6
   

Genetically Modified Crops Watch

 
 
littlek
 
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 07:40 pm
When I first heard about Monsanto's new GM crops, I was hopeful for the hungry masses of the world. I quickly became incensed (uber-control of GM corps), scared (possible spread of genes), and dismayed (now crops can be planted even in unstable/unsuitable lands - sometimes not good environmentally). I sort of took a wait and see perspective on the topic.

I know that Europe went to great lengths to ban GM foods. I find that interesting, but have seen no reason for them to have done that (links anyone?). Corps like Monsanto made their crops sterile to a) prevent spreading and b) prevent reseeding by farmers. Apparently, not GMs are sterile.....

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=transgenic-canola-plants-break-free-10-08-06

 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 08:18 pm
@littlek,
I was always suspicious of these sterility claims. After all, the seeds that companies are selling to the farmers have to be non-sterile, or else there would be no point for the farmers in planting them. So how do you make seeds that are fertile enough to make make plants, which in turn make seeds for people to eat, but not have those seeds be fertile? I don't see how that makes sense.

As for the politics and economics of genetically engineered crops, I'm fairly content with how the US handles their regulation, and think Europeans are basically paranoid about them. But it wouldn't be the first time that I change my mind on something. I'm sure this thread is going to be an interesting read.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Aug, 2010 09:19 pm
@littlek,
littlek wrote:
I know that Europe went to great lengths to ban GM foods. I find that interesting, but have seen no reason for them to have done that (links anyone?).

For the most part, the European Union leaves the regulation of gene technology to its member states. Accordingly, policies vary between countries. I have only followed the discussion in Germany. And from a quick internet search, it seems difficult to provide any links about it that are helpful to you, because they're all in German. So the best I can do is to summarize the German links I've read in my own English words.

My web search confirmed the impressions I got from reading the newspapers and listening to public radio in Germany. It seems that American and German regulators have both relied on the same science. So the reason Germany's regulations are tougher isn't that German regulators have found concrete harm in GM crops that Americans have ignored.

Rather, German regulators take a different approach than their American colleagues to the risk management around currently-unknown problems that may turn up in the future. American regulators presume GM crops "innocent until proven guilty" of causing environmental problems. Germans, by contrast, presume them "guilty until proven innocent". The difference in German laws, then, reflects the benefit of the doubt that Germany is not giving GM crops. That's a general feature of our political culture. We've been similarly cautious about stem cell research, cell phone radiation, nuclear power, computers---pretty much all other modern technologies since the 1970s.

Apart from risk management, German law also appears to give greater weight to the interests of consumers who do not wish to buy GM food, and of the non-GM farmers who supply them. For example, German law has strict labelling requirements for GM foods. It also gives non-GM farmers to sue GM for damages when seeds from GM fields "pollute" non-GM fields.

I think these three points make up most of the bottom line. First, there's a different balance of power between political interest groups; second, there's a difference in risk management; but, third, there's not much difference in assessing the science. So much for my general impression.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 05:42 pm
@littlek,
The thing that bugs me is that they added insecticide into the plant genes. When we eat that we eat the insecticide. Over the years the accumulated insecticide may have cancerous effects. Look at the hormones and antibiotics added to animals people have grown fatter and healthcare is a disaster. The superbugs come from the antibiotics fed to the animals.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Aug, 2010 09:50 pm
@talk72000,
What insecticide did they add, talk7200?
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 04:49 am
@Thomas,
I dont know about any insecticides but Monsanto has created Roundup Ready seeds with a bit of a Roundup resistance allele(Not sure if its the herbicide or a response allele).

My one neighbor hs been using it and I swear that pigweeds have become resistant to Roundup. These are a ubiquitous broadleaf weed that loves low pH soils like ours . Consequently, when the farmer doses the fields with Roundup to kill the weeds before doing his "no-till" planting of soybeans, the acquiring of Roundup Resistance has occured over 5 years or o. (Hardly a long time genetically speaking).

So hes eveolved a resistant strain of pigweeds and theyre in my pastures and the only way to remove em is by overtilling before they set seeds
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 08:59 am
@farmerman,
Just for a statistical control: How hard is it for a plant species to evolve roundup-resistance through "unnatural selection", for lack of a better term? If your neighbor was breeding roundup-resistant weeds in the same way hospitals are breeding antibiotics-resistant bacteria strains, how would your observations be different?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 09:59 am
@Thomas,
Just read of this the other day. All the claims made by Monsanto about Roundup, "the only herbicide you'll ever need", could be repeated with GM crops.

In the haste to get these things to market, read profit, there really is never enough research done.


Quote:
"Roundup-resistant weeds are cropping up"
The herbicide is so popular that it may not be as effective as it was initially

Philip Brasher
Des Moines Register
Washington Bureau
January 10, 2003

Washington, D.C. - Few inventions have altered agriculture recently as much as Roundup weedkiller, but now scientists are concerned that farmers are using the herbicide so heavily it is losing its effectiveness against some of the world's peskiest weeds.

"It's going to happen. It's inevitable," said Bob Hartzler, a weed scientist at Iowa State University.

Known generically as glyphosate, Roundup is powerful yet environmentally benign. It has led to the widespread adoption of soil-saving techniques that reduce land erosion and combat global warming. Even home gardeners are likely to have a version of Roundup in their garage arsenal.

Roundup has been around for nearly 30 years but exploded in popularity in the late 1990s with the development of genetically engineered soybeans, cotton and other crops that are immune to the herbicide. That change means farmers can spray their fields with the relatively cheap weedkiller whenever it's needed with no fear it will harm the crops.

Roundup-immune soybeans now account for 75 percent of all the soybeans planted nationwide and in Iowa. Some 33 million pounds of glyphosate were sprayed on soybean crops alone in 2001, a five-fold increase from 1995, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Scientists are finding Roundup-resistant weeds in a variety of states, from Iowa to Delaware. Scientists are so concerned that some 200 showed up for a symposium on the issue last month in St. Louis.

Monsanto Co., which invented both Roundup and the Roundup-immune crops, has applied to the Environmental Protection Agency to alter Roundup labels to add special instructions for farmers in areas with resistant weeds.

A rival manufacturer of glyphosate, Syngenta, is advising farmers not to apply the chemical more than twice in every two-year period and not to plant glyphosate-resistant crops in the same field every year.

"The warning signs are already out there," said economist Charles Benbrook, a critic of the biotech industry and a former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences" board on agriculture.

If herbicide-tolerant weeds gain hold, land prices could slip and farmers would be forced to start using additional chemicals, adding to their costs and potentially increasing environmental risks.

No alternatives to Roundup are on the horizon. Industry experts say Roundup has been so effective for so long that there has been no financial incentive for chemical companies to develop a substitute.

Farmers love the bioengineered soybeans because they say Roundup makes it easier and cheaper to control the weeds. Ron Heck of Perry, Ia., says he used to spend $20 to $40 an acre on weed control. Now the cost is down to about $15 an acre, even accounting for the special fee for the seed.

Growers also say the biotech soybeans have allowed them to farm more land and spend more time with their families, or in some cases take a second job.

Monsanto throws in some more incentives: If the biotech crops fail, the company will refund some of the seed cost. And if the herbicide doesn't kill the weeds, farmers can get additional Roundup for free.

Roundup is so effective as a herbicide that many farmers are no longer tilling their fields to control weeds. Less tillage means less erosion and stores carbon in the soil, thereby limiting the production of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming. No-till soybean acreage increased by 35 percent from 1995 to 2000, according to one study.

Herbicide resistance in weeds is nothing new. It happens regularly with weedkillers, except, until recently, with Roundup.

Some of the first significant reports of Roundup-resistant weeds in the United States surfaced in Delaware. Mare's-tail, or horseweed, that could not be killed by the herbicide was found on several farms in 2000. Scientists said they had to spray the weeds with 10 times the recommended rate of the herbicide to kill the plants.

Scientists in Iowa and Missouri have found fields with types of waterhemp, a prolific Midwestern weed, that are significantly more tolerant of glyphosate than others. More than a quarter of the weeds collected from one Iowa field survived being treated with Roundup.

The scientists say it remains to be seen how quickly the hardier weeds will spread.

"Everybody is in reasonable agreement that the evolution of glyphosate resistance in waterhemp is inevitable," said ISU scientist Mike Owen.

Monsanto, which generates 50 percent of its annual sales from Roundup, says there are two U.S. weeds that are resistant to it - mare's-tail and ryegrass - but company officials say the problem isn't serious. They don't consider waterhemp resistant.

David Heering, who manages the technical side of the Roundup business for Monsanto, said rival companies like Syngenta are trying to discourage farmers from using the glyphosate-resistant, or Roundup Ready, crops because they cut into sales of other herbicides. "As we see increased adoption of Roundup Ready, they are going see lost business," Heering said.

Chemical companies have another reason to discourage use of Roundup Ready crops: Monsanto profits from the special technology fee it charges on every bag of the gene-altered seed. Other companies do not.

Syngenta officials say they are trying to ensure that glyphosate, which they market as Touchdown, remains effective.

In Iowa, farmers typically don't plant soybeans in the same field two years in a row, as some Eastern growers do, so there is less chance of overusing the herbicide. But some farmers are considering growing Roundup Ready corn in addition to Roundup Ready soybeans, and that could increase use of the weedkiller and speed up the spread of resistant weeds, some scientists say.

More about Roundup

Roundup herbicide, introduced by Monsanto Co. in 1974, works by interfering with a key enzyme in plants and preventing then from making essential amino acids. People and animals don't have the enzyme, making the chemical relatively safer than many other pesticides.

POPULARITY: Use of Roundup, known generically as glyphosate, exploded when Monsanto scientists figured out how to make crops immune to it by inserting into them a soil bacterium gene. The bacterium contains an enzyme similar to the one that plants naturally have. The biotech crops accounted for about 75 percent of the soybeans, 50 percent of the cotton and 10 percent of the corn planted by U.S. farmers last year.

FRIENDLY: Roundup also is widely used by homeowners and along roads and railways. Glyphosate is considered so environmentally friendly that it is used to control weeds on the ecologically unique Galapagos Islands.

AWARDS: The Monsanto scientist who first identified the herbicidal activity in glyphosate was awarded the National Medal of Technology in 1987. In 1994, Farm Chemicals magazine called Roundup one of the top 10 products that "changed the face of agriculture."

http://www.biotech-info.net/cropping_up.html
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 10:12 am
This has been in the news quite a bit lately.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/10canola.html

Quote:
Canola, whose seeds are pressed to make the popular cooking oil, is a type of oilseed rape developed by breeders in Canada. In the United States, it is grown mainly in North Dakota and Minnesota, though cultivation is spreading.

The roadside plants apparently start growing when seeds blow from fields or fall out of trucks carrying the crops to market. In the plains of Canada, where canola is widely grown, roadside biotech plants resistant to the herbicide Roundup have become a problem, said Alexis Knispel, who has just completed a doctoral dissertation on the subject at the University of Manitoba.

Some farmers, she said, have had to return to plowing their fields to control weeds — a practice that contributes to soil erosion — because they can no longer use Roundup to control the stray canola plants. She also said the proliferation of roadside canola would make it difficult to keep organic canola free of genetically engineered material.


Quote:
Of the 604 plants collected, 80 percent were genetically engineered, Dr. Sagers said. Some were Roundup Ready, with a gene conferring resistance to Roundup, also known as glyphosate. Others were Liberty Link crops, with a gene conferring resistance to glufosinate.

Two plants were found to have genes conferring resistance to both herbicides, suggesting that the crops resistant to each herbicide had mated.

The biotech canola has also been found growing in Japan, which does not even grow the crop, only imports it.


Monsanto doesn't think it's a problem. Gotta love those guys. Not.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 10:32 am
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/genetics_modification/

now this guy - gotta love him - YES

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Monsanto wanted him to pay $15/acre for crops that grew from gm seed that blew onto his property.

It went to the Supreme Court of Canada, with a partial victory for both sides, and then ...


Quote:

In an out of court settlement finalized on March 19, 2008, Percy Schmeiser has settled his lawsuit with Monsanto. Monsanto has agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of the Roundup Ready canola that contaminated Schmeiser's fields. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if further contamination occurred. Schmeiser believes this precedent setting agreement ensures that farmers will be entitled to reimbursement when their fields become contaminated with unwanted Roundup Ready canola or any other unwanted GMO plants.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 12:02 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Resistant to glyphosate or glufosinate herbicides. Insect resistance via producing Bt proteins, some previously used as pesticides in organic crop production. Vitamin-enriched corn derived from South African white corn variety M37W has bright orange kernels, with 169x increase in beta carotene, 6x the vitamin C and 2x folate.[14]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food

It is also like a weed that spreads. It spread to a neighboring farmer's and Monsanto sued the farmer for 'stealing' that genetically modified crop.

The Monsanto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 12:56 pm
@Thomas,
I think that Roundup "REadyness" is a single locus/allele function so developing an artificial selection for resistance was no different than breeding fuzzy chickens. It only took about 5 years and my neighbor is still clueless. He was bitching about how much more Roundup he has to use (He said that Monsanto is "watering the stuff down"). I xplained that hes running a big experiment in evolution right there on his farm and he says that evolution ois all bullshit from Satan.

(((((sigh)))).

Maybe I have to sue him for ******* up my pastures with weeds that have just blossomed over the past half decade
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 01:02 pm
@talk72000,
Bacillus thuringensis was a poster child non chemical organic means of caterpillar control has now been subverted by the mega chems. What a revoltin development that is
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 01:36 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Maybe I have to sue him for ******* up my pastures with weeds that have just blossomed over the past half decade


Good luck with that, Farmer. Instead, to cash in on the big bucks, you should start cranking out hoes in your shop.

Quote:

Roundup-resistant weeds pose threat
Farmers using less environmentally friendly chemicals
by David Mercer
Associated Press Writer


CHAMPAIGN, Ill. - When the weed killer Roundup was introduced in the 1970s, it proved it could kill nearly any plant while still being safer than many other herbicides, and it allowed farmers to give up harsher chemicals and reduce tilling that can contribute to erosion.
But 24 years later, a few sturdy species of weed resistant to Roundup have evolved, forcing farmers to return to some of the less environmentally safe practices they abandoned decades ago.

The situation is the worst in the South, where some farmers now walk fields with hoes, killing weeds in a way their great-grandfathers were happy to leave behind. And the problem is spreading quickly across the Corn Belt and beyond, with Roundup now proving unreliable in killing at least 10 weed species in at least 22 states. Some species, like Palmer amaranth in Arkansas and water hemp and marestail in Illinois, grow fast and big, producing tens of thousands of seeds.

"It's getting to be a big deal," said Mike Plumer, a 61-year-old farmer and University of Illinois agronomist who grows soybeans and cotton near the southern Illinois community of Creal Springs. "If you've got it, it's a real big deal."


http://www.durangoherald.com/sections/News/Earth/2010/06/24/Roundupresistant_weeds_pose_threat/

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 01:47 pm
@JTT,
Thats been a joke around here because the Amish do exactly that. Their secret weapon , though, is to grow huge families with six or more kids. Then the kids do the hoeing and pick the tobacco beetles off the plants by hand.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Aug, 2010 02:01 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
He was bitching about how much more Roundup he has to use (He said that Monsanto is "watering the stuff down").
I understand that there is a fair amount of anger towards Monsanto but it is price and heavy handed contract term related
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 08:27 am
@hawkeye10,
Naaah. Roundup has been off patent for about two years (maybe 1) so the "generic" ROUNDUPS, (Glyphosate, glyphosate with dicamba, and glypjosate with peroxide based herbicides) have been selling for tons less than Roundup. Ive been used to paying 180$ for a 2 gallon jug of Roundup with a percarbonate (Oxiclean)for an instant burndown) . Now I can get 2 gal of generic glyphosate and add my own Oxyclean (Reverse bucket chem e) for about 45$.
We like it when **** goes off patent.


I dont know how they are gonna drive their legal points homw when the damage IS CAUSED by the GM plants.
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 09:36 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I dont know how they are gonna drive their legal points homw when the damage IS CAUSED by the GM plants.


Did all the scientists at Monsanto skip the class on genetic drift, if that's the correct term? Pretty near everyone has some idea that plants and animals adapt to perpetuate their species. How did they miss it?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 09:46 am
@JTT,
Maybe-Some of these guys are the same ones that said cigarrettes dont cause cancer


0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Aug, 2010 09:57 am
@farmerman,
I read an article six months to a year ago about giant roundup resistant weeds in either Georgia or Alabama, I forget which. The story was that with modified roundup resistant crops, the farmers could use roundup very liberally on the whole property, thus hastening roundup resistance in some weeds.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Genetically Modified Crops Watch
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 08:40:29