Is this a huge problem? I understand the angst of letting people like monsanto controll stuff but this is about developing a crop that is naturaly resistant to aphid attack. That has to be good. Havent we meddled with plants and cross breeding things for years?

As usual yes no maybe!!

Unfortunately we will never know if they keep ripping the trials up…..

It falls into the massive government/corporate conspiracy trap where once someone decides it’s all an evil plan to take over the world and grow spare bodies and make mice have 3 heads there is no way to convince some people otherwise

If you drive through Herts / Beds / Bucks, the verges are infested with rape plants.
The verges are sprayed with glyphosate, but clearly the rape is the GM version that is resistant.
It’s choking off the indigenous hedgerow plants, and can’t be killed. It looks like it will be the knotweed of the 21st century.

So in answer to the OP, it’s a massive problem.

The Green Party have been really getting on my nerves over this (claiming GM supporters have been stifling debate). I completely agree with them when it comes to political control of GM crops (e.g. Monsanto using it as a way of locking in farmers), but this is a valid and useful scientific trial, with no obvious conflicts of interest. The scientists runnign the trial have offered to meet with the protesters, but AFAIK they’ve been turned down.

The verges are sprayed with glyphosate, but clearly the rape is the GM version that is resistant.

Do you have evidence? I’m sure DEFRA would like to hear, since

No GM crops are being grown commercially in the UK

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/

playing around with selective breeding in animal and plant species is as old as mankind.

but there is a large part of society that doesn’t understand science or is terrified of some sort of bogeyman and seems insistent that the planet must stay in some sort of stasis and that any change is bad.

on the other hand GM crop may actually be one of the only developments that will enable the feeding of the continually expanding human population? or we can just let people starve, or look at the next series of wars as resources become so scarce we have massive population migration.

funnily enough people in developing countries who can now grow pest resistant crops or crops that can survive in harsher climates and so feed their families don’t seem quite so upset about the plight of the english verge or hedge row 😀

it’s never a black and white argument.

plant hybridisation/selection has been going on for thousands of year, look at a modern wheat variety and then look at the wild relatives in the middle east.

Now what is GM, often it is taking genes that could not possibly occur in that species and introducing them. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? I suppose the first question is why are we doing it, to reduce the use of pesticides, herbicides, increase yields, etc or to sell more pesticides, to lock farmers in etc.

There are questions whether the crops do have increased yields, whether the added genes are potentially harmful, whether cross breeding of the gm hybrids and native flora will result in pest resistant weeds, etc.

Nothing is ever black and white.

the big problem i see is once GM plants are in the environment they can not be recaptured, how many times have we introduced fora and flora only to regret it later.

Re road side verges they really are not likely to be sprayed with a glyphosate product It kills nearly all plants especially grasses and would leave bare soil which would very easily erode in wet weather.Glyphosate has no residual action and is broken down by soil bacteria. The bare soil it leaves can soon be taken over by vigorous plants (hybrid rape for example, which blows off lorry trailers when transported) and nettles and thistles. The central reservations seem to be sprayed to leave no living plants.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9scGtf5E3I[/video]

If you drive through Herts / Beds / Bucks, the verges are infested with rape plants.

Just back from a lovely run through the rape fields of Herts. Didn’t notice any rape in the verges. Plenty of buttercups, dandelions and birdsfoot trefoil though.

It’s also quite common to see wild brassicas in verges –

So for example the above, though superficially similar, isn’t rape.
I’d be a bit concerned if someone was spraying them with glyphosates too!
Who’d be doing it?, and why?

I expect the rape in the hedges is actually Sinapis arvensis or similar, look a lot like it.

GM crops have people scared for the wrong reasons its the potential for escape of genes into wild populations that is the problem, especially as these genes are put into supress pests (known as wildlife outside farms). No amount of field trials can asses the risk. Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money. Not sure what the question is but I’m fairly sure GM isnt the answer.

naturaly resistant to aphid attack.

so its GM modified and yet its naturally resistant???

Fish naturally breathe underwater if we made a human that could would you call it natural? it is human made obviously.

but there is a large part of society that doesn’t understand science or is terrified of some sort of bogeyman and seems insistent that the planet must stay in some sort of stasis and that any change is bad.

red queen hypothesis – or evolution is running to stand still
It is never in stasis bit we should not start altering it for our own ends. If we change the balance then nature will adapt. We can see this in the onset of antibiotic resistance that may lead to us being back to where we were before anti biotics

when you add those to the law of unintended consequences what we have is us adjusting the balance of nature, knowing their will be an environmental “back lash or reaction to it whilst some multi national tell us how safe it and we are all Luddites if we object

Reality is no one knows what will happen beyond the fact that their will be an environmental /genetic response to the change in the environment as that is what nature does. Once we let the genie [ see what i did there] out the bottle we are not putting it back there

Its not anti science by all the objectors

Greenpeace tore up some trials here in Oz saying that it’s ‘not proven to be safe’.

Fair point. But one that becomes a little difficult when a research organisation in no way connected to Monsanto et al. has its trials attempting to research this torn up…

Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money.

In many countries, no till or conservation till ag is practiced to conserve soil and reduce organic matter loss. Sadly one downside to this is that the glyphosate comes into it quite a lot to knock down the weeds as they’re not ploughed in. It would be pretty useful to a farmer to be able to use glyphosate without killing what he’s trying to grow…

But one that becomes a little difficult when a research organisation in no way connected to Monsanto et al. has its trials attempting to research this torn up…

Also a lot of GM crops are just made herbicide or pesticide resistant, whats the point of that other than to make Monsanto money.

I think the point is it cannot be proven safe anyway, are the potential risks worth it? Glyphosate reistant weeds would cause a few problems for no till farmers would they not?

it’s ‘not proven to be safe’.

as science works with data we would not know if it was “unsafe” till it was too late.
I know you know this zokes but that is the problem

We cannot introduce something new into the environment and expect no consequences nor, unfortunately, predict the consequences.

Given that very few, if anything can be proven to be safe, we are down to an individual’s philosophy of risk for which there isn’t really a right or wrong answer.
So both the pro gm and anti gm probably have fairly equally valid arguments.

So both the pro gm and anti gm probably have fairly equally valid arguments.

This is correct, all GM crops should be looked at on an individual basis. But I havent seen any that have potential benefits that outweigh the risks as yet.

Glyphosate reistant weeds would cause a few problems for no till farmers would they not?

They already do, actually. Being able to grow crops that aren’t affected by any residual if repeated applications are needed is one of the things highest up the ‘wish list’ of the farmers I speak to.

I know you know this zokes but that is the problem

It is, but the bigger problem is that in a few years time, we’ll have to feed 9bn people, a lot of whom are getting a taste for a more protein-rich diet (China and India being the obvious). Right now, conventional (and certainly not organic) farming won’t meet this need. This will be fine for us in our nice first-world countries with enough money to buy all the food we need. But I think it’s ethically very uncomfortable to leave things as they are, when the technology is nearly there to greatly increase agricultural efficiency.

I appreciate there are some risks, but the people against GM need to come up with alternative methods of increasing agricultural efficiency, especially in response to the need to reduce water and nutrient use, whilst increasing yields. Either that, or someone had better explain to the people of poorer countries that they’d better stop having children, as they’ll have nothing to eat shortly.

I propose a vegan diet to solve all these issues 8)

Its not an insignificant point/problem you raise and I dont have an answer as I doubt my suggestion will be implemented.

GM will struggle to get public approval IMHO – you will get paranoia about just modifying – what do they think the cattle is they eat?- mixed with my “scientific”- we just dont know what will happen approach.

The pro GM camp are overlooking, mind you so are the anti GM camp, the forthcoming fertilizer problem. Farming is massively oil dependent in its current form, as oil becomes ever more expensive and scarce what will replace it?

I propose a vegan diet to solve all these issues

It would solve most of them, but just as China and India baulk at the idea that the west has been able to burn coal for 200 years and now why shouldn’t they, it’s the huge increase in demand for something more appetising than rice with a side serving of rice that will probably win if the west again preaches that actually, it would be better if you didn’t ever get chance to enjoy the protein-rich diet we’ve become accustomed to.

GM will struggle to get public approval IMHO – you will get paranoia about just modifying – what do they think the cattle is they eat?- mixed with my “scientific”- we just dont know what will happen approach.

And to be honest, this is where the GM camp has lost. Almost noone will buy anything they know has GM in it thanks to the long running anti-GM publicity. No matter how noble the cause (and I am obviously ignoring the commercial aspect of Monsanto and Bayer owning IP to food here), if the public won’t eat it, then it’s not going to help.

The pro GM camp are overlooking, mind you so are the anti GM camp, the forthcoming fertilizer problem. Farming is massively oil dependent in its current form, as oil becomes ever more expensive and scarce what will replace it?

Actually, GM can potentially do quite a lot about this.

1) Water is the biggest issue, and research into better water use efficiency (WUE) is one of the main angles for GM research

2) Nitrogen isn’t such a huge issue, as whilst a lot of it is fossil-based, there’s been huge progress in better use of natural nitrogen fixing bacteria (be they symbionts of legumes, or free-living) to get N ‘for free’. Again, a lot of research goes into increasing NUE, and one obvious line of GM research is to find ways to allow non-leguminous crops to form symbioses with N fixers.

3) The bigger one is phosphorus, which is mined. Peak P (akin to peak oil) is a very real phenomenon, and whilst you can’t just ‘make’ it like N-fixers do nitrogen, PUE is another one of the main lines of genetic research in agricultural species. So making better use of what we have left.

So really, GM might be very beneficial indeed. The question remains whether the public will like it, or whether we can balance those benefits against the risks of escape / crossing with native species, or whether if this can be demonstrated, the public will be convinced.

Yeah didn’t realise about the phosphorous problem until a neighbour (who’s a nice farmer, rather than one who keeps 20ft high chickens in sheds) mentioned he’d been on R4’s material world talking about. Can’t remember what the price increase per a tonne had been recently, but it was pretty phenomenal. He party bypasses the problem by spreading large quantities of poo from Londoners on the fields.

He party bypasses the problem by spreading large quantities of poo from Londoners on the fields.

Yup, recycling of organic wastes has a huge part to play. It’s pretty criminal that we currently burry so many otherwise useful nutrients in landfills etc. After all, the P in poo came from a crop in a field in the first place 🙂

The trouble is that whilst it will go some way towards addressing the problem in smaller countries like the UK where there are plenty of sewage treatment plants and commercial composting outfits, it’s a bit more of an issue in the bread-baskets of the world. Transporting the wastes from metropolitan cities thousands of miles to the wheat belts of Oz, the US and Russia is a non-trivial undertaking, especially as it relies on oil to do so.

Right now, conventional (and certainly not organic) farming won’t meet this need. This will be fine for us in our nice first-world countries with enough money to buy all the food we need. But I think it’s ethically very uncomfortable to leave things as they are, when the technology is nearly there to greatly increase agricultural efficiency.

But this is plainly rubbish, irrigation and tractors for example were invented a long time ago and people in the developing world dont have them, no amount of GM crop research will solve poverty.

are you suggesting these companies are motivated by profit rather than altruism.
Poverty could be solved without GM crops.
re: food supply GM may just be putting off the inevitable and I dont really think technology will save us from that indefinitely.

are you suggesting these companies are motivated by profit rather than altruism.
Poverty could be solved without GM crops.

that is what I’m saying. All this bollocks about feeding starving people with the wonder of GM technology really pisses me off. We have enough food for everyone now we just dont share it out. Biotech cannot solve that problem.

I’d be a bit concerned if someone was spraying them with glyphosates too!
Who’d be doing it?, and why?

Highways authority.

It’s worst on motorways / dual carriageways where they want devastation. That’s where the rape is (no it’s not flowering brassicas). Despite the legal position, I use the evidence of my own eyes as to whether it’s roundup ready.

Single track roads aren’t sprayed so not affected. Hence the lovely picture above.

That’s where the rape is (no it’s not flowering brassicas

would you know the difference, what with rape being a flowering brassica you dont inspire confidence.

So far, being bitten by GM and irradiated mice has failed to give me super-powers as advertised, so lets discard the end of the world scenario’s.

Personally, I think that the prospect of being able to alter a crop so that its resistant to pests, or less needing of fertiliser and therefore allowing farmers to maintain yields without the need for liberal application of artificial chemicals is not only a move in the right direction, but a vital step in improving our environment for the better.

sure there are potential problems ahead, but there is also a huge negative environmental impact from the status quo that is in place at the moment, on all sorts of species – we have to offset that continuing damage against the risk, and I don’t believe that the ‘luddites’ are doing that.

So far, being bitten by GM and irradiated mice has failed to give me super-powers as advertised, so lets discard the end of the world scenario’s.

you start off with ignorance and carry that on with the rest of your post, well done 2/10

Flap jack The highways agency or the contractors working on their behalf are (or should be as farmers are )required to keep spray application records for three years and be available for inspection when required.

Ignorance A_A?

have you seen what a bite from a genetically modified spider can do? I saw a documentary on it at the cinema…

🙄

Now then, talking about ignorance, hows about we enter a critical analysis of your claim that GM science ‘cannot be proven safe anyway’?

crop so that its resistant to pests,

Do you think the pests will adapt or will they just all be wiped out? Will only the strongest survive. Therefore we “select” the pests best able to attack said new plant who then breed etc…you cannot stop evolution with science you can only give us different problems.

the distrust exists because no one can say for certain what the implications will be in 150 years time and we will never be able to undo it once we start.

Do you think the pests will adapt or will they just all be wiped out? Will only the strongest survive. Therefore we “select” the pests best able to attack said new plant who then breed etc…you cannot stop evolution with science you can only give us different problems.

i) The same argument can be made against the huge quantities of pesticide and chemical fertilisers currently being used, and we can say with certainty that they are having serious detrimental effects on the environment here and now, so a risk analysis of GM use has to be seen in the context of the damage that we know is being caused now.

ii) What other areas of science would you like to apply this argument to? If you expand it then all scientific development would cease – look at the antibiotics and their knock on effects with ‘superbugs’ -should we ban their use on that basis?

the distrust exists because no one can say for certain what the implications will be in 150 years time and we will never be able to undo it once we start.

Again, which other areas of science would you like to apply this to? look at warfarin resistant rodents, look at the pill and hormone’s in the water supply and their sexualising effect on fish, etc.

If we followed this line, we’d never introduce or change anything in the ecosystem, which might be desirable in some ways, but its far from realistic.

Numbers 1 and 2 cannot be undone and were done without knowledge of the threat so are piss poor examples.

3/10 could do better.

cannot be undone and were done without knowledge of the threat

Ah, A_A, you’re back – according to your principles they should never have been done at all, as they were not proven to be safe.

Can you tell me a single thing we’ve done or are doing in science or medicine that has could not have the claim ‘unproven safety’ laid against it.

Your argument is as flawed and founded on hysteria as the anti MMR nutjobs.

Zule with your outlandish overstatements and half truths- I am amazed you can still get people to “debate” with you tbh

the implications of altering the genetic material within an ecosystem are largely unknown and unpredictable.
I am not sure why this means science has to stop.
I shall leave you with your crayon ,your claims of hysteria and rubbish comparisons

Er ok… I think there is plenty of evidence that genes in gm wheat will escape. We just dont know when and where or how widespread it will need to be for it to happen or what the consequences might be.

And I didnt say anything about your examples. They are your crap examples.

the implications of altering the genetic material within an ecosystem are largely unknown and unpredictable.

The implications of a million different things in science are unknown and unpredictable.

You recall that one of the theoretical possible outcomes of the Large Hadron Collider project smashing proton beams into each other was the creation of a black hole that sucked us all into it in a catastrophic disaster?

Do you also recall protesters trying to stop the experiment, because there was no proof it was safe?

What if they were right?

You recall that one of the theoretical possible outcomes of the Large Hadron Collider project smashing proton beams into each other was the creation of a black hole that sucked us all into it in a catastrophic disaster?

whilst i know nothing about hadron I presume the chances were low. With gm wheat the chances of gene transfer are fairly high and the benefits to society are not high.