What’s going on, Scotland?


frankencorn

Scotland is going to formally ban the cultivation of genetically modified crops. Apparently, this was an easy step for them to take, because it’s the scientists who are explaining that this is a foolish move, and everyone knows you can just ignore the scientists.

I also think it’s a matter of fearing the unknown. Scotland doesn’t have any GM crops! It’s easy to ban what you already don’t have, and when activists have successfully nailed the phrase “genetically modified” with the stigma of being sciencey and wicked. It’s absurd.

If you’re going to ban everything that has been genetically modified, the Scots are going to have to go back to harvesting wild grains and hunting wild animals — every single commercial crop plant has been extensively modified by human intervention, to the point that they’re often completely unrecognizable in comparison to the ancestral stock. What they’re really complaining about is that modern genetically modified plants are more precisely engineered than the old scattershot style of random genetic modification.

Comments

  1. aziraphale says

    On the other hand, those commercial crop plants have mostly been around for a while, so if they were going to cause an ecological disaster we would know it by now. The fear of new GMO’s is partly that they will make farmers dependent on huge corporations, but also that they might spread uncontrollably, just as other introduced species have done.

  2. says

    Aziraphale:

    The fear of new GMO’s is partly that they will make farmers dependent on huge corporations,

    I can’t speak to Scotland, but here in the States, farmers have long been dependent on huge corporations, see Monsanto.

  3. says

    Well, the concern should not be genetic engineering in general, but the ecological, social an economic consequences of actually existing GMOs. Despite all the talk about golden rice and drought resistance and so on, GMO crops in the real world are all about pesticides — either herbicide resistance, so you can spray glyphosate all over everything — or producing their own insecticide. And, the farmer becomes dependent on the whole patented system owned by the corporation. You can’t use the seeds, and you have to pay more up front for them than standard seeds. So it favors capital intensity and large scale. Also, we are getting major problems with glyphosate resistant weeds already, which will doom the whole thing in a while.

    A more targeted, sensible, reality based policy is possible, but I agree that a blanket ban is not well thought out.

  4. blf says

    [T]hose commercial crop plants have mostly been around for a while, so if they were going to cause an ecological disaster we would know it by now.

    The “RoundUp-Ready” crops have increased the use of that pesticide (at least on the fields where such crops are planted), so yes, there is another ecological disaster is the making. Then there is the “Terminator” crops, fortunately stopped by activists.

    This is not to say the science has a problem, it is the usage which is seriously defective and dangerous.

  5. Larry says

    I’ve read stories of the producers of GMCs being quite aggressive in protecting their patents. Monsanto, for one, has sued farmers for violating their patents and not paying royalities on their product which, the farmers claim, had contaminated their non-GMO grain. These lawsuits might account for some of the reluctance of Scottish farmers to allow the GMOs to be grown.

  6. deangold says

    I am more than a little shocked at the response from the mainstream skeptic community to the issues surrounding GMO’s. From Marcello Glaser to you PZ, people I admire on so many areas of expertise, have just bought in on agribusiness’s view of GMO’s. Here are issues that ahve been glossed over in the question:

    Genetic Drift of GMO characteristics into weeds. Whether it is the frost resistance inserted into strawberries or Roundup readiness, these traits transfer to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight. Thus the use of herbicides is going up and the use of older, more toxic herbicides is also increasing.

    The rendering ineffective of Bt: Bt GMO crops cause Bt resistence where naturally occuring Bt does not. This a farmer who chooses not to bear the economic expense of GMO seed, who formerly used Bt, not faces higher costs to farm.

    The increased incidence of crop failure with GMO crops and their increased cost. GMO seed is in general, far more expensive. When there is crop failure, the farmer faces a larger loss with the use of the more costly GMO crop.

    The actual yields in the field from GMO crops fall short of claims: The Union of Concerned Scientists, relying on peer reviewed studies, it quite skeptical of the claims from GMO supporters. http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/food_and_agriculture/failure-to-yield.pdf

    The popular press’ focus on Frankenfoods as the focus of the anti GMO camp has stopped most in depth study of the ecological fears that many people have and would like to see investigated. These fears cannot be investigated by institutions or people with financial interest on GMO.

  7. AlexanderZ says

    aziraphale #1

    The fear of new GMO’s is partly that they will make farmers dependent on huge corporations, but also that they might spread uncontrollably

    The key word here is “partly”. If the government feared corporate control it could regulate the corporations. Hell, with the amount of Scottish GE research that is being done it could mandate that only Scottish developed and controlled GE products be used. Not to mention that modern agriculture is already fully reliant on corporations whether you grow GE products or not. This is a non-issue in a developed country like Scotland.
    As for uncontrollable spread – it’s the same as with any other crop – they all pose an equal threat to native flora. The only exception is that GE crops can be modified to be infertile, thus nullifying any such harmful effects.

    The sad reality is that PZ’s picture is right – they fear science, or they fear how their customers would react to science (the government spokesperson said that allowing GM might damage “Scotland’s green brand”) or they just want to stick it to England. Either way it’s bad for Scotland.

  8. andyo says

    I’ve read stories of the producers of GMCs being quite aggressive in protecting their patents. Monsanto, for one, has sued farmers for violating their patents and not paying royalities on their product which, the farmers claim, had contaminated their non-GMO grain.

    Do you have any sources to an actual court case? I’ve understood this to be a myth where the actual cases were (willfully) misunderstood and spread by the organic community. From a quick google I can’t find any specific case from a reliable source.

  9. AlexanderZ says

    blf #4

    The “RoundUp-Ready” crops have increased the use of that pesticide (at least on the fields where such crops are planted)

    Well, duh. That’s the whole idea behind RoundUp-Ready. However, they decreased the use of other, far more toxic, pesticides so it’s a net plus overall.
    __________

    Larry #5

    I’ve read stories of the producers of GMCs being quite aggressive in protecting their patents.

    That’s true. However, I think it’s more prudent to make better patent or anti-malicious litigation laws, then to ban all products entirely. Not that anyone would try to reform current patent laws – crops merely feed the hungry, but patent battles are real money.
    __________

    deangold #6
    I’ll read your article when I’ll have time, but I want to address this.

    The popular press’ focus on Frankenfoods as the focus of the anti GMO camp has stopped most in depth study of the ecological fears that many people have and would like to see investigated. These fears cannot be investigated by institutions or people with financial interest on GMO.

    Do you honestly think the PZ, and the entire skeptic community as well as most of the scientific community, either have financial interest in GE crops (let’s not call them GMO – all organisms are genetically modified) or only get their information from popular sources? You do realize that PZ is a biologist and can scientific papers by himself just fine?

  10. andyo says

    Thanks, timgueguen, it’s astounding how widespread this belief is. Even I who have never been anti-GMO was unsurprised when I heard about it. Corporations will corporation, so regulate, not ban.

  11. skeptico says

    timgueguen #10:

    The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer’s control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser’s action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.

    He wasn’t sued merely because some GMO seed had drifted onto his land. Monsanto have never sued anyone just because seed drifted onto their land. This is just another zombie lie repeated by anti-GMO people. Sad to see it being repeated here.

  12. MadHatter says

    @6 deangold

    If you would like to really know more about the GM concerns and the research being done there are scientists and groups that are working to help inform and educate. There’s a nice blog by a number of plant geneticists, horticulturists, entymologists, and many others who are answering exactly these questions.

    In other words, it’s not the popular press you need to be getting your information from.

    Biology Fortified

  13. says

    Alexander – Roundup Ready crops don’t reduce use of other herbicides, they replace physical extirpation of weeds. Also, glyphosate is actually far more toxic than Monsanto claims — it kills invertebrate larvae and fish, and it is mixed with a surfactant — supposedly an “inactive” ingredient so they don’t even have to establish its safety — which happens to be the same chemical as a common spermicide and is also toxic to invertebrates. And, the problem of glyphosate resistant weeds, as I say, will limit the whole project very soon. Search “Palmer amaranth.”

  14. MattP (must mock his crappy brain) says

    And the anti-GMO brigade starts up again. Almost as bad as the anti-vaxxers in science denialism, hyperskepticism, and overactive ‘better safe than sorry’. The dead horse that is Schmeiser’s supposed victimhood at the hands of big, bad Monsanto has been beaten enough before. No need to start that again. His neighbors also had land contaminated with RR canola. They did what most other farmers do (and even Schmeiser did a few years later then claimed it a victory), they called Monsanto which then paid to have the RR canola contamination removed. IIRC, his neighbors were the ones that informed Monsanto distributors about his spraying non-RR canola that had been contaminated with RR canola then saving and planting the seeds of the plants that survived.

    Re: Terminator crops. Again, lovely Catch-22 you’ve got there. Don’t try to develop Terminator crops and you are horribly and irreparably polluting the environment (exactly the same as non-GMO crops do). Even consider attempting to (re-)develop Terminator crops (Monsanto bought the company that was working on it with the USDA, then promptly locked it away) and you are enslaving farmers because they will have no choice but to buy seeds every season. …despite the fact that most farmers already do buy new seeds every season because the seeds they are already using – both traditionally bred/crossed and modern GMO – do not usually breed true and even non-GMO lines can be covered by patents and/or require agreement to use-licenses.

    As for golden rice, part of the reason it has not made it to farmers is because of eco-terrorists destroying test fields and getting scientists fired through fear mongering. Best source of Vitamin A for supplementation programs is Cod Liver Oil, and I think we can all agree that we’ve fucked up the oceans enough that continuing the current overfishing is a bad idea. Adding more Vitamin A to foods like rice that are already being grown by subsistence farmers is more sustainable and more reliable than supplementation programs. Anyone that starts the ‘just grow some carrots (in a kitchen garden)’ can go pound sand, then try to get carrots to grow in it.

    I expect some will also try to bring up suicides in India, but suicides were already increasing before any GMO cottons were being marketed in India. The suicides are mostly related to reliance on monsoons for irrigation and regional banking regulations that do not enable many farmers without irrigation systems to get reasonable loans.

  15. skeptico says

    deangold #6:

    Genetic Drift of GMO characteristics into weeds. Whether it is the frost resistance inserted into strawberries or Roundup readiness, these traits transfer to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight.

    True for GMO and non-GMO. The problem is understood and can be managed.

    Thus the use of herbicides is going up and the use of older, more toxic herbicides is also increasing.

    Hilarious. So a problem with Roundup ready is that sometimes you have to use some of the more toxic herbicides that were used before roundup ready was available?

    The rendering ineffective of Bt: Bt GMO crops cause Bt resistence where naturally occuring Bt does not.

    Utter nonsense.

    Here’s what is happening here. Anti-GMO people complained about Bt resistant crops – saying Bt is bad in all sorts of ways. It was pointed out that Bt is a pesticide that is approved in organic farming – so it can’t be all bad. Anti-GMO people now say that GMO Bt is different from non-GMO Bt. Nonsense of course.

    This a farmer who chooses not to bear the economic expense of GMO seed, who formerly used Bt, not faces higher costs to farm.

    Do you think farmers are stupid? They will only use the more expensive seeds if it increases their profits overall.

    The increased incidence of crop failure with GMO crops and their increased cost.

    What increased incidence of crop failure with GMO?

    GMO seed is in general, far more expensive. When there is crop failure, the farmer faces a larger loss with the use of the more costly GMO crop.

    True of all seeds farmers buy. You think non-GMO seeds are free?

    The actual yields in the field from GMO crops fall short of claims: The Union of Concerned Scientists, relying on peer reviewed studies, it quite skeptical of the claims from GMO supporters.

    If they’re so bad then why do farmers want to use them?

    This is just typical of the quality of anti-GMO arguments: misinformed, made-up “facts,” GMO isn’t perfect, hasn’t solved all the problems of food production etc. etc.

  16. EigenSprocketUK says

    I’ve got no time for the rabidly anti-GE community, nor for those vandalising fields of scientific research. But I do buy mostly organic, mainly because it’s very much in an organic farmer’s interest (economic interest, and the very viability of their farm) to accept a complex and diverse eco-system: weeds, pests, and all. There’s no “just throw glyphosphate at it” if one unlucky field gets eaten to death because the bugs no longer have any natural predators left alive.
    When I’m in doubt, and when the UK NFU (national farmers’ union) is pro-GMO on all fronts, it seems good sense to take the opposing point of view until I’ve got reliable information. The organic camp may often seem part-hippy and part-barmy, but they have the eco long-term at heart, not the short-term increasingly intensive bio mono-culture.

  17. says

    I’m not joining this argument yet again, but I will point out that the site you link to quoting a selection of expert views, the Science Media Centre, receives the largest portion of its funding (both in terms of number of donors and percentage of funds – 27%) from industry and trade groups. These include pretty much all of the largest agribusiness corporations as well as CropLife, the ag/biotech industry trade organization. So I wouldn’t necessarily expect them to offer a balanced selection of expert opinions.

  18. andyo says

    skeptico #12,

    timgueguen #10:

    The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer’s control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser’s action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.

    He wasn’t sued merely because some GMO seed had drifted onto his land. Monsanto have never sued anyone just because seed drifted onto their land. This is just another zombie lie repeated by anti-GMO people. Sad to see it being repeated here.

    Pretty sure he was linking to that as a source to my previous comment, which was making the exact same point you are.

  19. Knight in Sour Armor says

    Why is this even a discussion on FTB? I thought the anti-science folks frequented different spaces…

  20. brett says

    The tilt in GM crops towards agro-business is understandable, considering the immense amount of time and money it takes just to bring one out for widespread use. Look at Golden Rice, which was developed 15 years ago (with a better variety 10 years ago). And of course, as MattP points out, any time you try to plant this stuff in a field (especially outside the US), you run a serious risk of eco-terrorists showing up to destroy it. Honestly, it would probably be better if you just required that some type of terminator gene be inserted in all GM seeds in exchange for lower approval requirements, with non-terminator varieties requiring longer testing.

    This stuff might become more usable with climate change over time, if we start growing more crops inside greenhouses and other indoor facilities because of inclement weather. Or we’ll just lose the phobia if not doing so makes that kind of food much more expensive.

  21. addicted44 says

    I think PZ has a huge blindside as far as GMO is concerned.

    The science is pretty clear. GMO crops are not inherently more dangerous or worse than regular crops, and they have a ton of benefits to offer to human civilization.

    However, the sociology behind the creation of GMOs is far scarier (are we taking adequate precautions in case we do have problematic strains that are hard to control?).

    And the politics are just miserable. GMO opens basic food to being patented and owned by individuals and organizations. Add that to a system which is already moving towards monocultures, and rapid loss of diversity of seeds and plants, and you have the potential for disaster.

    None of the problems with GMOs are problems with GMOs. However, GMOs have the potential to accelerate and worsen existing problematic trends in the food industry.

  22. says

    Knight in Sour Armor @ 20:

    Why is this even a discussion on FTB?

    Because it’s relevant to every day life? Because it’s not quite as clearcut as some would like to make it? It’s discussion of one facet of science? Is that enough to get on with?

  23. Anri says

    I assume that everyone here is aware that saving seeds for replanting of commercial crops, GMO or otherwise, is essentially a dead issue for modern farmers, yes? Conventionally bred (that is, modified with radiation and mutagenic chemicals) seeds are also typically re-bought each year by farmers using them, for a wide variety of reasons.

    Also, I have never understood why the rage at seed companies like Monsanto and DuPont somehow never seems to adhere to the farmers buying the product. Monsanto can’t sell seed farmers don’t buy. Any farmer wanting conventional seed can buy it easily, from large or small seed companies. While condemning the Evil Empire Monsanto, one might at least ask why their products are selling if no-one wants them?
    To put it another way, to avoid blaming farmers in the production of these crops, one has to assume they know more about farming than the farmers. One could, I suppose, actually ask farmers why they produce these crops, but that’s frankly beyond the interest level of most anti-GMO activists I’ve encountered.

    (Standard disclosure: I used to work as a contractor at the home campus of Monsanto, did so for about 2-1/2 years. I’m not a massive fan of the company, personally or professionally, for a variety of reasons, but they’ve got enough real, verifiable warts to not have to chase bogeymen to be critical of them.)

  24. unclefrogy says

    I am not sure what is meant by ecological disaster in relation to farming.
    it looks to me that from the point of view of the plants and animals that lived in and on the land that is now farmland it has been a disaster all along. Be it forests or grasslands the populations of all the per-existing plants and animals if not gone entirely as in extinct have been severely reduced and are hanging on in little pockets here and there.
    I am not against farming at all nor any of the other development we do like cities but to ignore the death and destruction that results as if it does not exist is absurd.
    The lush vineyards growing on the corpse of the forest are beautiful only in our eyes.
    I find it very a difficult question.
    uncle frogy

  25. Jackson says

    @addicted44

    However, the sociology behind the creation of GMOs is far scarier (are we taking adequate precautions in case we do have problematic strains that are hard to control?).

    What regulatory steps do you want to see taken that are not being taken currently?

    And the politics are just miserable. GMO opens basic food to being patented and owned by individuals and organizations.

    Plant varieties have been patentable for about 100 years now, so I don’t think it is fair to lay that at the feet of GMOs. Patents on plant traits also expire after 20 years. I’m sure there are many problems with the US and worldwide patent system, but I think allowing people to profit off their intellectual creations for a limited amount of time in order to recoup R and D costs is reasonable.

  26. says

    I posted the link I did strictly for information purposes, not to take a side either pro or against. I also posted it because that story took place in my neck of the woods, and got a lot of press here in Saskatchewan.

  27. Amphiox says

    deangold #6:

    Those are valid arguments for regulating specific GMOs, but not for outright banning all of them.

  28. says

    I remember the last time I tried calling anti-GE/GMO bullshit as bullshit (as fear mongering, special pleading, or just downright ignorance) I was laid into for being a meany meany ignorant poo-head or something. So I’ll keep it short.

    Asking for additional special rules and regulations beyond those already in place is rediculous if there is no actual tangible proof that there is a clear, present and unmittigated danger. Up to this point in time there have been little to no dangers related to GE crops and resistant crops that don’T also come up with “standard” crops. If you want to ban, highly restrict, or destroy these things *the burden of proof lies upon you to give a clear rational and evidenced reason why*. If all you can manage is more special-pleading and “omg its new ergo bad” then it is worthless.

  29. says

    *further and also* conflating giant corps with their products is harmful in general. Is clean, bottled water the problem, or is it the companies that bottle them that are the problem for various reasons? is that why we should ban all bottled water? no.

    NOT TO MENTION this kind of ignorant babble causes *real harm to underpriviledged people*. You know, those populations that cannot afford the often quite expensive and priviledged diets of the Organic Sales Machine.

  30. says

    Marcus Ranum @ 28:

    This is kind of fun: a renaissance painting shows what watermelons looked like only fairly recently

    That’s incorrect. See here, paying attention to the update.

  31. expat says

    @22

    “However, the sociology behind the creation of GMOs is far scarier (are we taking adequate precautions in case we do have problematic strains that are hard to control?).”

    What a load of absolute bullshit. In order for any GMO food to hit the market, it’s subjected to several years of research costing millions of dollars in order to earn FDA approval. They are studied far more than any non-GMO food product. So if you’re truly worried about controlling “problematic strains” in a GMO where we can breed and control one single trait, you should be more concerned about the several thousand unknown mutations that occur with conventional breeding of non-GMOs or any other food for that matter.

    A great resource I’ve used for all things GMO is the Genetic Literacy Project. It’s a highly reputable organization staffed by a team of credible scientists. Full disclosure – I donate $25/month to them because I respect and support their mission.

    http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/

  32. Jackson says

    @caine #2

    here in the States, farmers have long been dependent on huge corporations, see Monsanto.

    In what ways are farmers in the US dependent on Monsanto?

  33. snodorum says

    @6 deangold

    Genetic Drift* of GMO characteristics into weeds. Whether it is the frost resistance inserted into strawberries or Roundup readiness, these traits transfer to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight.

    These resistances have arisen in certain weeds, but it is a result of selection pressure due to poor rotation of chemicals. I’m not aware of any evidence of weeds acquiring glyphosate-resistance from hybridization with transgenic crops.

    Herbicide resistant weeds result from poor management by growers**. When growers fail to rotate their modes of action (the specific active ingredient that kills a pest/weed), there is a high selection pressure that will favor resistant weeds/pests in the following generations. Because these pests are capable of leaving behind propagules (in the form of seed, sclerotia, spores, etc.), resistant pests can quickly become the dominant biotype.

    Rotation of chemicals within a season is a major part of an integrated pest management approach, along with other cultural practices (tillage, crop rotation, refuges). A perfect example of the integrated management is the government program requiring growers to included refuge corn in their Bt corn crop. By planting a percentage of your field as non-Bt corn, you reduce the selection pressure for Bt resistant rootworms. Check out the link below:
    http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/crop_refuge.html – Refuges explained
    http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/bt_corn_refuge_2006.htm – EPA requirements for Bt crops

    *Being pedantic here, but I think you are mistaken as to what genetic drift is. It simply describes the shift in allele frequency within a population due to proliferation of some individuals and their offspring.

    **I hate to throw growers under the bus like that. It is also the fault of faculty at our land grant universities that fail to communicate the importance of chemical rotation, and also government agencies that are tasked with crop protection as well as environmental protection.

  34. deangold says

    I find it interesting that the responses up to @16 to my post have ignored my initial point.

    “From Marcello Glaser to you PZ, people I admire on so many areas of expertise, have just bought in on agribusiness’s view of GMO’s. Here are issues that ahve been glossed over in the question:”

    Please note, nowhere di I say that there is no place for GMO or that I am entirely anti GMO. I personally do not like to support agribusiness and industrial farming and I would love to have GMO labeling just as I like having ingredient labeling. And I am just as intensely against the FDA and USDA maintaining lists of when chemicals used in food production do not have to be revealed. As an example, the use of ammonia as a disinfectant in the production of “lean finely textured beef”, which was approved at up to 20pp, and was used at some plants at 50 to 80 ppm and possibly higher, without disclosure. By the way, those list if hundreds of pages long.

    So just to make my position clear, I wish the skeptical community was as interested in looking at the economic and ecological issues raised in the GMO debate as they are in talking about how “frankenfoods” are surely not dangerous. because if they were, we would surely have seen the effects by now. (as an aside, how long did it take to prove the dangers of transfats?) I would like to see the skepticism go to all sides of the debate.

    Now to specific replies (and someday I’ll learn how to use quotes etc, I am new here).

    @9 AlexanderZ
    I do not for one minute think that PZ or most of the people in the skeptic community have financial interest. But that claim is a blatant strawman argument on your part.

    What I said was:
    “These fears cannot be investigated by institutions or people with financial interest on GMO.”
    When I search on the issue, I find so many studies done by people with ties to agribusiness and at institutions with track records of financial interest.” No where was PZ mentioned by name or even implied. I am skeptical of the fox conducting research on henhouse safety when foxes are hired as guards.

    @13 Madhatter I am not just looking at the popular press. In fact, the one study I linked was by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is another on Bt Resistance development in Bt Transgenic crops. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n6/full/nbt.2597.html and the study quoted was published in Nature Biotechnology 31, 510–521 (2013) doi:10.1038/nbt.2597. Again not popular press. Again an appeal to authority or a strawman argument. While I did not list all my sources, and I still have not, they are certainly not all… “In other words, it’s not the popular press you need to be getting your information from.”
    UI am not a professional scientist with access to costly journals, but I do try and look at source material in forming my opinions. They just happen to disagree with yours. I will look at the blog you site. I am always willing to learn.

    @16 skeptico

    re genetic drift…
    you stated “True for GMO and non-GMO. The problem is understood and can be managed.”
    But when GMO was being introduced and when arguments for lesser to no rials and safety studies were made, we were told that the GMO traits would not spread by genetic drift (I may be using the wrong technical term). But the freeze resistant strawberry led to freeze resistant weeds. Bt corn is leading to major outbreaks of resistance to Bt, both GMO and natural, that has been in use for long before GMO’s came along. Bt Corn is rendering Bt ineffective. Bt did not do this. So your quote of “Utter nonsense.” is truly self referential. I have linked to a scientific study that shows my claim supported in a peer reviewed paper. Your claim of “Utter nonsense.” is just your claim. Please refute the paper and we can have a discussion. But your use of unsupported name calling is not something I need reply to further.

    “Hilarious. So a problem with Roundup ready is that sometimes you have to use some of the more toxic herbicides that were used before roundup ready was available?”

    I am not a believer in Roundup as a panacea to farming. There are farms, and I buy foods from them, that do not use Roundup. They live in coexistence with their weeds. Some of these farms are organic, some are no spray and others describe themselves as minimal impact. But in industrial agriculture in the GMO model, the strength of GMO ready seed was that it would reduce the use of pesticides and roundup would be used and the over all toxic load would be reduced. But the use of GMO seed has led to a large increase in the use of herbicides and the use of clearly more toxic ones. es the ones before Roundup, but an argument made in favor of roundup is that it was less toxic. I don’t see going back to more toxic chemicals as a win and it certainly does not fall within the predictions made by GMO producers.

    As to my use of “crop failure” and you’re reply of “what crop failure?” I stand corrected, the actual terminology used int he letter of working corn scientists concerned about the failures of GMO crops was termed ““greater than expected damage”:

    As far as farmers “wanting to use GMO crops” there are myriad reasons for farmers to use techniques. But most of these presentations are made in fact by the agribusiness companies themselves with a vested interest. They financial arms used to supply capital to farms, the increased inputs and the equipment necessary to follow the protocols necessary for industrial farming is intertwined with the large agribusinesses pushing GMOs. My position gleaned from reading a lot of articles is that the correct information is out there in small but disturbing amounts while the results provided by Monsanto and large university studies are in large amount. But the voices of Monsanto and universities funded by large agribusiness entities is, to my mind, suspect. As is the fact that medical studies funded by the medical companies introducing new drugs are overly optimistic on benefit, underly concerned with negative consequences as compared to more neutral funded studies.

    I am not positing a huge conspiracy, by the way. It is just simple economics.

    “Convergence of evidence on field-evolved resistance
    Greater than expected damage to Bt corn hybrids expressing the Cry3Bb1 protein
    was first observed across a wide geographic area during the 2009 growing season.
    By 2011, problem areas had been reported in northwestern and north-central
    Illinois, northeastern Iowa, southern Minnesota, northeastern Nebraska, and
    eastern South Dakota. Common features of affected fields in these areas included a
    history of continuous planting to corn and the use of Cry3Bb1-expressing hybrids
    for multiple years.
    The first published report of field-evolved resistance by western corn rootworm to a
    Bt toxin, Cry3Bb1, also appeared in print in 2011. In this peer-reviewed paper,
    Gassmann et al. (2011) confirmed rootworm resistance to Cry3Bb1 corn and
    demonstrated that this was not accompanied by an increase in tolerance to
    Cry34/35Ab1 corn.
    The circumstances surrounding the appearance of field-evolved resistance and its
    documentation by Gassmann et al. (2011) are consistent with laboratory selection
    studies, which revealed rapid evolution of resistance to Cry3Bb1 in nine of nine
    experiments (Meihls et al. 2008, Meihls 2010, Oswald et al. 2011). All available
    evidence thus converges in implicating field-evolved resistance to Cry3Bb1 as the
    most likely cause of “greater than expected damage” in rootworm problem fields. ”

    Here is the full letter: http://www.biosicherheit.de/pdf/aktuell/12-03_comment_porter_epa.pdf

  35. Jackson says

    @deangold #37

    But the freeze resistant strawberry led to freeze resistant weeds

    I wasn’t aware of any freeze resistant GMO strawberries, much less any transfer of the traits to weeds. Can you link to a source for this?

    You seem to have a great concern for the development of resistance to techniques of controlling weed and insect pests. So do farmers. Resistance will form for any type of pest control, including flame weeding and tillage. I see GMOs as another mode of action to combat these pests, making the problem of resistance better, not worse.

    As far as farmers “wanting to use GMO crops” there are myriad reasons for farmers to use techniques. But most of these presentations are made in fact by the agribusiness companies themselves with a vested interest. They financial arms used to supply capital to farms, the increased inputs and the equipment necessary to follow the protocols necessary for industrial farming is intertwined with the large agribusinesses pushing GMOs

    You aren’t coming right out and saying it, but the implication is that farmers are too dumb to figure out if they are benefiting from buying GMO seed or not. I don’t think that is the case.

  36. andyo says

    #37 deangold,

    I personally do not like to support agribusiness and industrial farming and I would love to have GMO labeling just as I like having ingredient labeling.

    Why do you think the government and taxpayers should support your personal likes/dislikes? What properties do GMOs as a whole have or lack that in your view require labeling? Are they more dangerous just because they’re GM? Are all GMOs to be treated the same? What exactly does the label “genetically modified” say about a particular product?

    Also, this labeling thing is not much more than a thinly veiled scare tactic. This sends the tacit message: “Why would the government mandate GM labeling if it wasn’t dangerous?” And you bet the anti-GMO crowd is banking on it. There is precedent, even. See the silicone breast implant scare in the 1990’s and the Thimerosal scare last decade.

  37. deangold says

    WOW @39. What an amazing stretch! I never said anything about the government supporting my likes and dislikes. GMO labeling is truth telling int he same way ingredient labeling should be. How can an informed consumer exist of some forms of information are waved away at the behest of companies doing business who don’t want them to be disclosed. How can a skeptic vite for hiding information? How can science be done without full data? WOW

    Second WOW. I am calling for more robust debate rather than dismissiveness. There is scientific evidence that could be the basis of discussion.

  38. deangold says

    @38 Jackson, I do not have the cite on the strawberries but I will try to find it. I dont know if they were ever commercialized but the freeze resistance was identified in tests. I do believe they were approved but no one ever commercialized. And one is not too dumb if the information is not available readily. At one point, the spending from the USDA on conventional agricultural practices was 99% of the USDA budget on growing practices when organics alone, not to mention other forms, were 10%. I am saying that there is more research to be done. Again, the cites I have posted are data based studies. Why are you not responding to the data I have presented instead of saying what the implications of what I am saying are. Especially as I disagree with your analysis.

    As was stated in the letter from the concerned scientists, the difference between other forms of IPM and GMO is that there is no on off switch for the GMO features. So typical IPM techniques such as timed application of a treatment cannot be used with GMO crops. This is a glaringly obvious difference.

    I first learned about IPM with regards to the wine business and the first level economic gains tot he farmer were in the simple reduction of usage in the chemicals then typically applied. When a vineyard switched to a monitoring and responding model, the treatments were used at a very much lower rate. Clos du Bois and then Gallo both found that yields shortly after introducing IPM were 95% of those using conventional schedule based pest management, but the cost of the treatments not used more than offset the productivity difference. By the way, I cannot cite any studies here, these were the results of conversation with grape growers, wine makers who were converting their vineyards to organic, sustainable and ipm techniques before these were introduced to conventional agriculture.

    There was a time when IPM was conventional and far out and hippy ideas in the wine business and the companies that sold the treatments that were reduced or eliminated by a more integrative approach had data to prove the “hippies wrong”. Until better data using state of the art technique was collected.

    Again, all I am saying si that there is evidence that is being ignored and dismissed.

  39. andyo says

    WOW @39. What an amazing stretch! I never said anything about the government supporting my likes and dislikes.

    You said you supported labeling because of your personal dislike of agribusiness and industrial farming.

    GMO labeling is truth telling int he same way ingredient labeling should be. How can an informed consumer exist of some forms of information are waved away at the behest of companies doing business who don’t want them to be disclosed. How can a skeptic vite for hiding information? How can science be done without full data? WOW

    What a crock of BS. This is vacuous pro-labeling talking points. “Truth” about what? What does the GM label tell you about a particular product? GM products are different, it’s not one monolithic entity. Even if one GM product or many were proved to be dangerous, it doesn’t say anything about other GM products. What exactly do you propose that specific label to say?

    Second WOW. I am calling for more robust debate rather than dismissiveness.

    OK debate, answer with anything of substance other than more content-free anti-GM talking points.

    There is scientific evidence that could be the basis of discussion.

    OK, such as? (Reminder: we are talking arguments about GM labeling.)

  40. Jackson says

    At one point, the spending from the USDA on conventional agricultural practices was 99% of the USDA budget on growing practices when organics alone, not to mention other forms, were 10%. I am saying that there is more research to be done. Again, the cites I have posted are data based studies. Why are you not responding to the data I have presented instead of saying what the implications of what I am saying are. Especially as I disagree with your analysis.

    Well, one reason is because I can’t make heads or tails of what you mean when you say “At one point, the spending from the USDA on conventional agricultural practices was 99% of the USDA budget on growing practices when organics alone, not to mention other forms, were 10%.

    I didn’t dispute the development of resistance in some populations of either root worm or shoot borers because I don’t dispute that resistance has developed in some populations.

    As was stated in the letter from the concerned scientists, the difference between other forms of IPM and GMO is that there is no on off switch for the GMO features. So typical IPM techniques such as timed application of a treatment cannot be used with GMO crops. This is a glaringly obvious difference.

    Why are you making separate categories for GMOs and IPM? Both can and should be, and indeed are, used to control pests. GMOs can be a useful part of IPM.

    I do not have the cite on the strawberries but I will try to find it. I dont know if they were ever commercialized but the freeze resistance was identified in tests

    The reason I ask is that there have been false scare stories about putting fish genes in tomatoes to prevent freezing on sites like natural news and mercola. There where experiments to do that, but it conferred no freezing tolerance so was never developed. You claiming that the trait was not only in use but had spread to weeds made me suspicious of where you are getting your information, especially in light of dismissing university research as too tainted to be trusted.

  41. Anri says

    There is GMO labeling: Anything with “organic” isn’t.
    Anything else might very well be.
    Any questions?

  42. Jackson says

    @Anri #44

    There are also independent labels with their own standards, such as non-GMO project, that allow people to buy non-GMO products if it suits their fancy. I see that label all the time at the grocery store.

  43. Who Cares says

    @deangold(#40):

    GMO labeling is truth telling int he same way ingredient labeling should be

    You do realize that that would require the labeling of all food.
    For example that corn on the cob you have? The original ears of corn were about 1/1000th the volume of the average ear that you can buy these days. Then humans started modifying them.
    Why should that be exempted because that modification started thousands of years ago. The main difference is that we can do that kind of modification in years instead of millennia.
    Case in point, they’ve recently developed a rice (by inserting a non rice gene) that binds more carbon into starches increasing the amount of carbohydrates a single grain gives by several times. Getting that same effect through conventional genetic modification would have taken decades if not centuries.

    About the only thing I’m worried about with the herbicide resistant crops is what I voiced when I first read about them. It wouldn’t last. Combination of monoculture and due to prices repeated sowing of the same crop types would result in resistant weeds.

    How can an informed consumer exist of some forms of information are waved away at the behest of companies doing business who don’t want them to be disclosed.

    Do you know how much else is not shown on the labels?
    For example herbs are irradiated if they go into other foods. That is never shown on the label. If you want your modern GMO ingredients labeled why not that as well?
    Or what about a product that uses dough as ingredient. It is not required that the ingredients of that dough are put on the label (note that the yeast in there is modified way beyond the grain, it if is a bt-grain, in the dough).
    Or what about the contains 0% fat because the amount of fat per unit falls below a certain level?
    Or what about known contaminants which are not dangerous (as far as is known) to humans that get into food due to the way it is processed?
    Or what about additives that should be out of the food by the end of the processing line but can remain as traces? Why not add those as well to the label?

    You are denying the consumers their ability to make informed decisions about their food by demanding that they only get your selective information added to the label.

    How can a skeptic vite for hiding information?

    Very easy. To simplify things. As someone who work(ed) with big data, it is of fuck all use to know the temperature of every 0.1Cm^2 every second for a 10m^2 plate if all you want to know which points on that plate deviate too much from the norm. So you hide the information and only show the spots that are wrong.

    How can science be done without full data?

    So now buying groceries is science? WOW indeed.

  44. skeptico says

    deangold #37

    e genetic drift…
    you stated “True for GMO and non-GMO. The problem is understood and can be managed.”

    But when GMO was being introduced and when arguments for lesser to no rials and safety studies were made, we were told that the GMO traits would not spread by genetic drift (I may be using the wrong technical term). But the freeze resistant strawberry led to freeze resistant weeds. Bt corn is leading to major outbreaks of resistance to Bt, both GMO and natural, that has been in use for long before GMO’s came along. Bt Corn is rendering Bt ineffective. Bt did not do this. So your quote of “Utter nonsense.” is truly self referential.

    You haven’t refuted anything I wrote. Your claim “freeze resistant strawberry led to freeze resistant weeds” is unsupported and almost certainly nonsense, as is your claim about Bt. Utter nonsense is still un-refuted.

    I have linked to a scientific study that shows my claim supported in a peer reviewed paper. Your claim of “Utter nonsense.” is just your claim. Please refute the paper and we can have a discussion.

    You linked to no study.

    But your use of unsupported name calling is not something I need reply to further.

    I did absolutely zero name calling. Try again.

    “Hilarious. So a problem with Roundup ready is that sometimes you have to use some of the more toxic herbicides that were used before roundup ready was available?”

    I am not a believer in Roundup as a panacea to farming. There are farms, and I buy foods from them, that do not use Roundup. They live in coexistence with their weeds. Some of these farms are organic, some are no spray and others describe themselves as minimal impact. But in industrial agriculture in the GMO model, the strength of GMO ready seed was that it would reduce the use of pesticides and roundup would be used and the over all toxic load would be reduced. But the use of GMO seed has led to a large increase in the use of herbicides and the use of clearly more toxic ones. es the ones before Roundup, but an argument made in favor of roundup is that it was less toxic. I don’t see going back to more toxic chemicals as a win and it certainly does not fall within the predictions made by GMO producers.

    So you agree that a problem with Roundup ready is that it is less toxic than the non Roundup pesticides that were used before roundup (and which are being used again in some cases). You really don’t see how silly your argument is?

    As to my use of “crop failure” and you’re reply of “what crop failure?” I stand corrected, the actual terminology used int he letter of working corn scientists concerned about the failures of GMO crops was termed ““greater than expected damage”

    So no GMO crop failures then. 

    As far as farmers “wanting to use GMO crops” there are myriad reasons for farmers to use techniques. But most of these presentations are made in fact by the agribusiness companies themselves with a vested interest. They financial arms used to supply capital to farms, the increased inputs and the equipment necessary to follow the protocols necessary for industrial farming is intertwined with the large agribusinesses pushing GMOs. My position gleaned from reading a lot of articles is that the correct information is out there in small but disturbing amounts while the results provided by Monsanto and large university studies are in large amount. But the voices of Monsanto and universities funded by large agribusiness entities is, to my mind, suspect. As is the fact that medical studies funded by the medical companies introducing new drugs are overly optimistic on benefit, underly concerned with negative consequences as compared to more neutral funded studies.

    I really have no idea of what point you are trying to make here. Except maybe that somehow farmers have been fooled into using something that isn’t working. Or something.

    I am not positing a huge conspiracy, by the way. It is just simple economics.

    Yes it is. For some reason you are trying to make it more complicated.

  45. grendelsfather says

    deangold@@41

    @38 Jackson, I do not have the cite on the strawberries but I will try to find it. I dont know if they were ever commercialized but the freeze resistance was identified in tests.

    I believe that you are thinking about a very early trial of spraying genetically modified bacteria on to strawberries to prevent frost damage. The bacteria (some strain of Pseudomonas, IIRC) were mutants that could not express a surface protein that nucleated ice formation. It was entirely possible to isolate such strains with normal genetic techniques, and no one would have cared. However, the company involved (one of the early SF Bay area plant biotech companies back in the late 80s or early 90s) chose to use more precise technology to knock out the gene. There was never any chance for the mutant gene to spread to weeds (or any plant) from the bacteria. However, the bacteria could have escaped from the field trials, and almost certainly did, as it is damn near impossible to spray a few hectares with bacteria and recall all of them.

  46. grendelsfather says

    Here is the Wikipedia link to the frost-free bacteria story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice-minus_bacteria
    Details can be found in the references therein.

    Also, while I have your attention, could we please stop using the term ‘genetic drift’ to refer to genes escaping into the wild? Genetic drift has a real meaning, but this ain’t it. [/pedant ]

  47. skeptico says

    I do not have the cite on the strawberries but I will try to find it. I dont know if they were ever commercialized but the freeze resistance was identified in tests. I do believe they were approved but no one ever commercialized.

    If they were never commercialized, as you are now saying, then it is unlikely (to be polite) that the frost resistance trait was ever transferred “to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight” as you claimed.

  48. grendelsfather says

    It’s worse than special pleading, it is ignoring reality. The genetically modified bacterium was deliberately released into the environment 30 years ago, and there have been no consequences.

    Of course, if the mutant gene ever does find its way into weeds, and frost-resistant kudzu begins to envelop Morris, PZ may have to rethink his stance on GMOs.

  49. Ewan R says

    Oh good, another one of these, and in before 200+ comments, which is a first…

    Normal disclaimer up front, I am a Monsanto employee, the views contained herein are entirely of my own devising and do not necessarily reflect those of my benevolent corporate overlords (reptilian or otherwise).

    #3 Cervantes

    Despite all the talk about golden rice and drought resistance and so on, GMO crops in the real world are all about pesticides

    By volume, sure, most GMOs are either roundup ready, or have one or more of the Bt toxins in them for insect resistance. There is however also virus resistant papaya, virus resistant squash, drought tolerant corn, and now (if I’m not mistaken) bruise resistant potato.

    I’ve read stories of the producers of GMCs being quite aggressive in protecting their patents. Monsanto, for one, has sued farmers for violating their patents and not paying royalities on their product which, the farmers claim, had contaminated their non-GMO grain.

    While Monsanto does sue for infringement of patent or of contract, mere contamination of non-GMO grain would not be grounds for a lawsuit (there has to be obvious intent to violate patent law or contract, not accidental presence)

    #6Deangold

    Genetic Drift of GMO characteristics into weeds.

    That’s not what genetic drift means.

    Whether it is the frost resistance inserted into strawberries or Roundup readiness, these traits transfer to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight.

    The first has never happened because no such thing has been commercialized, the second has not been documented to have occurred – glyphosate resistant weeds exist, to be sure, but the mode by which they are resistant is not the transgene but other evolved mechanisms.

    The rendering ineffective of Bt: Bt GMO crops cause Bt resistence where naturally occuring Bt does not.

    And yet the first instances of field resistance to Bt occurred before GMOs were commercialized.

    The increased incidence of crop failure with GMO crops and their increased cost.

    Citation needed.

    When there is crop failure, the farmer faces a larger loss with the use of the more costly GMO crop.

    moderately larger, not far larger. From prior discussions on the topic it appears that when comparing GM to non GM seed the cost of seeds tends to equate to about 4% of the total cost of raising the crop when using GM seeds, to maybe 0.5% to 1% when using non-GMO – crop failure is essentially as bad whichever system one is using.

    The actual yields in the field from GMO crops fall short of claims

    But the UCS isn’t concerned about actual yields (where even they have to concede actual yield impacts in the US for Bt were a net positive) but with intrinsic yields, which no current marketed GM even remotely claims to impact.

    #9 AlexanderZ

    Do you honestly think the PZ, and the entire skeptic community as well as most of the scientific community, either have financial interest in GE crops (let’s not call them GMO – all organisms are genetically modified) or only get their information from popular sources? You do realize that PZ is a biologist and can scientific papers by himself just fine?

    So much this. It strikes me as odd that Monsanto would be capable of buying the consensus view on GM crops in a world where oil companies cannot do similar on climate change. $15 Bn in revenues versus $150Bn in revenues, and yet the industry which is an order of magnitude bigger cannot purchase the consensus of a research community which is likely an order of magnitude smaller (because biology is cooler, or easier, depending on whether you side with biologists or climatologists)

    #14 cervantes

    Roundup Ready crops don’t reduce use of other herbicides, they replace physical extirpation of weeds.

    Actually they do both. The advent of RR crops decreased use of other herbicides and made no/low till far more doable on a large number of acres.

    #37 Deangold

    But the freeze resistant strawberry led to freeze resistant weeds.

    Except it didn’t, because no such strawberry has ever been released commercially.

    Bt Corn is rendering Bt ineffective. Bt did not do this.

    Except it did http://jee.oxfordjournals.org/content/83/5/1671.abstract

    My take on Scotland banning this – pure politics, the ascendancy of the greens in British politics raises probably one of the main challenges to the SNP in Scotland given the death of the libdems and conservatives North of the border – the greens disdain for GMOs is clear, and given that Scotland grows no GMO, and that there are no GMOs on the table for deregulation by the EU any time soon that are likely to be grown in Scotland – this is a nice easy no impact high visibility move to establish green credentials. I’d still vote for them.

  50. Nick Gotts says

    If you’re going to ban everything that has been genetically modified, the Scots are going to have to go back to harvesting wild grains and hunting wild animals — every single commercial crop plant has been extensively modified by human intervention, to the point that they’re often completely unrecognizable in comparison to the ancestral stock. – PZM

    Yeah, yeah. It really would be better to drop this particular piece of bullshit. Everyone knows that “GMOs” and “genetically modified” refer to organisms produced using modern techniques of directly introducing DNA into the genome. It’s about as valid as the homophobic bigot’s: “Of course I’m not a homophobe, I’m not scared of homos, hfnah hfnah!”

    As for golden rice, part of the reason it has not made it to farmers is because of eco-terrorists destroying test fields and getting scientists fired through fear mongering. – MattP@15

    Do you have any.. what’s the word – oh yes, evidence that the destruction of a field trial in the Philippines (which was quite wrong*), or the firing of 3 Chinese scientists for failing to obtain the approvals they needed** have delayed the availability of golden rice to farmers? Because that’s not what IRRI say:

    The process of using modern breeding and biotechnology techniques to develop new plant traits such as Golden Rice and integrate them into existing varieties usually takes many years. The time for discovery, development, regulatory approval and marketing of a new biotechnology crop trait is estimated to be 13 years on average http://www.croplife.org/PhillipsMcDougallStudy.

    The development of Golden Rice is on pace with this timeframe. In 2006, IRRI and others began working with a new version of the Golden Rice trait that produces significantly more beta carotene than the 1999 prototype, and it is this version of Golden Rice that is still under development and evaluation. Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers if it is approved as safe by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions, a process that is likely to take another two to three years

    But hey, they’re only the people leading the development of the crop – what do they know?

    *It’s worth noting that in addition to being wrong in itself, the vandalism carried out against this field trial has proven a spectacular own-goal for those who did it – in every thread about GMO crops, you can bet it will be raised as proving the utter wickedness of those opposing their introduction.

    **It’s ludicrous to refer to those raising concerns about this trial – which has been admitted by Tufts University to have breached ethical guidelines – as “eco-terrorists” – its shows quite clearly that you are not arguing in good faith.

  51. Nick Gotts says

    A bit more from IRRI on the current status of golden rice:

    The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) reports that as of March 2014, the research, analysis, and testing of beta-carotene-enriched Golden Rice continues, in partnership with collaborating national research agencies in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

    IRRI, together with its many partners across the globe, continues with the thorough analysis of the data emerging from the series of Golden Rice multi-location field trials (MLTs) conducted in the Philippines. MLTs have also been scheduled in Bangladesh and Indonesia. Regulatory authorities in the Philippines are also continually consulted to determine the significance, if any, of data lost due to the vandalism by militants of the MLT site at Pili, Camarines Sur, in August 2013.

    The first round of MLTs was conducted using one of the most advanced versions of Golden Rice: GR2 event “R” (GR2-R). This first round took place in 2012-13 to assess how well this version of Golden Rice would perform in different locations in the Philippines. Preliminary results were mixed. While the target level of beta-carotene in the grain was attained, average yield was unfortunately lower than that from comparable local varieties already preferred by farmers.

    An important goal of the trials was to test whether the agronomic performance of the new rice variety would be acceptable to farmers. The initial results indicate that more research is needed, with greater focus on increasing yield. Based on these results, a decision has been reached to move forward from work solely focused on GR2-R to also include other versions of Golden Rice, such as GR2-E and others.

    Notice the folowing points:
    1) The vandalism affected a single site, and it’s not yet clear (or wasn’t in March 2014, and I’ve seen no update) whether it caused any delay at all to the research.
    2) IRRI use the correct term, “vandalism”, not the ludicrously emotive “eco-terrorism”.
    3) Results from other sites in the Philippines make clear that golden rice is not yet ready for release to farmers.

  52. Nick Gotts says

    With reference to glyphosate, the herbicide to which “Roundup Ready” GM crops are tolerant, it’s worth noting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer research arm of the WHO, has declared it a “probable human carcinogen”. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean anyone has deverloped cancer as a result of spraying it, let alone eating residues in food sprayed with it, but does suggest that we should be cautious about declaring it more benign than the herbicides it has replaced.

  53. Nick Gotts says

    Hell, with the amount of Scottish GE research that is being done it could mandate that only Scottish developed and controlled GE products be used. – AlexanderZ@7

    No, it couldn’t. Doing so would be against EU law.

  54. Ewan R says

    Yeah, yeah. It really would be better to drop this particular piece of bullshit. Everyone knows that “GMOs” and “genetically modified” refer to organisms produced using modern techniques of directly introducing DNA into the genome.

    I second this. I saw similar on facebook yesterday claiming that Norman Borlaug had used genetic engineering to save a billion lives therefore it was wrong for anti-GM activists to be anti-GM. While I think anti-GM activists are, for the most part, wrong, this line of reasoning is clearly completely fallacious as Borlaug did all his work (at least that resulting in lives being saved) far before GMOs were close to being a thing.

    Yes, the genes of things that we’ve bred conventionally have been modified. But the label ‘Genetically Modified’ is quite obviously never used (outside of arguments against people who oppose GMOs…) when discussing the products of traditional or indeed modern breeding.

  55. Jackson says

    Yeah, yeah. It really would be better to drop this particular piece of bullshit. Everyone knows that “GMOs” and “genetically modified” refer to organisms produced using modern techniques of directly introducing DNA into the genome.

    I second this. I saw similar on facebook yesterday claiming that Norman Borlaug had used genetic engineering to save a billion lives therefore it was wrong for anti-GM activists to be anti-GM. While I think anti-GM activists are, for the most part, wrong, this line of reasoning is clearly completely fallacious as Borlaug did all his work (at least that resulting in lives being saved) far before GMOs were close to being a thing.

    I’ll third this, but only conditionally. Many arguments I hear are along the lines of “GMOs have altered the genes of plants, and are therefore unnatural and bad.” In this case I think it is appropriate to bring up the point that humans have been altering the genomes of crops for thousands of years.

  56. Ewan R says

    I’ll third this, but only conditionally.

    I’d agree on that front – if someone argues that GMOs are bad because you don’t know what messing with a genome does, then yeah, one can point out that we’ve been messing around with genomes willy nilly for millennia without having the first clue about what we’re doing and without much in the way of adverse effects. Here we have a clear parallel between the two processes, there are, however, many reasons why one might wish to critique GMOs which have absolutely no parallel with crop modification being done any time prior to 1900 (say, or 1980 if you insist)

  57. MattP (must mock his crappy brain) says

    Nick Gotts, 54+55
    Any invalidation of an experiment or destruction of research materials prior to completion is a set-back. Part of the stated reason for delays is regulation, and regulatory approvals can only be acquired through field experiments and safety studies. If they had enough funding that the number of other sites was sufficient to produce useful results despite the destruction of that site, then good for them. But it still means the evidence regarding the human danger and ecological harm of GE that so many anti-GE proponents assert exists will be weaker, thus potentially weakening the conclusions that can be drawn either way (is or is not safe).

    Re: using ‘eco-terrorists’. I’ve encountered many arguments and several people on the anti-GE side that were extremely similar to those in the anti-vax, anti-abortion/women, anti-science, and gun fondler movements, so, yeah, sorry if I automatically default to terrorist because of that powerful mental association. I guess I might be overreacting by calling them terrorists; after all, destroying a test field is only vandalism. Just like a man researcher sabotaging the experiment of a woman researcher sharing the same lab is only vandalism, right? Just like painting racial slurs on someone’s house is only vandalism, right? Just like gluing shut the locks of a women’s clinic is only vandalism, right?

    As for anti-GE fear mongering around the research in china, are the slymers and their ilk somehow less terrorists because they were the ones that publicized Avicenna’s plagiarism? Is evidence-resistant, ideological fear mongering not part of the terrorist MO? Is attempting to destroy/inhibit the work of the ‘enemy’ and making them fear further attacks not part of the terrorist MO?

    And let’s compare and contrast, shall we?
    Researchers in China fail to fully inform subjects about GE nature of golden rice and the anti-GE crowd rages about ethics, then the IRB acknowledges failures and takes appropriate action regarding the future work of the researchers. Meanwhile, Séralini tortures rats exclusively for photo-ops and we hear nary a peep from the anti-GE crowd, the anti-animal testing crowd, or his IRB. I wonder why?
    If non-cancer researchers at my former uni (in deep Republican/Teabagger territory) failed to euthanize tumor riddled research animals in a timely manner (and advertised their failure to do so) or any researcher failed to euthanize research animals in a humane fashion, I quite expect that human heads would roll. Maybe that is just because it is a research university with a vet school and is located in a heavily agricultural area, but IRB rules are typically much stricter than local, state, or national animal cruelty laws, so claiming he adhered to French cruelty laws is not much of an excuse.

  58. damiki says

    I have to say, the Agri-biz giants have really done a terrible job on the PR front.

    No farmer is going to invest in seeds that they know consumers won’t buy, and customers will pay a premium if the product is perceived as superior (see organic).

    Monsanto’s approach has been to sue farmers over 140 times (including Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association et al v. Monsanto, which denied organic farmers the protection from being sued for patent infringement if Monsanto’s GMO seeds infect their crops), fight labeling laws, and to generally maintain a public face that matches a caricature of all the worst images the anti-GMO crowd have put forward.

    If, instead they’d have done a PR blitz touting the benefits of GMO products (including labeling laws so a non-GMO product couldn’t claim to be GMO), the public reaction might have been different.

    Of course that horse has already left the barn (and is probably eating GMO oats).

  59. MattP (must mock his crappy brain) says

    damiki, 62
    If you actually read the OSGTA’s press release on their lawsuit, you would understand that they had their suit dismissed because were unable to produce any instances of Monsanto actually suing for inadvertent contamination. They claimed it as a victory because the ruling made Monsanto legally bound to their courtroom assurances to never sue anyone for inadvertent contamination.

    Has Monsanto sued farmers for saving seed and replanting later whether acquired legally or through accidental contamination? Yes. Schmeiser did that, and he rightly lost. That he sprayed a contaminated field with Roundup and saved the seed of the surviving plants was an undisputed fact in Canadian Supreme Court ruling against Schmeiser.
    Has Monsanto sued for simple inadvertent contamination of fields? No. The OSGTA’s suit was dismissed because they could not find a single case of it actually occurring.

  60. Thumper: Who Presents Boxes Which Are Not Opened says

    @ deangold #16

    Genetic Drift of GMO characteristics into weeds. Whether it is the frost resistance inserted into strawberries or Roundup readiness, these traits transfer to the weeds the GMO crop is supposed to fight.

    Perhaps I’m showing my ignorance here, but I do not understand how a plant can transfer genetic information to another plant of a different species.

  61. Dreaming of an Atheistic Newtopia says

    @64
    It can, it’s been known to happen, but that is not genetic drift, that’s horizontal transfer.

  62. Jackson says

    @64 and 65

    Depending on your species concept plants could transfer genes between species through a variety of ways (see the pluot for example), but I wouldn’t call any of them horizontal gene transfer.

    I suppose an agrobacteria could pick up some sequence in the environment from one plant, and then infect and transfer it to another plant, but I would think that would be a very rare event, and I’d still call it agrobacteria mediated horizontal transfer.