Ian Forrester’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Noone can take Spencer seriously anymore

  Spencer: "I'm particularly interested to see whether anyone can respond to this challenge without using phrases like 'this issue is settled', 'the cloud claim is bogus', or without ad hominem attacks".

  Spencer (one line later): "Comments are closed".

  What a joke.On Marc Morano agrees that only experts in climate feedbacks can make judgments on climate posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'm not pro-organic

  I'm not pro-organic but I am anti-GMO. The reason for my anti-GMO stance is related to the predatory practices of the GM companies.

  Initially when GMO's were discussed I was against them for two reasons.

  Firstly, I never believed their comments regarding use of less chemicals. I could foresee that resistance would build up thus causing the use of more and more chemicals. This has been verified by numerous US Dept of Ag reports.

  Secondly, I did not think that farmers would benefit since they would become more and more reliant on the GMO companies and that their choice of seeds would be severely curtailed.

  I was not concerned about health effects, after all how could the addition of one new gene and gene product have any health effects.

  However, after doing much more reading and the fact that the companies had to be a bit more open  on what they were doing I discovered that it was not just one gene that was added but several, most of which have big question marks as to their safety.

  Then we started to get reports of health effects in animals. The companies kept all their animal tests confidential until Monsanto's report on MON 863 maize was released in Germany. This report, according to scientists who were asked to review it, showed that there were indeed problems, even though Monsanto claimed that the differences between control and experimental groups were just "biological variation".

  Thus there is enough information in the peer reviewed scientific literature to make me completely doubt the safety of at least some of the products produced by genetic engineering.

  As far as organic farming. I'm neither for or against it. If farmers see a niche that they can fill and make some money doing it let them.

  I have always been a proponent of adequate testing of pesticides, whether natural or man made. Some of the most potent toxins are natural in origin.

  Canola was extensively tested before getting its GRAS approval in 1985 (I think).

  GMO's got immediate approval since US Dept of Ag considered them "substantially equivalent" which is utter nonsense.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 2 months ago 53 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  We agree at last

  wiscidea said: "You will not see me defending this awful behavior... broad patent rights and covering up where our food comes from".

  I have been a critic of patenting laws for over 25 years. A long time ago I was having lunch with my old PhD supervisor when he asked me (I had moved away from academia had had become an independent  "science entrepreneur") what could be done to enhance innovation, especially in "biotechnology" (this was when the term covered a much broader field than it does now).

  My immediate response was "get rid of the patent system, it does far more to discourage and prevent innovation that enhance it".

  He was shocked by my response since he was of the belief that the patent system protected small innovative companies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  I also agree that GMO's should be labeled as such.

  I have found our discussion to be enlightening. I hope that you have not found be too overbearing but the way large multi-national companies have abused science and the regulatory sytem gets me very angry.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here are some articles on horizontal gene transfer

  wiscidea seems to have a problem with consulting the scientific literature and finding any papers which contradict the PR put out by the Biotech industry.

  He claims that there are no results showing transfer into human cells.

  Well here is a paper showing that Agrobacterium tumefaciens can transform Hela cells via the tumor-inducing plasmid. This plasmid is the same one used when AT is used as a vector for inserting genes during genetic engineering of a number of crops.

  http://www.pnas.org/content/98/4/1871

  There are a number of other papers and articles discussing the potential problems with horizontal gene transfer.

  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FSAopenmeeting.php
  http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h6nsu
  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php
  http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/DNA-Transfer-To-Gut1jul0 ...

  Just remember that the Biotech industry has claimed over and over again that horizontal gene transfer will either not occur or will occur at such a low rate that it will not be harmful.

  Perhaps the reason that "foreign" genes have not been found in human tumours is that no one has looked for them.On U.S. foreign policy: GMO all the way posted 1 year, 2 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Please provide a quote and citation for this

  wiscedia said: "But where did the low glucosinolate and zero erucic acid line come from? Well... After attempts to take advantage of natual mutations, two Canadian scientists -- Keith Downey and Baldur Stefansson -- resorted to using chemicals or radiation to induce random mutations in rapeseed and then screened the seedlings for those low in the toxic chemicals. (By the way, this is considered conventional breeding!)"

  Please provide a quote and citation for these comments.

  I cannot find any information that D&S used mutagenesis during their early work on LEAR.

  Here is a quote from a thesis from the University of Manitoba:

  "In 1959. researchers identified a line. Liho, in oilseed rape that contained low levels of erucic acid. A program of backcrossing and selection was initiated to transfer the low erucic trait into agronomically suitable cultivars for western Canada. Further selection for low erucic acid levels led to the development of zero erucic acid varieties and allowed Canada to set a maximum level of 5% erucic acid in the edible oil. Rapeseed meal was considered an excellent source of protein, with a favourable balance of amino acids, but high glucosinolate levels lead to palatability and nutritional problems. The variety Bronowski from Poland was found to be low in glucosinolates and the trait was incorporated into new varieties (Downey and Rakow, 1987).

  In order to distinguish the new "double-low" varieties. with their altered oil and meal properties, from common oilseed rape, the term "canola" was trademarked in 1978".

  http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/1993/813/1/nq236 ...

  No mention of anything but traditional plant breeding.

  Mutagensis has been used in later development to introduce various resistance factors into canola but the original canola appears not to have used that technique, if you have cites that contradict that please let me know.

  Downey produced his first low erucic acid variety as early as 1964.On Prince Charles sparked controversy when he expressed doubt in GM crops posted 1 year, 2 months ago 53 Responses