GM

[umslopogaas]

For more information on GM, see:

http//www.rhs.org.uk/Gardening/Sustainable-gardening/pdfs/c and e genetic

Sorry, dont know how to make that into a live link. Alternatively, go to www.rhs.org.uk and type 'genetic modification' into the search box.

This was the Royal Horticultural Society's attempt to present the subject in a manner accessible to the non-scientist. The RHS took a neutral position, neither pro nor anti, though the leaflet was written by one who is strongly pro, that is, me. It does not appear to have been updated since 2005. Re-reading just now I must admit it is quite hard going, even for one who is supposed to understand this stuff, but in truth I havent kept up with the subject since I retired, and molecular biology was never my field.

[Serial_Apologist]

For more information on GM, see:

http//www.rhs.org.uk/Gardening/Sustainable-gardening/pdfs/c and e genetic

Sorry, dont know how to make that into a live link. Alternatively, go to www.rhs.org.uk and type 'genetic modification' into the search box.

This was the Royal Horticultural Society's attempt to present the subject in a manner accessible to the non-scientist. The RHS took a neutral position, neither pro nor anti, though the leaflet was written by one who is strongly pro, that is, me. It does not appear to have been updated since 2005. Re-reading just now I must admit it is quite hard going, even for one who is supposed to understand this stuff, but in truth I havent kept up with the subject since I retired, and molecular biology was never my field.

Dunno if this will work, with the odd colonic irrigation and a couple of underlined gaps:

http://www.rhs.org.uk/Gardening/Sustainable-gardening/pdfs/c_and_e_genetic

[umslopogaas]

Excellent, S_A that works fine. I did wonder about the missing underlining, but that was the form in which it was sent to me. I must get back to them and suggest it is time for an update, a lot has happened in seven years. But the basic story is unchanged.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Umslopogaas
Just read your(?) rhs article and it's very good; hope you get to do an update.
I've also checked where the world is with GM crops and things appear to have moved on a great deal. I doubt there's a soya bean grown that's not GM! The Indian cotton production figures are stunning. And I see GM is cropping up in Europe.

[umslopogaas]

Thanks A_I_C, I hope they get someone to do an update, but it wont be me, I've retired and not kept up with the subject. As far as I recall, back then the only GM crop permitted in Europe was a small area of maize engineered to produce the Bt toxin, in Spain. But the opposition will crumble, I am sure. The antis can cry wolf just so often, but soon people are going to realise that all the predicted horrors have failed to materialise. And there are so many advantages, not just commercial profits for Monsanto and the like, but advantages to farmers and consumers. And yes indeed, outside Europe GM crops have taken over the world, in N. and S. America and large parts of Asia. As well as soybean and maize, there is GM rice. The www.ISAAA.org website cited earlier gives up to date information.

I can understand the stance taken by the anti-GM people, even though I dont agree with it. In my opinion its got more to do with finance than the rights or wrongs of GM. To a large extent these people depend on the public to keep putting money in their collecting tins, and the public gives money to people who say "There is a problem, help us to sort it", not to people who say "We've decided there's no problem, you can all go home." But Greenpeace will not get a penny from me while they oppose GM: they should get back to saving whales.

[Serial_Apologist]

Someone will probably correct me on this, but the recent alarm about decimated bee colonies has I think been hypothetically linked to pesticides. The latter were mentioned in the NHS statement above in relation to insect species possibly being affected by GM modification in plants for pest-resistance; this could threaten beneficial insect species as regards pollination, presumably?

[amateur51]

Umslopogaas
Just read your(?) rhs article and it's very good; hope you get to do an update.
I've also checked where the world is with GM crops and things appear to have moved on a great deal. I doubt there's a soya bean grown that's not GM! The Indian cotton production figures are stunning. And I see GM is cropping up in Europe.

Very good

[Serial_Apologist]

Very good

The opposite of "grubbing up", one guesses!

[umslopogaas]

SA, there is certainly a problem with bees, and no doubt a possible link to GM crops should be considered, but its hard to see how the expression of the Bt toxin could be linked, because those Bt toxins are highly specific to certain groups of insects and dont affect others. Several strains affect only Lepidoptera, one affects Coleoptera and one Diptera but to my knowledge there isnt one that affects Hymenoptera, and if there is I doubt anyone would be rash enough to engineer it into plants, for the very reason that there might be a deleterious effect on pollinators. In any case, the main hymenopteran pests in Europe are sawflies and they arent terribly important compared to aphids, caterpillars etc. And I'm struggling to see how the other major gene used in GM plants, resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, could affect bees. Perhaps glyphosate-resistant crops encourage the use of glyphosate and that upsets the bees? Perhaps, by spraying crops with glyphosate to destroy all the crop weeds that arent glyphosate resistant, the pollen supplies for the bees are reduced, which in turn leads to them going hungry? But this is pure speculation.

[Serial_Apologist]

SA, there is certainly a problem with bees, and no doubt a possible link to GM crops should be considered, but its hard to see how the expression of the Bt toxin could be linked, because those Bt toxins are highly specific to certain groups of insects and dont affect others. Several strains affect only Lepidoptera, one affects Coleoptera and one Diptera but to my knowledge there isnt one that affects Hymenoptera, and if there is I doubt anyone would be rash enough to engineer it into plants, for the very reason that there might be a deleterious effect on pollinators. In any case, the main hymenopteran pests in Europe are sawflies and they arent terribly important compared to aphids, caterpillars etc. And I'm struggling to see how the other major gene used in GM plants, resistance to the herbicide glyphosate, could affect bees. Perhaps glyphosate-resistant crops encourage the use of glyphosate and that upsets the bees? Perhaps, by spraying crops with glyphosate to destroy all the crop weeds that arent glyphosate resistant, the pollen supplies for the bees are reduced, which in turn leads to them going hungry? But this is pure speculation.

Interesting, and thanks.

[PhilipT]

As I understand matters, the leading contenders to explain colony collapse disorder are a virus spread by the Varroa mite (not the mite itself, but it can't help) and neonicotinoid pesticides. I fail to see any connection with GM.

[Simon]

http://metrofarm.com/michael-olson-news/213

Some excellent ideas in the link above.

If you scroll down a bit, the thread on Scjhool meals is, er, interesting... ???

and then a bit further there's stuff onm GMOs, from which I have taken the following:

"Though GMOs were rapidly accepted by many producers, many consumers still wonder if they are safe. Let’s begin our search for efficacy at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration where, in 1991, Monsanto attorney Michael R. Taylor became the FDA’s first Deputy Commissioner for Policy. During his tenure as FDA’s Policy chief, Taylor instituted– some say invented– a doctrine called Substantial Equivalence, which says, in effect, that GMOs are safe because they are substantially equivalent to non-GMOs, and thus may be accepted into the nation’s food chain with no studies as to their efficacy. Taylor then left FDA to become Vice President of Monsanto, and then left Monsanto to become the FDA’s Food Safety Czar, where he resides today. "

I have to say that this worries me a lot.

A little further, there's a scientist who has brought up some concerns ... but they are disputed by other scientists... who may or may not have links with Agribusiness

[umslopogaas]

Of course, the position as stated should give pause for thought. But consider a few additional thoughts.

Science, which includes GM science, does not exist in a pure intellectual vacuum, which is where those who are not scientists might perhaps believe it thrives; it exists in the same world we all inhabit. Scientists are just like the rest of us ... better paid than some, but paid a lot less than many others.

I was a scientist, but not in possession of commercially valuable information. So I didnt sell my secrets to a commercial company. (Some of my team might have done so, but that wasnt an immediate problem for me, if there was a bit of commercial dealing going on on the side it didnt immediately affect the progress of the research, and the research was my business, no-one ever talked about commercialisation).

Science is a high-minded pursuit, but it is funded by the sordid wealth of commercial reality. There arent many Henry Cavendish'es, awash with private income, busy with the investigation of scientific phenomena for pure interest, these days. If you want to pursue a scientific career, you need public money to do so.

My own view of research is this. Some non-commercial (at first sight, anyway, meaning that is probably government money ... which means its yours and mine, but that's another story) agency funds some research. The results look promisingly commercialisable (that doesnt happen very often). The researchers then need serious advice, because they've got something to sell. Whatever happens next is probably largely out of the hands of the researchers, their work is handed over for exploitation to the Business Development Department.

Its another world, I'd have gone back to the lab and started on a few other ideas.

But to get back to the plot, if the man had not gone to Monsanto with his knowledge, what was he supposed to do with it if he wanted it to make a real impact (ie, do some real good)? He could have just published academic papers, but that would have immediately destroyed the commercial potential because by publishing he would have compromised the patent, and without a patent there would be no commercial advantage.

Mmm, its messy, for sure. But government funding for academic research, and the exploitation of that research for commercial ends, and the support for government to which those ends are put, are very subtle interactions, and if anyone understands them, I doubt they will elucidate.

These are admittedly thoughts extracted under the influence of alcohol, but hey, it was good alcohol, and in vino veritas, or so I was once told.