Brit trial confirms common sense

[ACPlayer]

GM trials in Britain conforms what common sense already told some of us. (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=622479)

The other issue that seals the deal is the impact on farmers and local communities that the GMF manufacturers have when they arrive bearing the "magic" seeds.

[natedogg]

I wholly support Europe's free choice in abandoning technology that is and will continue to be a vital and robust sector of America's economy. As an American, I like to see America win.

I also wholly support their use of flawed studies based on red herring premises to bolster their paranoia.

For those who didn't read the article, it was NOT the GMOs that caused the problems. But you can't reason with luddites hell-bent on furthering their agenda...

natedogg

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
For those who didn't read the article, it was NOT the GMOs that caused the problems.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well.
[ QUOTE ]
David Gibbons, the head of conservation at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said the herbicides used to spray GM rape killed broad-leaved wild flowers such as chickweed and fat hen which are important to the diet of songbirds such as skylarks, tree sparrows and bullfinches.

[/ QUOTE ]
So, indirectly it was the GM crops, and the causation seems pretty strong to me. Use GM -> use of these herbicides. Do not use GM -> do not use these herbicides.
But I havn't read anything more than the posted article, so if you have more information, please divuldge.

[wacki]

The whole article revolves around 4 tests which were basically the same test done over and over:

Bees and butterflies were recorded more frequently around conventional crops, due to greater numbers of weeds. Verdict: GM fails.

Tests showed that fields sown with the biotech crop had fewer broad-leaved weeds growing in them. This impacted on the numbers of bees and butterflies, which feed on such weeds. Verdict: GM fails..

There were fewer butterflies among modified crops, due to there being less weeds. Verdict: GM fails.

The biggest problem listed is lack of weeds among crops????

That's not even worth responding to.

If you're concerned about wildlife, force every farming plot to have so many acres of wild forest.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]

The biggest problem listed is lack of weeds among crops????

That's not even worth responding to.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well. I actually think it is, and so does it seems the brittish law does /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
If you're concerned about wildlife, force every farming plot to have so many acres of wild forest.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would be good, yes. And stop using the intensive, destroying farming techiniques. I don't know how bad it is in the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too have problems with soil depletion and fresh water.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
s. I don't know how bad it is in the UK, but I wouldn't be surprised if they too have problems with soil depletion and fresh water.

[/ QUOTE ]

They didn't say anything about that. All they talked about is bird/bee population and the farmers were using herbacides that were a little too powerfull and are killing 30% more of the weeds in the crop fields that bugs and birds thrive off of. But that's not a valid arguement against genetically modified crops. The crops aren't doing anything wrong.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
They didn't say anything about that.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, that was just a general note from me.

[ QUOTE ]
The crops aren't doing anything wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Crops don't kill people, people kill people /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Anyway, I see where you come from, and you might be right. I just find the idea of GM crops scary. Anyway, I don't know enough about it to engage in a serious debate.

[fimbulwinter]

I can only hope that people stupid enough to mistunderstand and believe this left wing ecoterrorism pseudoscience bullshit take it upon themselves to not breed.

fim

[natedogg]

I see where you come from, and you might be right. I just find the idea of GM crops scary.

Unfortunately, that is the main foundation of all Europe's anti-GMO hysteria. Reason and science have nothing to do with it.

natedogg

[natedogg]

Common sense told the anti-GMO crowd that GMO crop resistance to pesticide would spur farmers to profligate use of even more harmful pesticides, while the GMO crops themselves would remain UTTERLY HARMLESS?

That is the story in the article. Is that what you meant by "confirms what common sense already" told you?

Yet the fear-mongering press couldn't even say that much in the title. The title of the article is The end for GM crops: Final British trial confirms threat to wildlife

This headline obviously conveys the sense that the GMO crops themselves were a threat to wildlife due to some biological aspect reflected by their modified genes.

But the truth is that they are so safe and work so well that irresponsible farmers have been over-spraying without fear of hurting their superior product. This is certainly problem but banning the GMOs is akin to banning alcohol because some people drink and drive.

The real danger here is the fear-mongering lies of the luddite press, not the GMOs.

natedogg

[ACPlayer]

The real question is: should we consider GN foods safe, good for the environment and good for the economy until proven otherwise or should we consider them experimental until adequate long term data is in place.

The problem we have in the US and in out govt policy is to consider them OK, until proven otherwise. One has to suspect that the financial push provided by manufacturers to be the main contributors to our rush to spread these seeds everywhere.

Is the benefit overwhelming?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the benefit overwhelming?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, that is the main foundation of all Europe's anti-GMO hysteria. Reason and science have nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I suspect that's not really true, but it might have something to do with it. I'd describe it more as using the cautionary principle. We don't know what these crops will do 10-20-100 years down the road, so lets be careful.

[ACPlayer]

Coming from you -- that is not comforting.

There are at least two reasons not to be comforted:

1. You make a living (as I understand it) in this general area and hence you have to believe this to be true -- if nothing else for your own sanity. Hardly an unbiased opinion.

2. Most of your posts on this forum appear to be written while you are drunk -- again as I understand if from your own post.

I have spent all my life in high technology, must of it in big biz and two observations -- one technology is not always a panacea and is not always safe and two trusting the statements of product managers vis a vis their product is unwise at a minimum. The important bonus is this years bonus and not what happens later.
2.

[BCPVP]

And I would hope that "being careful" would include not jumping to irrational conclusions. The "conclusion" of this British test says nothing about GMOs. It says, surprise surprise, that herbicides can be harmful to the environment if abused. What does that have to do with the safety of GMOs? Not much...

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You make a living (as I understand it) in this general area and hence you have to believe this to be true -- if nothing else for your own sanity. Hardly an unbiased opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever wondered why Australia doesn't have any native crops?

Ever seen the difference between hydbrid crops and non hybrids?

As for modern day gene therapy:

Ever seen a glowing tobacco plant? I have. I used a tobacco mosaic virus to insert a lightning bugs genes into the plants genome.

We have mice with human brains growing in california and pigs with human blood at the Mayo clinic. These are being used to fight disease.

Plants are being modified to be resistant to disease, grow faster, grow in harsher conditions, etc.

We are using GM goats for spider silk production.

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/gm-food/dn1807


I could go on and on and on....

Only time can tell what will come.

BTW, the vast majority of pharmaceuticals made today are produced by bacteria/yeast that have been genetically modified to grow the drug. Think about that the next time you open up the medicine cabinet.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Most of your posts on this forum appear to be written while you are drunk -- again as I understand if from your own post.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? My facts are still correct. Who gives a [censored]?

[ QUOTE ]
technology is not always a panacea and is not always safe and two trusting the statements of product managers vis a vis their product is unwise at a minimum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You make a living (as I understand it) in this general area

[/ QUOTE ]

I cure diseases. That's as far as I go. No conflict of interest here.

[MMMMMM]

Yes, it is common sense that overuse of pesticides might well harm the ecosystem.

No, it does not confirm that GM crops are bad for the environment. Rathe, it supports the idea that too much pesticide is bad for the environment, and apparently, since GM crops can tolerate higher levels of pesticide, growers use more pesticide. Big surprise there-but they don't have to use more. Just because your car CAN go 130 mph doesn't mean you SHOULD drive it over 100 mph, even if you get from point A to point a bit faster.

With this pesticide issue coming to light, maybe the U.K. ought to look at setting permissible levels of pesticide use by commercial growers. But blaming it on GM crops is pretty asinine.

How dumb (or agenda-driven) can the authors of that article be? Truly amazing but not altogether unexpected.

Now, if you had posted a good article discussing the merits versus the dangers of GM crops, I'd bet that might generate an interesting discussion. The issue the article discussed could even generate a good discussion if it were objectively oriented. The title of their article is terribly misleading.

Tsk, tsk.

[natedogg]

The real question is: should we consider GN foods safe, good for the environment and good for the economy until proven otherwise or should we consider them experimental until adequate long term data is in place.

No, the real question, with regard to this article and the putative "common sense" findings you touted is that the headline is so blatantly misleading I can only assume it was intentionally done, and the findings the article discusses found NO DANGER whatoever from the GMOs themselves.

Your "real question" is probably the one most anti-GMO people obsess about, but it wasn't addressed in the article.

But even so, GMOs have been used in the US for years. Literally trillions of servings of food made from GMOs have been eaten by americans and not one person has suffered from it.

Not one detrimental effect has occurred to the environment. If anything the environment is much better off because it is estimated that over 100 MILLION few tons of pesticides are being used.

Economy? Safe for the economy? Is that a joke?

How long can you call something "experimental" before it becomes clear that detractors don't really have a reason other than irrational fear?

One has to suspect that the financial push provided by manufacturers to be the main contributors to our rush to spread these seeds everywhere.

Yes, let's speculate about motive instead of analyze the facts.

natedogg

[ACPlayer]

The authors of the article were reporting on a four year long study. Not exactly an opinion piece.

My point is and reamins, we assume that these things are good for us until absolutely proven to be bad rather than moving carefully and cautiously (ie being conservative about adopting the technology). THe rush to adoption is driven by big biz that has a sorry record of thinking long term.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer,

Your point is fine but that article sucks.