GMO Hysteria

[Ed]

Of course, any scientific or industrial product of Nazi Germany is evil, and we can't use it!

Did you know the Nazis actually produced a firearm whose projectiles curved in flight? They were designed for urban combat, and only a few of them were made. Nevertheless, we would never make such weapons today...not because they are ultimately impractical, but because the Nazis made them first, so they're EVIL!!!

Yup, that nasty VW bug was DOA

 

[Trollbane]

Since when did the Pope's viewpoint mean much on this board?

Actually it does. Vatican employs a wide variety of competent scientific advisors that can give solid reports and the Pope usually goes by their recommendations in issues not directly conserning the catholic faith, like GM.

Having said that I hope they bother to publish the research done so it can be judged on merit rather than the source.

 

[Jon_in_london]

But, I am a very media-aware British person. I don't read tabloids. I listen to quality news, science documentaries make up a large part of my TV watching and I take an active interest in this debate. None of the evidence to which you refer is ever mentioned. That may be a failing of the media, but it certainly will not benefit the tech companies. At the moment, at least one supermarket chain has a no-GM policy and we have yet to be convinced of the technology's benefits. If no one buys it, it's a failure.

The standard of science documentaries and scientific journalism in general in this country is shocking. Probably because sensationalism and twirly graphics and more interesting to people than actual science. In addition, I would be most suprised if any science correspondants actually have a science degree. Most of them appear to be totally scientifically illiterate. Of course this doesnt benefit the technology companies but thats because shock-horror headline stories sell much better than 'actually theres no problem here" headlines.

 

[Jeff Corey]

GMOs were banned yesterday in Mendicino County, CA.
A cynic might suggest that the large number of "organic" farmers in that county might have supported the ban because it was in their financial interest.
Now they can advertize that, since GMOs are banned in the whole county, there is no possibility of their produce being tainted by nearby fields.

 

[Quasi]

Quasi appeared to use Prince Charles' statement that GM crops have not been proven to be dangerous to imply that they are safe.

No, I am not using PC statement to suggest all GMO is safe etc, I was merely providing a non industry non-US gov. source stating GM has not been proven harmful as a reference as per the original post.

If there is a ref for the refutation of the potato thing, it would be appreciated. I originally leaned about it from someone working in academia in food science, probably when the report came out. I am open to the possibility it was false.

 

[Quasi]

You are aware that the study behind this has been demolished?

I know this is a double post, but no, and I would like to read the report. I will try to find it online, however if you have the ref handy it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

 

[Jon_in_london]

If there is a ref for the refutation of the potato thing, it would be appreciated. I originally leaned about it from someone working in academia in food science, probably when the report came out. I am open to the possibility it was false.

Hell, Im still waiting for a reference to the original article, let alone its rebuttal.....

are those crickets I hear chirping....

 

[geni]

I know this is a double post, but no, and I would like to read the report. I will try to find it online, however if you have the ref handy it would be appreciated.

Thanks.

If it's the one I think you are talking about it was delt with in the same journal that it was organily published in. I'm afariad I don't have any refrences to hand.

 

[Jas]

Thanks for all the help. The guy's cracked out, I sent him an email back telling him that Nazi's and Woody Harrelson aren't exactly good points, although I wasn't aware that carrots were the culprit behind today's obesity epidemic.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

As long as the goal is good (work by the rice institite on hardy crops for developing world; colored cotton so we don't have to use dyes) i don't have a problem with it.

Incidentally, both Oxfam and Christian Aid, the two UK charities who know more than any what the developing world is up against, have expressed serious concerns about the introduction of GM crops in those areas and believe that, for now, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. They have both called for a ban on GM planting until many more tests have been carried out.

 

[Drooper]

Many mistakes have been made in the past where people have tampered with the normal balance of an ecosystem (google for the Cactoblastus Beetle, introduced to control the prickly pear in Australia, and the subsequent introduction of the Cane Toad to control the beetle) under the impression that they understood the scientific consequences.

Call me a woo if you like, but maybe I'm just too skeptical!

I WILL call you a woo....WOOOOOWOOOOO.... so there

I do have a serious point though.

A true skeptic would have done some more thorough research.

1. The introduction of Cactoblastus was a success beyond the dreams of the CSIRO (the government scientific organisiation that resrearched the project and gave it the scientific go ahead. Cactoblastus is in fact a moth (not a beetle) by the way, and it lays it eggs in the cactus which, when hatched into Lavea, they eat. When the cactus was almost totally eradicated, the moth poopulation almost vanished, as its food source disappeared (just as the scientists had predicted). However, it is still around and pops up when Prickly Pear cactus reappears.
2. It is a myth that the Cane Toad was introduced by the government, or was subject to scientific appraisal or research. It was in fact the brilliant idea of a Queensland cane farmer who thought it might eat the beetle that was causing damage to his crop. Do you really think Aussie scientists are so stupid that they would completely miss the fact that toads can't fly, nor can they climb stalks of sugar cane and hence have some trouble catching flying beetles, or that the cane toad would have no natural predators in Australia?
   [/list=1]
   
   
   So yah boo to you
   
   
   Add to the plus side along with Cactoblastus you have to include myxomatosis, which was also researched by the CSIRO before introduction and cured Australia of a rabbit plague (NO, THE RABBITS WERE NOT INTRODUCED BY SCIENTISTS!!! THEY WERE INTRODUCED BY SOME IDIOT WHO WANTED TO HUNT RABBITS LIKE HE DID IN ENGLAND!!!)
   
   So what have you learnt here Paj? The scientific research in these examples was extremely successful. The lay people just caused disaster.
   
   Defer to the scientific research Paj.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Incidentally, both Oxfam and Christian Aid, the two UK charities who know more than any what the developing world is up against, have expressed serious concerns about the introduction of GM crops in those areas and believe that, for now, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. They have both called for a ban on GM planting until many more tests have been carried out.

I wasnt aware that Oxfam and Christian Aid were experts in the spheres of science and agriculture.

Perhaps third-world farmers know even more about third-world farming than poncy UK charities run by toffs out for a KG?

http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=2517

 

[Drooper]

Incidentally, both Oxfam and Christian Aid, the two UK charities who know more than any what the developing world is up against, have expressed serious concerns about the introduction of GM crops in those areas and believe that, for now, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. They have both called for a ban on GM planting until many more tests have been carried out.

Oxfam and Christian Aid are loose cannons. They are hooked on the paternal aid mentality

 

[Jon_in_london]

Incidentally, both Oxfam and Christian Aid, the two UK charities who know more than any what the developing world is up against, have expressed serious concerns about the introduction of GM crops in those areas and believe that, for now, the risks outweigh the potential benefits. They have both called for a ban on GM planting until many more tests have been carried out.

I wasnt aware that Oxfam and Christian Aid were experts in the spheres of science and agriculture.

Perhaps third-world farmers know even more about third-world farming than poncy UK charities run by toffs out for a KG?

"With Bt, you plant the cotton; it flowers; you harvest," Buthelezi said.

Bt cotton has changed life dramatically for him, his wives and his 13 children, he said.

"We can attend to other things besides staying in the field," Buthelezi said. "Our standard of living is very much improved, when we have money to send our children to school.

"Now, after harvesting, we sit down and budget and say, 'Let's go buy some things.' That didn't used to happen."

http://tv.oneworld.net/tapestry?link=2517

http://www.biotech-info.net/african_farming.html

So Oxfam and Christian Aid can stuff that in their pipes and smoke it.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

Oxfam are out there, working in the field and talking to the farmers every day. If the farmers are not convinced of the benefits, considering it's their lives at stake and all, then I question its merit at all.

Oh, and your little news article appears to be from a Monsanto source. Not very reliable, IMHO.

 

[geni]

Oxfam are out there, working in the field and talking to the farmers every day. If the farmers are not convinced of the benefits, considering it's their lives at stake and all, then I question its merit at all.

Homeopathy prationers are out there every day talking to their clients. If the clients are convinced that it is right then surly it must be good right?

I suspect the main error you are making is in not questioning where the farmers get their information from.

 

[Jon_in_london]

Oxfam are out there, working in the field and talking to the farmers every day. If the farmers are not convinced of the benefits, considering it's their lives at stake and all, then I question its merit at all.

Oh, and your little news article appears to be from a Monsanto source. Not very reliable, IMHO.

So it IS your contention that a couple of UK charities know more about African farming than African farmers?

The first link was Monsanto, the second (which I quoted) is not Perhaps you should have read it?.

But here is another one that has to admit that GM cotton is best even through it tries its best to obfuscate;

http://archive.mg.co.za/MGArchive/F...;content-type;home-path;home-title;title-path$vid=MailGuard:MailGuardView&npusername=MailGuard&nppassword=MailGuard

Seven of every 10 South African cotton farmers have switched to genetically modified (GM) varieties......

On the Springbok Flats, north of Pretoria, Willem van der Walt runs a mixed farm producing sorghum, cotton, rotational crops and pigs. He is a firm GM convert.

“It is absolutely essential,” he says. “Our production costs have decreased 40%. Zero tillage allows for greater water retention in the soil, we use fewer pesticides and our maintenance costs for machinery are less.”

 

[Camillus]

Hell, Im still waiting for a reference to the original article, let alone its rebuttal.....

are those crickets I hear chirping....

I'm guessing that the original poster was referring to: Quist, D. & Chapela, I. H. (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico Nature 414, 541-543

Which is about GMO maize in Mexico rather than potatoes in the Andes but I'm not aware of any work on potatoes.

The article was strongly attacked and it appears that the authors made an error in analysing maize DNA in their original work. The note below appeared in Nature 416, 601 - 602 (11 April 2002) below another criticism of the original work.

Editorial note
In our 29 November issue, we published the paper "Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico" by David Quist and Ignacio Chapela. Subsequently, we received several criticisms of the paper, to which we obtained responses from the authors and consulted referees over the exchanges. In the meantime, the authors agreed to obtain further data, on a timetable agreed with us, that might prove beyond reasonable doubt that transgenes have indeed become integrated into the maize genome. The authors have now obtained some additional data, but there is disagreement between them and a referee as to whether these results significantly bolster their argument.

In light of these discussions and the diverse advice received, Nature has concluded that the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper. As the authors nevertheless wish to stand by the available evidence for their conclusions, we feel it best simply to make these circumstances clear, to publish the criticisms, the authors' response and new data, and to allow our readers to judge the science for themselves.
Editor, Nature

My reading of that is that the Editors of Nature feel that the original work was (fatally) flawed but that they're prepared to give the original authors enough rope to hang themselves with.

Cheers

 

[Jon_in_london]

I'm guessing that the original poster was referring to: Quist, D. & Chapela, I. H. (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico Nature 414, 541-543

Which is about GMO maize in Mexico rather than potatoes in the Andes but I'm not aware of any work on potatoes.

I thought that might be the case.

 

[TheBoyPaj]

So it IS your contention that a couple of UK charities know more about African farming than African farmers?

The first link was Monsanto, the second (which I quoted) is not Perhaps you should have read it?.

I'll say again, I am NOT standing here denouncing all GM uses. I merely question the need for it, given the risks involved. I am sure we both can find links to material quoting some farmers who are pro and some who are against. What matters here is that consumers should be given a choice, and in many parts of the world I think you will find that consumers will opt to avoid GM, which can be seen as a failure of science to get their point across (including to me).

My comment about the biased news report was posted after your initial reply, which only included the link to the Monsanto article.