That Brought Down Bt Crops
Angela Ryan
ISIS News #5
Since the publication of Losey's study in the journal Nature showing that Bt-corn pollen harms monarch butterflies, things have gone into a downward spiral for Bt-crops. Bt-corn is now banned in Austria, France and Germany, and Monsanto's Bt-potato division has been closed down by its new parent company, Pharmacia.
'Bt' is short for Bacillus thuringiensis, the soil bacterium providing the genes for making toxins that kill insects; different forms of which are incorporated into GM crops. The adverse environmental impacts of Bt crops are now well documented in the scientific literature, ranging from harm to non target organisms to the evolution of resistance in insect pests, making it necessary to plant a high proportion of non-Bt crop for 'resistance management'. Aberrant gene expression in the field results in low-dose varieties which are ineffective in pest control and foster resistance. Cross pollination with non GM varieties creates Bt-weeds, and the Bt-plants themselves cause major problems as volunteers. Active Bt toxin leaks from plant roots into the soil where it is not biodegradable and accumulates over time. This will have major impacts on soil health, with knock-on effects on all other trophic levels of the ecosystem. The recent report that a GM gene has transferred from GM pollen to microbes in the gut of bee larvae underlines the fact that Bt toxin genes, like all other GM genes, will spread out of control. The case for withdrawing all Bt-crops is now compelling. The way the case has been built is exemplary of the power of good independent science, which is indispensable for sound policy decisions. No less than eighteen Bt crops were approved for field testing by the US Dept. of Agriculture between 1987 and 1997 (1). Bt cotton was the first to be approved for commercial use (USA 1995), followed by corn, potato and tomato. The first specific concerns on the safety of Bt crops were raised from within the scientific community in 1997 when Angelicka Hilbeck and colleagues (2) showed that lacewings fed on pests that have eaten Bt-maize took longer to develop and were two to three times more likely to die. Organic farmers also started to voice their fears -- they have been using the spores of Bacillus thuringiensis as an occasional insecticide spray. Their fear was founded in the rapid development of resistance to Bt toxin in pest populations continuously exposed throughout the GM plant's growing season, with the potential loss of their only organic insecticide. They were also worried about GM contamination via cross-pollination -- now admitted as unavoidable by our regulators.
Then came Losey's famous Monarch butterfly study (3), which was confirmed by another from the University of Iowa (4), showing that milkweed in and at varying distances from Bt crops in the field does cause an increase in mortality to Monarch butterflies. Milkweed samples were taken from within and at the edge of the Bt corn field and were used to assess mortality of first instar monarch, D. plexippus exposed to Bt and non-Bt corn pollen. Within 48 hours, there was 19% mortality in the Bt corn pollen treatment, compared to 0% on non Bt-corn pollen exposed plants and 3% in the no pollen controls. This second study counters all the spurious arguments that the Losey's study was a 'worse case scenario' that bears no relevance to field conditions. Besides which, when Losey conducted his experiments he did not spatula Bt pollen on to the leaves of milkweed, as was reported by industry, he dusted the leaves in accordance with levels observed in the field. In a desperate recent attempt to counter this evidence, the pro-biotech lobby has just released a story claiming that pollen from Bt corn does not harm the black swallowtail. This story has been thoroughly deconstructed (see "Tale of the Swallowtail", this issue).
The biotech industry is fully prepared to misreport research results in order to confuse and mislead the public. On Nov 2nd 1999, a scientific meeting took place in Rosemount, Illinois, to discuss Bt corn and monarchs. That same morning, all the major news desks round the US received a fax carrying a News article about the meeting -- which had only just begun at that point -- headlining 'Researchers conclude Bt corn poses little risk to Monarchs'.
Luckily, Carol Yoon of the NY Times was at the meeting and received word from her editor in New York. She asked the participants if they agreed with what was obviously a press release from industry. The answer from the floor was a resounding "No" -- her report was the only accurate account of the meeting, but unfortunately, the majority of US citizens got the industries' take on it (5).
After months of heated debate on the effects of Bt on non-target insects, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) convened a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) meeting in Dec 1999 and asked the panel to review EPA's non-target organism testing requirement, applicable to Bt crops. The panel found EPA requirements inadequate and urged the agency to substantially expand the scope and quality of the studies that it relies upon (6).
Plans for managing the development of Bt-resistance in insect pests have been actively debated in the scientific literature, and earlier this year, the EPA revised their original mandate and ruled for larger refuges of non GM crop planted with the GM crop. This was hailed as a step in the right direction and now refuges have to be at least 20%. But major controversies remain as to whether or not the refuges should be sprayed by conventional insecticides (7).
A study in the University of Arizona (8) showed that boll worm larva fed on GM and non GM develop at different rates and it is highly unlikely that they will interbreed, dashing any hopes of diluting out or slowing down the evolution of resistance. These moths mate within three days of hatching and the males only live for a week. Also, dilution only works if the Bt-resistance is recessive, ie, requiring two copies of the resistance gene to be expressed, and the EPA's resistance management program relies on the trait being recessive. Unfortunately, studies on the inheritance of Bt resistance showed that it is a dominant trait (9) as insects with only one copy of the resistance gene survive exposure to Bt. Low levels of Bt expression in Bt crops has also been documented and also serves to foster resistance.
Other scientists (10) have designed elaborate choice experiments that seek to understand insect behavior in terms of 'pollen avoidance', which will affect the evolution of Bt-resistance. However, by their own admission, these data can not be used to arrive at any conclusions about the effects of Bt toxin-containing pollen. This work does however highlight the need to consider complex behavioural as well as toxicological aspects.
In June 1999, Monsanto applied for the first Experimental Use Permit on CRY3Bb transgenic corn, another Bt corn line aimed at corn rootworm. The application has been thoroughly assessed by an alliance of four independent non profit organizations (11), who report the most astonishing findings. The technical study submitted by Monsanto in July 1999 contained no molecular data, nor data on the breeding regime, for three different Bt lines. Data on the levels of protein expression in different tissues was included. But 300 corn plants were produced for only two of the transformation experiments, and some of the critical measurements of expression levels were done on only two plants. Despite this, the data clearly indicate that different transformations led to significantly different levels and patterns of protein expression. Such differences are of crucial important in assessing efficacy, resistance management and non-target impacts, as well as changes in the microflora of the digestive systems of livestock and humans using the crop for food.
Monsanto then submitted its application in full in August 1999, moving from greenhouse-scale research to unrestricted field use in one year. In the covering letter they wrote; "Please note that approval of this registration by May 2000 would reduce the need for additional submissions and reviews for year 2000 field trials". This statement makes it blatantly obvious that Monsanto has no intention of investigating their findings any further with respect to health and environmental impacts. To date their application in full is still pending in the US but has been granted commercial approved in Puerto Rico and Hawaii for this growing season.
In Dec 1999, Gunther Stotsky and colleagues (12) reported that Bt toxin is released into the rhizosphere -- around the plant roots in the soil -- in exudates from the roots of Bt corn, where the toxin is protected from biodegradation and accumulates. This raised, for the first time, the question of what is happening underground? A total of 15 million acres of Bt corn were planted in the US in 1998, 20% of the total acreage. The leaked toxin enters the soil in an activated form -- Bt transgenes are truncated to produce active toxin, unlike the precursor-form produced in the bacterium, which has to be cleaved in the gut of susceptible insect pests. Moreover, the toxin is expressed continuously, and hence exuded for extended periods of time.
In organic farming the toxin is sprayed sporadically in an inactive precursor form, only becoming active in the gut of the target insects once ingested. Furthermore, it is sprayed onto the surface of plants where it is readily biodegraded. Stotsky suggests that the widespread planting of Bt crops is equivalent to added large doses of active toxin to the soil, not only from the plant root but also from the plant residues after ploughing in, as well as from pollen. There is at present no clear indication as to how soil communities might be affected by Bt toxin from root exudates. It may promote selection of toxin resistant target insects. But receptors for Bt toxins are present in both target and non-target insects, therefore both will be affected. Bt toxins are active against insects in the Order of Coleoptera (bettles, weevils and styloplids) which contains some 28,600 species, far more than any other Order (13). The widespread use of Bt genes in crops and the build up of active toxin in the soil will have long term ecologically risks to non-target species and organisms in higher trophic levels, such as birds.
Simultaneously, it was reported that Novartis had filed a patent for another insecticide to be used in conjunction with Bt crops (14). It turns out that the pest-control spectrum of Bt toxins is limited, and other pesticides have to be used, that have been shown to be very damaging to health. This completely discredits the industry's claim that Bt is essential for reducing harmful pesticide use.
This April brought further reports on pockets of Bt-resistance among pests in GM fields, and of GM cotton plants turning up as weeds in other crops (15). The cotton boll weevil may make a come back if such volunteers are ignored. An entomologist at Clemson Univ. said, "I could look across soybean fields and see hundreds of these Bt cotton plants". A return of this pest to parts of the American Cotton Belt would be a disaster, considering it cost $1.3 million to eradicate them by 1995.
The ecological interaction between organisms is complex and scientifically challenging. The behaviour of insects with regard to choice' of food can have important impacts. This aspect has been overlooked completely in environmental risk assessments of GM crops. Researchers at Rothamstead in the UK (16) have pointed out that killing non-target species is a risk not unique to GM technology, as conventional regimes actually kill insects in an indiscriminate manner that is equally unsustainable. They highlight the need to find alternatives to conventional practices and suggest that management and good husbandry of bio-control agents should act in an integrated manner to eliminate caterpillars.
The health assessment of Bt crops relies totally on past experiences with Bt sprays in organic farming. It is wrong to assume that Bt toxin in GM crops is the equivalent to what has been used for over thirty years on organic produce with no effects. As with all GM crops, comprehensive feeding trials have yet to be conducted and therefore there is no data supporting the safety of eating Bt crops. Furthermore, there is a general lack of scientific transparency with all GMOs and Bt-crops are no exception. Crucial data are withheld from the public domain under various confidentiality statements made by the biotech companies in their applications for license.
Leading US Agronomist, Charles Benbrook has just completed a comprehensive review on EPA's management of Bt-corn (17). It provides important insights into the structural and legal shortcomings in the approval process, the major among which was the failure to adhere to the precautionary principle. The summary of findings reported by independent scientists investigating or evaluating environmental risks are sufficiently compelling to warrant the immediate withdrawal of all Bt crops from use.
Notes and references
ISB Environmental Releases Database for USDA APHIS website :
Hilbeck, A., Baumgartner, M., Fried, P.M. abd Bigler, F. (1997). Effects of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis-corn-fed prey on mortality and development time of immature Chrysoperla carnew (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae) Enivronmental Entomology 27, 480-487
Losey. J., Raynor. L., & Carter. M. E., (1999) Nature 399,214
See: http://www.ent.iastate.edu/entsoc/ncb99/prog/abs/D81.html [Non-target effects of Bt corn pollen on the Monarch butterfly (Lepidoptera:Danaidae) L. Hansen, Iowa State University, Ames , IA 50011 and J. Obrycki, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011. Contact e-mail: lrahnsen@iastate.edu
5. First Hand Account ^ Industry manipulation of Bt research, by Beck Goldburg, Environmental Defense Fund. Forwarded to Biotech Activists 11/05/99
6. The final report of the SAP panel is accessible at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/1999/december/report.pdf
7. Shelton, A.M., Tang, J., Roush, R.T., and E. Earle. (2000) "Field tests on managing resistance to Bt- engineered plants, Nature Biotechnology, Vol 18;399-342
Liu, Y-B., Tabashnik, B.E., Dennehy, T.J.,Patin, A.J., & Bartlett, A..C. (1999) Nature 400:519
Huang, F., et al. (1999) Science 284, 965-967
Tanja H. Schuler, Roel P.J. Potting, Ian Denholm, Guy M. Poppy (1999) Parasitoid behaviour and Bt plants. Nature Vol 400 pp 825
Comments Submitted to Docket No OPP-30487a: Registration application for CRY3BB transgenic corn modified to control the corn rootworm March 20 2000. On behalf of Environmental Defense, the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Science and Environmental Health Network, the Center for Food Safety, and the Consumer Policy Institute/Consumer Union.
Deepak Saxena, Saul Flores, G. Stotzky (1999) Insecticidal toxin in root exudates from Bt corn. Nature Vol 402 pp 480
Arnett, R.H., and R.L. Jacques. Guide to Insects, Simon and Schuster. 1981.
Genetically modified plants may still need pesticides, By Andy Coghlan and Barry Fox, New Scientist, 18.12.99
Pockets of resistance : A pest might make a comeback thanks to engineered weeds. New Scientist, By Andy Coghlan April 15 2000.
Poppy, G. (2000) GM crops:environmental risks and non-target effects, Trends in Plant Scienc 5 , 4-6.
Charles Benbrook and Steve Suppan June 2000. Applying the Precautionary Principle in Assessing Transgenic Corn Technologies in the US. See http://www.biotech-info.net/case_studies.html
* NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. *
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:50 am
30 Oct 2006
So it canola... a product of radiation used to mutate its genes.
So it triticale... only possible because chemical treatment (colchicine) permitted the germination of hybrid wheat/rye seeds.
So are many other plants you can purchase as organic products.
I'm willing to discuss the safety of GMOs... and SMLowry has raised very serious concerns, especially regarding Bt... but I have to question whether the morality of tampering with nature is solely an issue of GMOs. Most of our lives depend on tampering with nature. The question is just how far are we willing to go. What about the simple act of pumping water from the ground for agriculture? Is this tampering with nature? Or powering a tractor wiith fossil fuel? Or harnessing an animal to a plow? Or adult drinking milk from cows?
I think transfering a single gene -- if it can be done safely -- from one organism to another is less violent than using radiation or chemicals to generate the diversity or create the hybrids we need to save ourselves from starvation while at the same time cleaning up the mess we've made in this world.
It would be immoral to double the area of cultivated land -- at the expense of our few remaining wild areas -- to feed ourselves when it might be possible to move a few pieces of DNA around instead.
I never advocated unrestrained use of biotechnology. I'm hoping for rational use of biotechnology.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:59 am
30 Oct 2006
I did not think about the affect of Bt on insect predators and I must learn more about this. This would be a severe problem in the environment... to have essentially toxic prey available. This could adversely severely affect predators and lead to a population explosion of prey resistant to Bt or not even exposed to Bt... no predators to keep them in check. Or perhaps the affected predators would no long be controlling some other pest we were not even aware of.
I should have realized this without SMLowry's information. It is analogous to why I do not put poison bait out for mice, but work on excluding them from areas I do not want them. When people poison mice and other rodents, they are also poisoning owls and other predators. No one should poison a rodent if there is a chance a predator or scavenger will later consume it. If this was done regular there would be no animals left to naturally control rodents and we would face an even greater rodent problem.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:49 am
30 Oct 2006
Consider the following "facts":
(1) Bt is a toxin that kills and remains active in an insect gut.
(2) Bt might end up in the gut of the target insect because an organic farmer sprayed his crop with spores of the bacteria that produces the toxin.
(3) Bt might end up in the gut if the target insect because the plant is engineered to produce the protein in its leaves.
(4) Bt can kill non-target insect herbivores.
(5) Bt can kill an insect that preys on the original or non-target herbivore.
(6) Bt affects insects independent of where it comes from.
The logical conclusion for me is that if it is dangerous to engineer plants to produce Bt, it is equally dangerous to spray the spores of the bacteria on plants. In both cases, non-target species will be affected.
Furthermore, the farmer is spraying a live biological agent on the crop. Have we investigated what happens after this organism is sprayed on the plants? It is natural organism and therefore must infect and spread via insects in the wild. Have we proven that the Bt organism does not adversely affect non-target species, does not persist in the soil, does not replicate and move beyond the original field?
Has there been a side-by-side comparison of insect predator survival around fields left untreated, fields sprayed with the Bt organism's spores, and fields of transgenic plants? Or have people simply looked at non-GMO vs. GMO? It is possible that spraying with Bt organism's spores leads to the same problems at plant Bt-producing plants.
I realize the technology has been used for a while and intuitively one might think that use of the Bt organism's spores would be safer that a plant producing Bt. However, because the potential for Bt to cause such environmental havoc is so great, I think we should call for a total ban on the use of Bt until it is proven absolutely safe.
It is tampering with nature to intentionally spray an organism -- an organism closely related to the bacteria that causes anthrax -- on a plant that wil be consumed by humans. I'm especially concerned about the fact that it is a natural organism fully capable of reproducing in the wild. Where does it go and how does it change once it is released?
Just food for thought.
Maybe research should focus on making plants repel herbivores -- either via organic technology or GMOs -- and do not kill in self-defense, especially if the current preferred means (spraying crops with bacterial spores) kill insect predators and can freely reproduce once released into the environment in numbers far beyond what naturally occur on the surface of a plant's leaf.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:40 am
01 Nov 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:08 am
01 Nov 2006
You write that its half-life is 4 months on the soil. But surely the organism must be replicating in the natural world somewhere. How can it be a natural organism, yet not persist in the environment? Does it not overwinter? Do farmers use strains in areas where the natural host does not exist?
To say it is safe to spray Bt spores on a crop because it occurs naturally is like saying it is okay to spray a few gallons of anthrax on a city because a few of the bacterial cells are already there. Or it is okay to spray flu virus on me because the few I'm naturally exposed to have not kill me. At some point releasing an organism, even once, at levels in excess of what is naturally found in the environment must raise the possibility of overwhelming the natural controls on its abundance.
I'm not arguing against the use of Bt spores necessarily. What I do want to see are side-by-side comparisons of the normal use of Bt spores, the use of Bt plants, the use the pesticides, and the use of nothing at all. We need to look at non-target species, insect predators, and soil organisms in each case. One cannot simply look at Bt crops and declare they are evil because of the effects on non-target species. We have to know the results of alternative strategies. Clearly a Bt plant is better than using broad-spectrum pesticides. But where is the clear research that shows spraying Bt spores on crops is better than using Bt plants?
The Bt gene itself is on a plasmid that can be transmitted from one strain of bacteria to another. Has anyone investigated whether the Bt gene from spores sprayed on a plant is transferred to other soil bacteria? And is it possible that benign soil bacteria that end up in a beneficial insect's gut could pick up that DNA from the Bt organism (it apparently has a half-life of 4 months, plenty of time to interact with the local bacteria) and become a NEW pathogen, a product of human tinkering, of that insect. I think this is one of the concerns about GMOs.
The research already shows that Bt is not as specific as we thought; otherwise, there would be no effect on insect predators that are from different genera than their prey.
I am now worried that Bt spores have been used without any consideration for downstream effects just out of habit. It worked in the past, so it is okay now? No need to look into damage it might do because... well, we really don't want to know. It could be as bad as growing Bt plants.
So...
Where do Bt organisms naturally live?
Where do they go after being sprayed on plants?
Can they be carried into the atmosphere as part of the dust from a tilled field (spores are durable and can travel between continents)?
Can other bacteria pick up the Bt gene from them (just like they might pick up the gene from a GMO)?
And where do those other bacteria fit into the natural order?
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:43 am
01 Nov 2006
The ideal thing, of course, is not to spray at all. That can be difficult if you're raising row upon row of one thing like corn or potatoes. But in my garden I grow many different kinds of vegetables, plus herbs and flowers and my beds are pretty eclectic. I mix things up. Which helps with pest problems. I've noticed the more mixed up things are the fewer infestations I have, and those that I do get are more likely to be handled by simply picking off the offending bug. Also, healthy plants are more likely to resist infestations or handle them better if they happen. Unfortunately, most of our food is not grown in small gardens and bugs and molds and blights happen and can be devastating. That's when spraying something like Bt as a last resort is useful for organic gardeners.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:38 am
02 Nov 2006
My point in going down this path is not to say we should stop applying Bt, which is clearly better then applying chemical pesticides, but that when evaluating transgenic Bt plants we have to compare them -- in the field -- to how organic crops are grown. We cannot simply look at the GMOs and say they are bad. I am a bit surprised to find that Bt spores are actually not clearly safe, just like Bt GMOs are not considered clearly safe. Oh... and keep in mind that if agriculture moves away from chemicals and does not use transgenic plants, the application of Bt will probably reach the scale used for controling pests like gypsy moths. I doubt it would remain confined to small farms.
Here is more food for thought... from http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Bacillus-thuringiensis-Bt.htm... on the effects of Bt spores, not GMOs. The numbers at the ends of sentences refer to the footnotes you will find at the original website.
"Beneficial insects:
Many insects are not pests, and any pest management technique needs to be especially concerned about those that are called beneficials, the insects that feed or prey on pest species. Bt has impacts on a number of beneficial species. For example, studies of a wasp that is a parasite of the meal moth (Plodia interpunctella) found that treatment with Bt reduced the number of eggs produced by the parasitic wasp, and the percentage of those eggs that hatched.63 Production and hatchability of eggs of a predatory bug were also decreased.63 On collards, aphid-eating flies in the family Syrphidae were reduced by Dipel treatment.64 Both Bt tenebrionis and Dipel have caused mortality of predatory spider mites.65 Dipel also has caused mortality of the cinnabar moth, used for the biological control of the weed tansy ragwort.66 Finally, Bti. has caused mortality of a moth (Synclita obliteralis) that helps control aquatic weeds in Florida.67
Other insects:
Many insects that do not have as directly beneficial importance to agriculture are important in the function and structure of ecosystems. A variety of studies have shown that Bt applications can disturb insect communities. Research following large-scale Bt applications to kill gypsy moth larvae in Lane County, Oregon, found that the number of oak-feeding caterpillar species was reduced for three years following spraying, and the number of caterpillars was reduced for two years.68 Similar results were found in a study of caterpillars feeding on tobacco brush following a Btk. application to control spruce budworm in Oregon.69 In untreated areas, the number of species was about 30 per-cent higher, and the number of caterpillars 5 times greater, than in Btk.-treated areas two weeks after treatment. The number of caterpillars was still reduced in treated areas the following summer. In Washington, Bt applications in King and Pierce counties to kill gypsy moths reduced spring moth populations by almost 90 percent.70 In addition, one rare species appeared to have been eradicated from the treatment zone, and moth populations were "heavily impacted in an area more than double that which was actually sprayed" as moths moved into the treatment zone from surrounding areas.70 In West Virginia, applications of Foray 48B reduced the number of caterpillar species and the number of caterpillars. The year following application, the number of moth species and the number of moths were both reduced.71 A recent (1994) study in four different Oregon plant communities found that total weight of caterpillars was reduced between 90 and 95 percent by Bt treat-ment; the number of caterpillars was reduced by 80 percent; and the number of caterpillar species was reduced by over 60 percent.72
Aquatic insects are also affected by Bt treatments. Canadian studies found that certain stream insects (Simulium vittatum and Taeniopteryx nivalis) were killed by applications of Thuricide and Dipel respectively. 73,74 Midges (chironomids) have repeatedly been shown to be killed by Bti.75- 77
Birds:
Because many birds feed on the caterpillars and other insects affected by Bt applications, it is not surprising that impacts of Bt spraying on birds have been documented. In Lane County, Oregon studies of chickadees following a gypsy moth spray program found that birds nesting in Bt-treated areas brought fewer caterpillars to their nests than did birds nesting in untreated areas. The birds were able to find other food, so that nesting success was not significantly impacted.78 In New Hampshire, when Bt-treatment reduced caterpillar abundance, black-throated blue warblers made fewer nesting attempts and also brought fewer caterpillars to their nestlings.79 A Canadian study found that numbers of caterpillars, followed by numbers of two species of warblers and a thrush, were reduced by Bt treatment. In addition, there were fewer spruce grouse chicks in Bt treated areas, and the chicks in those areas grew more slowly than chicks in untreated areas.80
There is also some evidence that Bt can be directly toxic to birds. A study of the effects of application of Dipel to ring-neck pheasant eggs found that hatching was only half as successful as hatching of un-treated eggs. Because the Dipel was applied with a spreader-sticker compound (Plyac) the decrease in hatching may be a result of the Plyac and not the Bt product.81
Other animals:
Because shrews often feed on caterpillars, impacts from Bt treatments are likely. A study in northern Ontario (Canada) found that treatment with Dipel changed the structure of the shrew population. Adult males emigrated, so that the proportion of juveniles increased. The juveniles and adult females who did not emigrate shifted from a diet of caterpillars to alternative prey.82"
From http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Bacillus-thuringiensis-Bt.htm.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:32 am
02 Nov 2006
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:19 am
25 Jul 2007
Apples are very difficult to breed in order to transfer valuable traits from one variety to another without losing other important features, but they are easily clonally propagated. Suppose someone isolates a set of three genes, from a currently grown apple variety, that confer resistant to apple scab. They take these three genes and put them in another variety that is very interesting (excellent taste, good for storage, drought tolerant) but difficult to grow because it is sensitive to apple scab. The genes are carefully inserted into a precise location in the apple genome, perhaps even replacing almost identical genes in the second variety. No cross-species engineering. No increased use of chemicals; actually, fewer chemicals. Doesn't lower the fruit's quality as far as taste and nutrition is concerned. Done by a non-profit organization that does not extract every last dollar from famers in exchange for the engineered apple.
What would be wrong with growing this using organic methods and labeling it organic?
Could one establish a broadly acceptable organic GMO standard that would permit such engineering of other domesticated plants?
Here's an opportunity to use technology to improve an already domesticated plant, reduce use of chemicals, reduce costs for growers (they would be given permission to propagate it), reduce stress on the environment, and provide people with tastey and nutritious product that is otherwise difficult to grow.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:32 am
03 Aug 2007
I don't want to hijack a conversation going on in another thread -- sorry, not inserting link here -- but would like to respond to one of the comments. Seems to belong here...
JMG asked several questions:
"What sort of bills to reduce opposition to genetic tampering from scare-quote environmentalists did you have in mind?"
I believe that political candidates, corporations, non-profit groups, individuals, and all other entities should not be allowed to lie in marketing literature, mass media, news reports, and other outlets. There should be some evidence behind all claims. I do not know how to do this without interfering with free speech, so it is likely impossible. I value free speech very very much.
"Shall it be illegal for real persons to oppose plans of corporate persons to unleash genetically tampered organisms into the biosphere?"
No, it should not be illegal. But there should be a way to ensure ALL information is available to the consumer. See next response.
"Are you hoping for even more servile labeling laws that prevent people from knowing whether the food they buy contains genetically tampered materials?"
No. I would like to see what I believe is called full disclosure or transparency. But it will be very difficult to fit that information on a package or produce bin label. Consumers should know where the food originated, whether or not it is a GMO, which chemicals were used, and how much energy was expended to move the product to market. The scare tactics of "environmentalists" have persuaded consumers to buy conventional products over GMOs, not to buy organic over GMOs.
Example... McDonalds will not use GMO potatoes for french fries. Why? Because the public is afraid of GMOs. The GMO potatoes could be grown without chemicals. Does McDonalds use organic potatoes? No. They use potatoes requiring chemical fungicides. The public has been scared into rejecting a non-chemical potato in favor of a chemical potato. Good job, "environmentalists"! If everything was fully labeled, the public could choose from chemical, chemical/GMO, pure GMO, GMO/organic, or pure organic -- though you would have to say whether you spray with Bt, rotenone, copper salts, et cetera -- and let the market decide.
Consumers should be FULLY informed.
"Are you looking for a little more of the "veggie libel" laws, only now in favor of genetically tampered organisms?"
Not at all. I just want consumers to be FULLY informed. I believe problems are best solved by providing more information, not less information. Conventional, GMO, and organic... the consumer should know exactly what was done to get those products to the grocery store.
At the moment, they appear to believe GMOs are the absolute worst option, but also appear to know very little about conventional ag practices or organic practices. Some consumers actually think "genes" are found only in GMOs, not in other food! How can they make a rational decision when they don't even understand what a gene is???!!! Many consumers also believe absolutely no chemicals are used for organic products! But what about the following... copper ammonium carbonate, copper sulphate, copper oxychloride, rotenone, sulphur, potassium salts of fatty acids, nicotine sulfate, veratrine, azadirachtin, salannin, potassium permanganate, or pyrethrin? Shouldn't that information be on the organic food labels?
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 3:23 am
15 Nov 2007
The following is from...
**
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changing_Environment_Organizes_Genetic_Structure_999.html
"Genes are typically transferred vertically. People, plants and animals pass genes vertically, from generation to generation, through sexual reproduction. Bacteria transfer genes vertically via conjugation. HGT allows genes, pieces of genes and collections of genes to move between species, even in cases where vertical transfer is physically impossible.
Though scientists have known about HGT for years, it was thought to be rare and infrequent until sophisticated tools opened the genetic history of many species in the 1990s. Today, HGT is widely accepted as the primary reason for antibiotic drug resistance, and Deem said HGT played a significant role in human development as well. "Our acquired immune system is a product of horizontal gene transfer and is organized in a modular fashion," he said.
Deem's study found that an organism's fitness -- the likelihood that it and its descendants will survive in a rapidly changing environment -- increases as the modularity of its genetic code increases. Another finding was that the faster the environment changes, the more modular genetic information becomes.
Because modularity begets complexity, the more modular genetic information becomes, the more complex the web of life becomes."
****
It appears that genetic engineering -- like conventional breeding, irradiation, and chemical mutagenesis, which organic growers clearly accept -- simply accelerates a natural process. Indeed, human efforts to accelerate HGT might even help our biological world adapt to a rapidly chaging climate.
I look forward to reading the original paper, which is not yet avaliable. Perhaps one of the Grist monkeys would like to discuss its relevance to adapting to or even countering global climate change. Human accelerated HGT simply reinforces a natural feedback loop that might stabilize our plantet's climate.
Another victim of Jean-Paul Marat's ghost and his virtual guillotine?
Permalink
Stop GMO Posted 8:18 pm
14 Jan 2008
Below is a critique of the article. I welcome the original writer to look at the references and talk about anything that I have said below.
I have put the original writer's comments in quotes and then have added my own comments, usually with online references.
"We have more than enough land, technology and potential to feed the entire world.
1. Who's going to pay for the food? Many of the hungry are too poor to buy food whether they live in the U.S or Bangladesh."
According to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization the world produces enough food to feed 9 billion people. We have 6 billion to feed. The issue is not production but distribution and that comes down to money. When a child dies from starvation it's always a money issue. GMOs are NOT necessary to feed a starving world. Depending on where you look anywhere from 16,000 to 40,000 children die each day from nutritionally related illnesses and conditions (including starvation). GMOs will not fix this situation. These crops are being pushed because of the huge profits that will be made from them as they are patentable. This patenting of life forms is being allowed by the Supreme Courts and patent offices of nearly all industrialized nations. Regarding the writer's quoted comment, "Who's going to pay for the food?" is the right question to ask, and no complete answers are available.
Great website to read about the problems GMOs -- http://www.biointegrity.org/
FDA recognized that GMOs are hazardous -- http://www.biointegrity.org/list.html
"3. The more food we grow, the more potential for pollution and depletion of the soil. Pesticides are also a problem. Fertilizers and pesticides are necessary to increase food production but they polute the ground water poisoning animals and people alike. The more food you grow, the more potential for polluting the Earth."
Organic farming is paracticed in many areas of the world too poor to afford pesticides and chemical fertilizers. In a country like Cuba the USA, through it's unreasonable embargo, has inadvertantly played a pivotal role in showing that organic agriculture CAN feed a huge population AND the rest of the world. In the early stages of the embargo Cuba couldn't get pesticides or chemical fertilizers and was forced to grow organically. Go here for a more complete story --
http://www.foodfirst.org/archive/media/news/2001/cubacens ...
http://www.organicconsumers.org/cuba.htm
"Also, the soil needs to "rest" regularly between crops to re-energize itself. This can be accelerated by adding "ammendments" (fertilizers, potassium, nitrogen, etc.) to the soil but it still needs to rest on occasion. This either cuts down on production, or, if the grower insists on growing every season, causes the nutrient value in the crops to diminish."
The soil does not need to "rest" but needs to be kept alive. Conventional farming (pesticides, fungicides, chemical fertilizers), in effect since the 50s and 60s, sterilizes the soil causing a "need to rest" while the fungi, bacteria, worms, and other creatures try to stage a comeback and replenish the soil with the nutrients necessary for healthy and nutritious plants. The "amendments" to the soil allow plants to grow and look healthy and nutritious in depleted dead soils, but they have less of many vitamins and minerals than were in our crops just 50 years ago.
This one is pretty complicated -- http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/23/6/669?maxtoshow=& ...
More easily understandable with simple tables for comparing differences in nutritional content -- http://www.soils.wisc.edu/~barak/poster_gallery/minneapol ...
"4. With the dramatic increases in genetic technologies known as GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms) we can now grow modified foods like frost resistent tomatoes (genes from a fish, virus and other creatures have been added to the tomato..."
This tomato never made it to market because it was a failure. It continues to be reported by people interested in fostering the development and distribution of gene altered organisms and by people too lazy to research the information they are reporting. -- http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/media/fishberries.html ,
"They didn't know it was going to happen!!! or bug resistent corn. This dramatically increases food production but many countries are afraid of eating genetically modified foods..."
"Bug resistant" means that a plant has been altered so that a pesticide is produced in every part of the plant. This pesticide is BT and is the ONLY toxin allowed to be used on organic crops. It is sparingly used by organic farmers under strict controls by the USDA. Now they want us to eat this pesticide as it is being produced in gene altered plants and cannot be washed off or cooked out of.
"They are not convinced they are safe. Usually they are but if people won't accept them then you have another issue."
This is the worst single thing that the FDA and the USDA have done to us. Crawford, deputy commissioner at the FDA, claims that GMOs are safe without any data to support that statement. See the BioIntegrity link above.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:17 pm
26 Mar 2008
I hope at least one official Grist contributor is preparing a response to Pamela Ronald's 03/16/08 editorial, The New Organic, appearing in the Boston Globe.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/03/ ...
Regarding GE cotton, she wrote...
"By adopting new farming techniques, growers found they could spray far less insecticide over their fields. Within four years they had reduced their annual use of the poisonous chemicals by 156 million pounds - almost as much as is used in the entire state of California each year. Cotton yields in the region climbed, and production costs fell. Strikingly, the number of insecticide-related illnesses among farmers in the region dropped to a quarter of their previous level."
Dr. Pamela Ronald of UC Davis and her husband Raoul Adamchak (an organic farmer) recently published "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food". I'm looking forward to reading this book and looking forward to reading responses from anti-GMO activists.
I learned about the editorial from Anastsia's blog...
http://www.geneticmaize.com/2008/03/the-new-organic/
I'm surprise an official Grist contributor has not already responded to the editorial or reviewed the book! Perhaps I missed it. But is makes it appear as though environmentalists are afraid to confront sincere efforts by a pro-GMO person and an organic farmer to reach a compromise regarding the practical use of GMOs and organic farming methods. Don't you just hate it when people refuse to follow the standard protocols for protecting the environment? Oh... they are probably industry hacks.
Permalink
Erik Hoffner Posted 12:30 am
27 Mar 2008
Erik
The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:33 am
27 Mar 2008
Victual Reality
Permalink