Bees

Originally posted by humy

The general argument is why bother? I don't think we need GM to feed the world

That is an idiotic 'argument'; why “bother” to do something better or make something better if we don't “need” to? Does there have to be an essential “need” to do something better or make something better?
If you had the choice of doing something either ...[text shortened]... 't keep trying to do it because it wouldn't be profitable so they would just all give up trying.

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O Brave New World,
That has such people in it.

New technologies come with risks, that you seem quite willing to overlook in your rush to get to the future. One aspect of this is that GM crop seeds have to be bought from seed merchants. It is not possible for small farmers to keep back part of their crop to plant next year, which is quite common in many parts of the world.

Famines have a number of causes, one of which is war, this is copy and pasted from the Wikipedia page:

From 1967-1969 large scale famine occurs in Biafra and Nigeria due to the government blockading the Breakaway territory (see: [Nigerian Civil War]). It is estimated that 1.5 million people died of starvation due to this famine.

The other major cause is drought. I very much doubt that even genetic modification can remove the need plants have for water.

Originally posted by DeepThought

O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O Brave New World,
That has such people in it.

New technologies come with risks, that you seem quite willing to overlook in your rush to get to the future. One aspect of this is that GM crop seeds have to be bought from seed merchants. It is not possible ...[text shortened]... ht. I very much doubt that even genetic modification can remove the need plants have for water.

One aspect of this is that GM crop seeds have to be bought from seed merchants. It is not possible for small farmers to keep back part of their crop to plant next year, which is quite common in many parts of the world.

If that is a problem, the solution is extremely obvious:
Simply create GM crops that produce crops with perfectly viable seeds that small farmers can safely keep for next year without involving seed merchants. This means seed merchants loose out but the governments can (and I would personally say morally should ) intervene to make this happen whether the seed merchants want it or not.

Famines have a number of causes, one of which is war,

correct -so not worth stopping one of the other possible causes (other than war ) by GM because GM want stop wars? what if there is currently no war in a country but there is a pest there that destroys crops and causes famine and could be stopped by GM?

The other major cause is drought. I very much doubt that even genetic modification can remove the need plants have for water

Obviously, it is a fact that all plants need water whether GM or not. But crops can be genetically engineered to be MORE drought resistance which means resistant to having LESS water, NOT NO water! And that has obvious potential to reduce the risk of famine in some parts of the world.

Originally posted by DeepThought
DDT is not the only spray.

And there isn't only one GM crop. You are happy to throw out all GM crops because 'why bother' but don't seem to have the same attitude with insecticides. Why?

The thing with spraying is it is not there the whole time.
Yes, I know how it works. I also know that DDT and other insecticides did major damage to the environment worldwide, including being responsible for a large part of the loss of bees and other pollinators.

So it can be omitted when the plant is actually flowering.
That doesn't stop it killing pollinators, and getting into the water and causing damage down the line.

My preferred approach would be to simply use biodiversity to control overall numbers of pests. Whether that will work everywhere in the world is another matter.
Its mostly a question of whether you are willing to make the policy changes to encourage this, and also pay the higher food costs.

The difficulty with using a natural insecticide from one plant in another is that insects evolve to avoid the plants that they can't eat. But if we put a gene from a non-flowering species into a flowering plant then the pollinators are not going to avoid it.
Obviously we have to be careful.

Free trade doesn't work for everyone.
Free trade hardly ever exists. Usually it is called free trade by the party with more political power. So for example the US goes around the world saying 'free trade' whilst simultaneously spending more on farm subsidies than on foreign aid.

Why are eggs cheaper to produce in Zimbabwe?
I am not certain. Probably a number of different factors - but it has to do with the cost of feed.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The general argument is why bother? I don't think we need GM to feed the world.

Spoken like someone who doesn't live in abject poverty in some third world country, wondering where their next meal is coming from. If GM crops can increase the world food supply and/or decrease the price of food, even marginally, they are well worth it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And there isn't only one GM crop. You are happy to throw out all GM crops because 'why bother' but don't seem to have the same attitude with insecticides. Why?

[b]The thing with spraying is it is not there the whole time.
Yes, I know how it works. I also know that DDT and other insecticides did major damage to the environment worldwide, includin ...[text shortened]... am not certain. Probably a number of different factors - but it has to do with the cost of feed.[/b]

It's a shame, before you and humy posted the top three threads all had a square numbers for the number of posts (16, 25 and 49).

What you said was:

You are happy to throw out all GM crops...

and what I said was:

I agree that GM crops should be considered on a case by case basis.

Care with choice of insecticide is obviously important. I am trying to resist your dichotomy between GM on the one side and DDT on the other.

So it can be omitted when the plant is actually flowering.
That doesn't stop it killing pollinators, and getting into the water and causing damage down the line.

With a little care it should, as the pollinators aren't around when the plant isn't flowering, but as I said, this isn't my preferred solution.

Its mostly a question of whether you are willing to make the policy changes to encourage this, and also pay the higher food costs.

I am, but I can't really make that decision for everyone else.

I agree with your comments about free trade.

Originally posted by humy

One aspect of this is that GM crop seeds have to be bought from seed merchants. It is not possible for small farmers to keep back part of their crop to plant next year, which is quite common in many parts of the world.

If that is a problem, the solution is extremely obvious:
Simply create GM crops that produce crops with perfectly viab ...[text shortened]... O water! And that has obvious potential to reduce the risk of famine in some parts of the world.

Simply create GM crops that produce crops with perfectly viable seeds that small farmers can safely keep for next year without involving seed merchants.

There are two problems with this. The first is that it blows containment, so that supposedly non-GM crops become contaminated with GM material. The other is essentially the same as with F2 hybrids, you can end up with a plant with a lot less yield, which the farmer wouldn't have been expecting. Sorry but I can see your solution creating more problems than it solves.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Spoken like someone who doesn't live in abject poverty in some third world country, wondering where their next meal is coming from. If GM crops can increase the world food supply and/or decrease the price of food, even marginally, they are well worth it.

I am sorry, I'll make sure I've starved to death before making my next post.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I am sorry, I'll make sure I've starved to death before making my next post.

I am more worried about the people that would potentially starve if someone like you (a person who appears either be completely unaware of the scientific consensus on GM crops, or is rejecting that consensus) was in charge of GM crop usage.

There is no evidence that there have been significant unintended consequences to using GM Crops (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23414177). I can easily link to dozens more papers if you'd like. There is no more controversy in the scientific community about GM Crops than global warming or any other pseudocontroversy. This fake controversy over GM foods has already claimed victims, as many African countries have rejected food aid because the crops were GM.

The very statement of "why bother" is one of the more anti-science statements, outside of RJHinds, I think I've ever read here. Why bother trying to improve something!?!?

Other why bothers:
Why bother improving transportation, we get around just fine on horseback.
Why bother improving medicine, bone saws and whiskey work just fine.
Why bother improving computers, my Commodore 64 does everything I need.

Originally posted by PatNovak
This fake controversy over GM foods has already claimed victims, as many African countries have rejected food aid because the crops were GM.

As a citizen of one such African country I feel the need to point out that the victim in question is the US. The so called 'food aid' is rejected on the excuse of it being GM, when in fact the real reason is we don't want to be a dumping ground for the US (or Canada or the EU). The problem is that it is politically incorrect to say so up front, so we look for excuses, and GM fits the bill.
I'll admit that food aid is a mixed bag in that there are times when it is needed and does save lives, but there are also many times when it is very damaging (I would venture to say that it causes at least some harm in the majority of cases). However, one thing is certain, there is no good excuse for shipping the food from the US. If food aid is to be given with a genuine intention to help those less fortunate, then it should be bought in Africa and distributed in Africa. That way you help twice, rather than helping once and hurting once.

Originally posted by DeepThought
Care with choice of insecticide is obviously important. I am trying to resist your dichotomy between GM on the one side and DDT on the other.

OK, its possible I have read too much into some of your comments. My opinion is that there shouldn't really be a division between GM plants and other crops. Maybe, if GM products contain insecticides, then they should be tested in line with insecticide testing, but not all GM products are like that.

With a little care it should, as the pollinators aren't around when the plant isn't flowering,
Commercial bee hives are not, but wild pollinators typically are.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The other major cause is drought. I very much doubt that even genetic modification can remove the need plants have for water.

In Zambia, we can't afford to do GM, so we stick with the age old selective breeding. Many advances have been made in terms of improving drought resistance in local crops which has greatly improved yields over the years. Generally, the problem is not a total lack of water, but inconsistency in the timing and amount of rainfall. Of course better soil management also has enormous benefits.

I have to also add that in Zambia, we have more than enough capacity to grow a lot more food. The problem is, there is no export market, because being a landlocked country, transporting it is just too expensive. So we generally grow just enough to feed the country. The problem is the politics and weather are quite variable, so one year there will be a bumper harvest and the next year a shortage, in a never ending fluctuation.

Originally posted by twhitehead
As a citizen of one such African country I feel the need to point out that the victim in question is the US. The so called 'food aid' is rejected on the excuse of it being GM, when in fact the real reason is we don't want to be a dumping ground for the US (or Canada or the EU). The problem is that it is politically incorrect to say so up front, so we look ...[text shortened]... a and distributed in Africa. That way you help twice, rather than helping once and hurting once.

Fair enough. I am open to the possibility that food aid is a net negative in some cases. I don't have time to research it, but I think there is a fairly big resistance in Africa to grow GM crops. If this is true, it would still mean that African opposition to GM crops would be a cause of hunger there.

Originally posted by DeepThought

Simply create GM crops that produce crops with perfectly viable seeds that small farmers can safely keep for next year without involving seed merchants.

There are two problems with this. The first is that it blows containment, so that supposedly non-GM crops become contaminated with GM material. The other is essentially the same as with F ...[text shortened]... t have been expecting. Sorry but I can see your solution creating more problems than it solves.

The first is that it blows containment, so that supposedly non-GM crops become contaminated with GM material.

“GM material.” is “genes” in this case. Since non-GM crops ALREADY contain genes, obtaining a new one doesn't necessarily do any harm. For example, if a gene for drought resistance form a GM crop is passed to a non GM crop, WHY could that be a bad thing? And, if it isn't bad, why call it “contamination”? If that is “contamination” to a non-GM crop, then that non-GM crop was ALREADY “contaminated”! -with its own genes!
And, in the relatively rare cases where and when there is a significant danger of a “GM” gene could cause a problem with cross pollination between crops, simply don't use that gene and only stick to those genes that can NOT cause such a problem -simple! alternatively, GM it so that it cannot cross pollinate.

I also should point out that, in one sense, ALL plants are GM! Because they have all been genetically engineered ( mindlessly in this case ) by evolution! So, using your terminology, in that sense, all plants have already been “contaminated” with “ GM material” and every single gene they have is “GM material” ! So doesn't seem a bad thing to add to that “contamination”!

The other is essentially the same as with F2 hybrids, you can end up with a plant with a lot less yield,

The loss of yield is caused by the reduction in what is called “hybrid vigour” and hybrid vigour caused by the significant greater expression of dominant genes.
Genetically engineering can solve that: First identify the genes that give hybrid vigour; then rearrange the genome so that all offspring and their offspring continue to have those genes. This hasn't been done yet, but it is just a matter of when.

But, perhaps much more to the point,unless you count hybridization as GM (do you? hybridization has been going on for millions of years ) , since this is just as much a problem with non-GM f2 crops as it is with F2 GM crops because this problem of F2 crops having less yield due to loss of hybrid vigour is NOT caused by GM, WHY would this be a reason to reject GM in this case!?
So, NOT having GM is not going to make that problem go away or make it any less -right?
And, as I just previously explained, GM may one day actually SOLVE this problem!

-so, to sum up here:

1, unless you count hybridization as GM, GM is NOT the cause of loss of yield of F2 crops.

2, GM may one day be the SOLUTION to this problem!

And if you DO count hybridization as GM and are against it because of lower yielding F2, so don't have GM involving hybridization and just have GM not involving hybridization -simple!


So neither of the two "problems" that you have stated here are real problems! -because the first one is insignificant and easily solvable and the second one arguably isn't even caused by GM!

Originally posted by humy

The first is that it blows containment, so that supposedly non-GM crops become contaminated with GM material.

“GM material.” is “genes” in this case. Since non-GM crops ALREADY contain genes, obtaining a new one doesn't necessarily do any harm. For example, if a gene for drought resistance form a GM crop is passed to a non GM cro ...[text shortened]... e the first one is insignificant and easily solvable and the second one isn't even caused by GM!

“GM material.” is “genes” in this case. Since non-GM crops ALREADY contain genes, obtaining a new one doesn't necessarily do any harm.

An organic farmer is required to not use GM technology. If their crop is contaminated then they could lose organic certification and this drops the price of their produce.

I also should point out that, in one sense, ALL plants are GM! Because they have all been genetically engineered ( mindlessly in this case ) by evolution!

Genetic modification always refers to artificial modification.

Your solution to a potential problem I've named with genetic modification is to do more genetic modification...

Originally posted by twhitehead
As a citizen of one such African country I feel the need to point out that the victim in question is the US. The so called 'food aid' is rejected on the excuse of it being GM, when in fact the real reason is we don't want to be a dumping ground for the US (or Canada or the EU). The problem is that it is politically incorrect to say so up front, so we look ...[text shortened]... a and distributed in Africa. That way you help twice, rather than helping once and hurting once.

I think that there is also concern that growing GM crops would make African countries dependent on Western countries' seed producers.