The GM spuds trial in Carlow - blight free

redser7

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/teagasc-genetically-modified-potatoes-free-of-blight-569665.html

Business is the ultimate dictator and this means good business for the grower. So I imagine they are here to stay. Shame for Ireland I think.

Disclaimer!! I'm no expert on the topic but have read around the subject with interest and think it's a sad step being taken.

Ziphius

How is good business for the grower bad for Ireland?

redser7

We could stay GM free and market our produce globally as such. Not follow and strengthen the corporate monopolising of seed/agriculture for profit which is narrowing the variety of fruit and veg available. It's conceivable that in a relatively short time growers (commercial or amateur) will be forced by law to only grow strains owned by large coporations like Monsanto for example. Not to mention the ecological effect that is suggested to be negative.

Tree

I really fail to see how a public science body doing valuable research is a bad thing.

The blight resistance gene is being taken from a natural cultivar and put into another spud so that you don't need to spray for phytophtera. (less fungicide can only be a good thing).

Directed improvement of plants is probably a far superior thing to years of cross-breeding and failing to find suitable plants or the "blast-with-radiation-and-cross-your-fingers-you-get-the-mutation-you-want" way of finding new cultivars.

Invoking Brave New World as a vision of things to come is an emotional argument, not a scientific one.

edit: and yeah, monsanto are dicks, but it's the responsibility of governments to regulate industry.

Ziphius

Tree wrote: »

I really fail to see how a public science body doing valuable research is a bad thing.

Exactly. It's public science being carried out to help Irish farmers. It's not some big corporate shoving it down our throats against our wishes.

redser7

To help Irish farmers make money. I don't deny their right to make a living but profit is no justification for screwing around with mother nature. She will kick back. And please no comments about you can tell I never set foot on a farm in my life
There are guys on this thread more qualified and eloquent than me to make this side of the arguement. It makes for interesting reading ...
http://www.politics.ie/forum/environment/197652-gm-spuds-blight-free.html

It's a hot potato alright.

Donalde

Why, if Teagasc are so concerned about Irish farmers and blight, are they not doing any serious research into breeding blightfree varieties by non GM techniques? It seems that a Hungarian scientist working virtually on his own was able to produce the very successful Sarpo strain - why could Teagasc not have done this?
How, in this financial environment, can Teagasc suddenly afford to spend substantial funds on this research and the concomitant security? Monsanto have already done the necessary (for them!) research, the main benefit for them, is a backdoor introduction of their varieties into Ireland. Could it be that they have also found a backdoor way of funding this 'research'?
It is interesting to notice that it is not now possible to buy GM-free animal feed rations in the west of Ireland, in retail quantities.

Ziphius

Well humans have been "screwing around with mother nature" for thousands of years. The vast majority of our food just couldn't exist in the wild.

GM potatoes, such as the those trialed in Teagasc, will allow farmers to be more efficient, more profitable, and allow their product to be sold for a lower price.

Ziphius

Donalde wrote: »

Why, if Teagasc are so concerned about Irish farmers and blight, are they not doing any serious research into breeding blightfree varieties by non GM techniques? It seems that a Hungarian scientist working virtually on his own was able to produce the very successful Sarpo strain - why could Teagasc not have done this?
How, in this financial environment, can Teagasc suddenly afford to spend substantial funds on this research and the concomitant security? Monsanto have already done the necessary (for them!) research, the main benefit for them, is a backdoor introduction of their varieties into Ireland. Could it be that they have also found a backdoor way of funding this 'research'?
It is interesting to notice that it is not now possible to buy GM-free animal feed rations in the west of Ireland, in retail quantities.

Have you any references to back any of this up?

Off the top of my head here's a reason:

Teagasc has expertise in transgenics. Perhaps it's cheaper, easier, and less time consuming for them to produce them this way rather than via conventional cross breeding.

Tree

Donalde wrote: »

Why, if Teagasc are so concerned about Irish farmers and blight, are they not doing any serious research into breeding blightfree varieties by non GM techniques? It seems that a Hungarian scientist working virtually on his own was able to produce the very successful Sarpo strain - why could Teagasc not have done this?
How, in this financial environment, can Teagasc suddenly afford to spend substantial funds on this research and the concomitant security? Monsanto have already done the necessary (for them!) research, the main benefit for them, is a backdoor introduction of their varieties into Ireland. Could it be that they have also found a backdoor way of funding this 'research'?
It is interesting to notice that it is not now possible to buy GM-free animal feed rations in the west of Ireland, in retail quantities.

Indeed it is possible to buy GM feed, you can also buy a lot of GM products, perhaps time to consider where the cotton in your undies is from. (A lot of cotton is produced GM, makes it easier to farm).

Incidentally, Teagasc's security budget for this project is ZERO EUROS and ZERO CENT. This isn't a case of them spending "substantial funds" on research, it's them carrying out research under their remit as they are obliged to do. Teagasc already know how long it takes for them to generate spuds under the traditional methods (we have them to thank for the Rooster), why shouldn't they be allowed to apply (not especially new) techniques to the generation of new crops?

Ziphius wrote: »

Have you any references to back any of this up?

Off the top of my head here's a reason:

Teagasc has expertise in transgenics. Perhaps it's cheaper, easier, and less time consuming for them to produce them this way rather than via conventional cross breeding.

Exactly! Surely you'd rather your hardearned taxpayers money goes into directly useful schemes rather than a cross-breeding scheme that takes decades and may not yield results?

redser7 wrote: »

To help Irish farmers make money. I don't deny their right to make a living but profit is no justification for screwing around with mother nature. She will kick back. And please no comments about you can tell I never set foot on a farm in my life
There are guys on this thread more qualified and eloquent than me to make this side of the arguement. It makes for interesting reading ...
http://www.politics.ie/forum/environment/197652-gm-spuds-blight-free.html

It's a hot potato alright.

Incidentally, the "mother nature" argument is based soley on emotion and religious precedents. There's a long history of "unnatural" meaning "against God" and this is regularly pulled out as an anti-technology argument. It has no scientific merit, and only implies fear of the future rather than any legitimate concerns for society (See IVF babies, electricity, vaccination, and so on).

redser7

"emotion and religious precedents" ... speaking as an atheist this is BS. Perhaps the derivation of the expression has its roots as such but in modern parlance it could just as easily be put as 'evolution'.
Have a read of that thread and dont dismiss the arguements as fluffy emotional nonsense.

redser7

Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me talking but maybe teagasc' willingness to trial these had some hand in Ireland being chosen for the Kerry Groups new facility? Political?

Ziphius

redser7 wrote: »

Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me talking but maybe teagasc' willingness to trial these had some hand in Ireland being chosen for the Kerry Groups new facility? Political?

I don't see the connection.

redser7

Large international food group with a food science wing might be encouraged to chose a location where GM technology is practiced. It does look like the future globally. It's been used widely in the states for a long time. If Ireland resisted the GM route, maybe they would have chosen the UK.

pwurple

redser7 wrote: »

Large international food group with a food science wing might be encouraged to chose a location where GM technology is practiced. It does look like the future globally. It's been used widely in the states for a long time. If Ireland resisted the GM route, maybe they would have chosen the UK.

That's some conspiracy theory.

I am not sure why cross breeding, mutations and other forms of GM are deemed fine, but new methods are not. Evolution is genetic modification.

redser7

But it is a balanced modification with all of nature working together. Human interferance can cause unforseen results. For example in the states using GM crops has just put more pressure on growers to produce more and faster as profits continuously drop. So they use more pesticides and herbicides. They are using so much glyphosate in places that new strains of superweeds have come about that are resistant to glyphosate. Similarly creating blight resistant spuds might cause blight to mutate into a stronger strain. Where might it stop?

Ziphius

redser7 wrote: »

But it is a balanced modification with all of nature working together. Human interferance can cause unforseen results. For example in the states using GM crops has just put more pressure on growers to produce more and faster as profits continuously drop. So they use more pesticides and herbicides. They are using so much glyphosate in places that new strains of superweeds have come about that are resistant to glyphosate. Similarly creating blight resistant spuds might cause blight to mutate into a stronger strain. Where might it stop?

Using GM crops can actually decrease use of herbicide and pesticides. For example, in the UK, Rothamsted Research is researching wheat that is modified to repel aphids and blackfly. The wheat now produces a chemical found in other plants which repels these pests and attracts there predator -- ladybirds. Using this wheat would mean that less pesticides would need to be used.

It is true that over-use of herbicides and pesticides can, and do, lead to evolution of resistance. However, this isn't something exclusive to GM crops. Bacteria are evolving resistances to antibiotics for example. This article was brought up another thread in the Popular Science forum on antibiotic resistance http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22367-failed-malaria-drug-regains-its-potency.html . It describes how discontinued anti-malarial drugs have regained their effectiveness.

Life isn't going to stop evolving. Pathogens will continue to exist whether we like it or not. I think it's best if we try stay a few steps ahead of them.

redser7

Interesting point about staying ahead of them. Can it go a step further and conclude that it's better to create our own problems than be totally hit out of the blue by something we dont see coming?
I'm just very mistrustful of profiteering. It's focus is maximum financial short-term return, with a disregard for the consequences. Here's a story reporting that GM crops are leading to increased use of poisons as resitant strains of weeds require more and more herbicide to control them, and it will spiral out of control. The initial dip in use is only temporary.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pesticides-gmo-monsanto-roundup-resistance_n_1936598.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Also, in your example, if you repel aphids and blackfly from one crop, where do they go? Attack another crop? Does the polulation disappear? What happens to the insects and animals that feed on the aphids and blackfly? Ladybirds for example. These can be polinators and essential to life on earth. There is always a knock-on effect. The fear is that they this is not being taken into account, just profit.

I think we should work with nature instead of changing it radically like this. We are after all a part of nature's delicate balance.

Ziphius

redser7 wrote: »

Also, in your example, if you repel aphids and blackfly from one crop, where do they go? Attack another crop? Does the polulation disappear? What happens to the insects and animals that feed on the aphids and blackfly? Ladybirds for example. These can be polinators and essential to life on earth. There is always a knock-on effect. The fear is that they this is not being taken into account, just profit.

Presumably the populations of pests would have been artificially high due to the availability of the crop plants. Remember conventional agriculture and organic farming will use pesticides to kill predators. These are indiscriminate and will kill aphids, bees, whatever. I imagine they would have a far more devastating effect on the environment.

redser7 wrote: »

I think we should work with nature instead of changing it radically like this. We are after all a part of nature's delicate balance.

An admirable sentiment, though I disagree that transgenic crops are a radical change. We must acknowledge that humans are going to have a huge effect on this planet ( there's nothing we can do about this save drop our population down to a few million worldwide). We must try minimize the deleterious effects we have on nature and I feel the example I provide above is one way to do that.

Zuiderzee

We have already developed blight free / resistant types that I grow - e.g. the Sarpo family and Setanta from IPM

Selective breeding is modification, but is not the same as lab selected versions on which not enough testing has been done.
Tests done on rodents fed GM food have shown quite disturbing results.

But do bear in mind that companies have, and will continue, to supress unfavourable results.

I don't like the idea of GM because of cross pollination, and this has occoured in the US despite assurances it would not.

The modified gene is owned by a corporation, so if your crops contain their modification you owe them money.
Already, quietly, it is technically illegal to sell seeds from person to person as we have done as a species since the fertile cresent.

It's a small step towards control of food production.

Zuiderzee

Ziphius, I do admire your logic and reasoned arguement, but would ask you to look at alternatives.

I have written about alternatives to commercial fungicides etc here and provided alternatives. I also addressed sincere concerns and questions with regards to GM crops and corporate practices - I'll not go into lengthy details here but you can check it out if you like
http://connemaracroft.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/homemade-organic-garden-chemicals.html

Main points are:

Re use of herbicides.
Monsanto have developed strains that are resistant to Roundup - that means they can spray that poison willy nilly over crops, killing everything else apart from the crop - that is selective in a way.

With cross pollination, already certain problem plants - e.g pigweed in the US are getting out of control as they have now developed resistance - we are creating super-weeds that out competre other plants, for want of a better term we are creating an indigenous invasive species.

Re use of pesticides
I use nematodes in my garden, this is a targeted way of killing problem insects and slugs/snails etc. Very effective and economically sound.

As for teransgenetic crops, these are new on the planet - and are a real worry to me.

kylith

Zuiderzee wrote: »

We have already developed blight free / resistant types that I grow - e.g. the Sarpo family and Setanta from IPM

Selective breeding is modification, but is not the same as lab selected versions on which not enough testing has been done.
Tests done on rodents fed GM food have shown quite disturbing results.

But do bear in mind that companies have, and will continue, to supress unfavourable results.

I don't like the idea of GM because of cross pollination, and this has occoured in the US despite assurances it would not.

The modified gene is owned by a corporation, so if your crops contain their modification you owe them money.
Already, quietly, it is technically illegal to sell seeds from person to person as we have done as a species since the fertile cresent.

It's a small step towards control of food production.

If you're thinking of the same study I am, it had some serious problems with it, namely the use of a strain of lab rats known to develop cancer at the drop of a hat.

My main concern is the production of sterile crops, tying farmers to grain producers. I think it's unhealthy for a company to have a stranglehold on the supply.

Ziphius

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Ziphius, I do admire your logic and reasoned arguement, but would ask you to look at alternatives.

I have written about alternatives to commercial fungicides etc here and provided alternatives. I also addressed sincere concerns and questions with regards to GM crops and corporate practices - I'll not go into lengthy details here but you can check it out if you like
http://connemaracroft.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/homemade-organic-garden-chemicals.html

Very interesting and well written article.

I think we both agree that more testing needs to be done on GM foods. This is why I am very much in favor of the trials currently taking place in Carlow.

I should also say that I don't believe that GM is the only solution to current agricultural problems. Though I do feel it has a very big role to play in the future.

Regarding corporate ownership of genes, transgenic crops and so on. This is something I do not know enough about yet to comment on. I do feel it is a bit outside the purpose of this thread which is specifically about research being carried out by a public research institution (Teagasc). There was a thread recently (in humanities, I think) on the ethics of gene patenting. That a private company can own the rights to study or diagnose certain human genes is very concerning IMO.

My main issue with anti-GM is that people will lump together public researchers with private companies. If GM is unsafe to eat I want to know. If there is a danger that it can damage the environment I want to know. That's why this research is so important.

All the evidence I have seen suggests that GM food is just as safe as conventional or organic. And does not have a deleterious environmental effect. Corporate ownership does seem to be an issue but this is something that can be easily changed and not a problem intrinsic to the technology.

Ziphius

kylith wrote: »

If you're thinking of the same study I am, it had some serious problems with it, namely the use of a strain of lab rats known to develop cancer at the drop of a hat.

My main concern is the production of sterile crops, tying farmers to grain producers. I think it's unhealthy for a company to have a stranglehold on the supply.

Most papers published that show that GM food is dangerous usually have many flaws in their methodology.

A lot of them are otherwise very suspicious. For example the recent French study (Séralini et al, 2012) that claimed a link with GM-maize and tumour growth in rats was shown only to certain journalists who were forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement prior to its official publication.

From Nature http://www.nature.com/news/hyped-gm-maize-study-faces-growing-scrutiny-1.11566

Nature wrote: »

The agreement for this paper, however, did not allow any disclosure and threatened a severe penalty for non-compliance: “A refund of the cost of the study of several million euros would be considered damages if the premature disclosure questioned the release of the study.”

Zuiderzee

Corporate ownership really is an issue, in the US independent farmers whose crops have been cross pollinated/contaminated by GM are dragged through the courts, pretty much to eithye accept corporate terms and conditions or face ruin, they are pretty much accused of stealing patented crops - and an individual facing legal battles with multi-nationals will very very rarely win, even if they do, corporations go ahead anyway - just look at the Shell situation.

That and the development of super-weeds is really a worry for me.

Ziphius

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Corporate ownership really is an issue, in the US independent farmers whose crops have been cross pollinated/contaminated by GM are dragged through the courts, pretty much to eithye accept corporate terms and conditions or face ruin, they are pretty much accused of stealing patented crops - and an individual facing legal battles with multi-nationals will very very rarely win, even if they do, corporations go ahead anyway - just look at the Shell situation.

That and the development of super-weeds is really a worry for me.

Sure. But if we can get around these legal restrictions using conventional crossbreeding than we can do it with GM crops. Public researchers should, probably, try communicate the value of their research better.

Scientists at Rothamsted research created this appeal to vandals attempting to destroy their -- publicly funded -- research.

I have to admit I am confused why farmers (often organic farmers) are so against public GM research. Surely this would be a counter to private ownership?

redser7

I actually dont see the point of this trial in Ireland. Surely if these grow elsewhere in similar climates they will grow here. I dont think the results were a surprise. It seemed a bit more like kite-flying. Signalling that Ireland is open to GM crops. A political move perhaps.

Ziphius

redser7 wrote: »

I actually dont see the point of this trial in Ireland. Surely if these grow elsewhere in similar climates they will grow here. I dont think the results were a surprise. It seemed a bit more like kite-flying. Signalling that Ireland is open to GM crops. A political move perhaps.

Because Teagasc researches new crop development. I mean, why do any scientific research in Ireland if it can be done somewhere else?

redser7

But surely this particular research has been done already? It is a new untested spud?

Ziphius

redser7 wrote: »

But surely this particular research has been done already? It is a new untested spud?

I presume so. I don't know why Teagasc would be trialing it if it had been done already. Developing new breeds is part of what they do. As someone already mentioned they created Rooster potatoes..

Zuiderzee

redser7 wrote: »

I actually dont see the point of this trial in Ireland. Surely if these grow elsewhere in similar climates they will grow here. I dont think the results were a surprise. It seemed a bit more like kite-flying. Signalling that Ireland is open to GM crops. A political move perhaps.

Ditto - but this is Ireland, probably someone in the civil service or government has been paid off with a nice little quango as a consultant or non-executive directorship - the ghost of FF past, but then again, the Greens would have allowed it, and FG/Lab will allow it