How did I miss this: On 30th August there was an article in the West Australian titled ‘Libs flag new GM crop trials’ in which the Western Australian Opposition was reported to be calling for wide-scale commercial trials of genetically modified (GM) canola with a view to lifting the current moratorium banning GM crops in that state.
The WA Agriculture and Food Minister Kim Chance had already responded to the Libs new found enthusiasm for GM by detailing in a media release how Western Australia’s canola growers are now receiving premium prices for their crops because of the State’s GM-free status.
But David Tribe asks whether farmers are better off with the $1 a tonne premium if the GM canola is higher yielding.
Anyway, it is significant that a State Opposition is finally taking on the GM issue and that there is at last some sort of evidence of a price premium for non-GM canola.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I would very much like to see David Tribe’s scientific evidence to back his claim that GM crops are ‘higher yielding’.
If it is based on the University of Melborne’s 2003 report by Dr Robert Norton then those higher yields are based on a theoretical scenario and disingenuously use both GM (50% of current triazine tolerant) canola and conventional canola (only 40%) not only that but the report’s scenario has the audacity to allow 160,000 hectares of ADDITIONAL (my capitals) GM canola planting.
Which means any attempt to use it as a comparison with existing conventional canola yields is meaningless.
This report also uses the additional planting area as the basis for its claimed increased wheat yields (as a rotational crop).
This is the sort of report that is ‘completed to budget, to specification, to deadline’
The UK Soil Association’s 2003 report, Seeds of Doubt, shows that virtually every benefit claimed for GE crops since 1996 has not occurred.
‘Instead farmers using GE seeds are reporting lower yields, continuing dependency on herbicides and pesticides, loss of access to international markets and a loss of profitability.’
The Soil Association estimates that ‘GE soya, maize and oilseed rape could have cost the US economy US$12 billion since 1999 in farm subsidies, lower crop prices, loss of major export orders and product recalls.’
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/ed0930aa86103d8380256aa70054918d/a72f34ecca9b64e880256cd70037de0a!OpenDocument
Another interesting facet to the Canola debate is that GM varients are now being classed as problem weeds in some parts of Canada.
http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/view?/news/2001/06/21/gm_canola010621
http://www.cbc.ca/story/news/national/2002/06/27/gncanola020627.html
I have always wondered about “weeds”.
That they grow prolifically suggests they are extremely well adapted to the environment in which they occur. It indicates to me a proliferation of a living organism – LIFE!
So why are weeds deemed as something bad? Basically because we cannot do anything with them?
There much more available on Canola agronomic performance than just the Norton report, although I have it, and interpret it differently to Lamna nasus.
Importantly, GM canola enables an efficient hybrid system to be created, and theoretically you’d expect a hybrid to yield more because of the increase in crop genetic biodiversity and strees tolerance through heterosis, otherwise known as hybrid vigour (and it does deliver about 25% boost).
For other canola data see:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/08/australian-canola-currently-has-price.html
http://www.canola-council.org/portal.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/25-to-50-percent-biodiesel-yield.html
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/cropproduction/gaa01d03.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/12/good-news-for-canadian-farmers-using.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/latest-2005-tests-confirm-gm-hybrid.html
More generally, with GM crops in general, farmers plant more year after year, and have done for ten years now. This suggests that the yield claims, where they are made, have substance in practical profit outcomes for practicing farmers.
eg see
http://www.isaaa.org/
http://www.pgeconomics.co.uk/GM_global_study.htm
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-europe-is-missing-benefits-of-gm.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/genetically-modified-crops-can-help.html
It that enough to start a discussion?
There oodles more though , eg 50% increases in Indian cotton yields these last few years:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/07/cotton-records-to-continue-in-india.html
http://www.fbae.org/News/performance_of_bt_cotton_in_indi.htm
http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/November05/Findings/IndianCotton.htm
Yes,Lama, I know you’d want to mention not all India commercial hybrids are GM, but increasingly they are, and the advent of GM stirred farmers interest in commercial seeds. Besides they save farmers a lot of money in synthetic pesticide sprays and help reduce crop losses to insects.
While commenting about the motives of THe Norton Report, why are you silent about the motives of the UK Soil association?
A victory for the anti-science brigade if there ever was one – the banning of GM modified crops.
I wonder how many strident and public supporters of embryonic stem cell research ( it’s all for the good of humanity ) will support the Opposition on this one?
Does anyone here back an unmonitored, unfettered, caution-to-the-wind pervasive rollout of GM? If not…
What consitutes adequate scientific precautionary measures in your opinion or your ‘interpretation’ of the science? eg what type, extent and duration of scientific experiments/trials are adequate to rule out the potential (alleged) risks?
Lamna, I was going to comment on your yield drag claims on another discussion, but I may as well do so here. The yield drag claims of Chuck Benbrook can be best categorised as cherry picking of data to support his anti-GM position. He is after all the Chief Scientist of the Organic Centre. I might point out that his career was intensively discussed on a previous thread. A survey of peer-reviewed publications of trials of Roundup Ready versus conventional soybeans demonstrates that yields of Roundup Ready soybeans range from about -10% to +10% of conventional soybeans. I suspect this is sitting somewhere on the GMOPundit links above. Simply, for soybeans in the US, there is neither a yield benefit nor a yield drag. Roundup Ready soybeans are preferred because they allow for reduced tillage, saving farmers considerable dollars in fuel costs, not to mention less time on the tractor.
For canola in Canada, the story is very different. In Canada there has been a yield advantage to GM canola. This comes in 2 forms. Firstly, the advantage of the InVigor hybrid system. This is a novel GM hybrid system and considerably better than the chloroplastic system used in Hyola varieties in Australia. Secondly, the reduction in the use of soil applied herbicides has increased yields. These herbicides had an effect on early growth of canola, but also tended to delay planting. With post-emergent only herbicide options crops can be planted earlier taking advantage of shorter seasons.
In Australia, more than 70% of all canola is triazine tolerant (more than 95% in Western Australia). This canola has an inherent yield and oil penalty caused by the triazine tolerance reducing the efficacy of photosynthesis, but is preferred by farmers because they can obtain control of weeds. There are several hundred peer-reviewed papers on the yield penalty of triazine resistance. I am happy to prepare you a list if you want proof, but it will make rather dull reading.
In Australia, farmers typically grow wheat after canola because they see a yield benefit to the wheat. While there is speculation about biofumigation playing a role, much of this yield benefit is due to reductions in cereal root diseases. Therefore, Norton is right in assuming that increased planting of canola is likely to lead to improved wheat yields. In addition, it is a little known observation that triazine herbicides will persist is dry environments like Australia and may have some impact on wheat yields in the next year. Replacing triazine tolerant canola with another variety may in itself result in a wheat yield benefit.
As to increased area, Norton no doubt noticed that the area sown to canola in Canada increased with the adoption of herbicide tolerant canola. Herbicide tolerance made canola a more attractive option in drier areas than it was when the ground needed to be cultivated. There may well be a similar impact here. The canola area in Australia in 1999 was about 2 million hectares. It has declined since. An extra 160,000 hectares of canola grown, were it to be a successful and profitable option, is by no means out of the question.
I am sorry, but I don’t accept the Soil Association as an authority in matters of herbicide tolerant crops. Their own description of their methods in the Seeds of Doubt report: “focusing on the data and analysis of independent US and Canadian experts and government bodies, rather than that supplied by the biotechnology industry” are what we would describe in the academic world as bias.
Even your nice little story about the student and the bales of maize from the report was actually transplanted from The Netherlands (see http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MicePreferNonGM.php), although what a dutch farmer was doing with Roundup Ready bales of maize given it was not approved, has not been adequately explained.
Pinksi
Good to see you on deck.
As far as evidence for safety og modern genetically improved foods, the weight of sacientific evidenence that when they are prpperly registered, they are at least as safet e as older foods is now very substantial.
For example there are close to 150 publications that are peer reviewed.
I’ve listed them here
http://gmopundit2.blogspot.com/2006/05/full-monty-on-animal-feeding-trials-of.html
Can you tell me other classes of new foods that have anywhere near this evidence?
Its not rushing things.
Nobody has said that the rollout of GM would be “unmonitored, unfettered, caution-to-the-wind pervasive…”
..except you pinxii
Pig fed on GM-feed doesn’t taste as good as an organic pig fed on non-GM fodder!!! Have you noticed this folks???
Detribe: “… and theoretically you’d expect a hybrid to yield more because of the increase in crop genetic diversity…”
Actually, this is the very first time I hear this spin from the GM industry and I’m going to e-mail detribes post to Greenpeace’s anti GM campaigner and see what he has to say about this.
Actually Greenpeace’s main argument against GMOs is that they decrease biodiversity.
Well Anne, can you explain how GMOS have decreased biodiversity, especially those techniques that enable hybrids. Secondly, why you jump to the conclusion this argument is “spin”. Are not hybrids more diverse than the parental limes, and insn’t heterosis based on greater diversity of genotypes?
In other words arguments please, not “spin”.
I would like to see the taste test of meat from pigs fed GM feed vs non-GM feed put to a real scientific test.
There is no conclusive evidence that any organically produced food is more nutritious or healthier for you no matter what organic marketers say.
At present the organic consumer as far as I can see only gets a fuzzy warm feeling out of eating organic produce.
Ann, I think you find that it is not the GM status that affects the pig meat it is how they are raised – organic pork producers have an entirely different system of husbandry, ditto with chickens.
But I agree, organic raised pork is far superior in taste than supermarket stuff and you pay for the privilege.
Let me explain that the biotech industry is based on specific traits plus good germplasm.
Both are needed and both are used.
Germplasm for GMOs is the same a germplasm for non GMOS. No biodivesity issues raised there.
Next, traits often and increasingly as we move to advanced traits, so are genes that enhance crop genetic diversity.You are adding genetic extra redundancy where it is needed. Disease resistance and stress tolerance (salt, drought) genes are a case in point.
Thus trangenic breeding necessarily adds to the general genetic resiliance of a crop.
As far as Greenpease being against GM on the basis of GM allegedly narrowing crop diversity, this is just one more example, along with their disasterous opinions about vitamin A and golden rice, already proven to be wrong by Golden Rice II, and their irresponsible promotion of massive soybean imports from Brazil, where their technical incompetence excludes them from being given serious credence.
I can speak to the issue regarding the taste of meat from pigs raised on a non-GM diet. I recently visited London and twice dined on pork chops from pigs raised on such a diet. The meat was pasty, greasy, and had a strange odor.
I later discovered that the pigs were raised on slops, i.e., food waste. This practice was outlawed decades ago in the US. Our GM-fed pigs are far more tasty as a result.
At the same time, Aussie bacon is absolutely the best in the world. What’s your secret?
Hi detribe,
Sorry for the spin and you will have to wait for an answer from me on your post since firtsly I’m an Oceans person and want to discuss your topic first with a GP campaigner before replying.
However, I think your words on Greenpeace are too harsh, remember they have their own scientists as well and all Nordic NGOs and organic farmers have very good arguments against GMOs.
There is also this consumers resistance and fear towards GMOs. People who never would be any NGO member have actually come to me to speak GMOs, they have expressed their opposition against GMOs and it is a mystery for me why the Swedish Gov’t supports GMOs. And as far asI know the GMos have not been this big success as the industry thought some years ago.
One more comment detribe!
Detribe: “..Greenpeace’s irresponsible promotion of massive soybean imports from Brazil..”
Where from did you get that idea??? As far as I know Greenpeace had an action against McDonald’s import of non-GM sobean from Brazil.
Yes, I believe most European soybean come from Brazil and I know Greenpeace Nordic’s statement on this is that is very bad but it’s even worse to import GM soybean.
You are the one who is in this business, I have heard rumours that the soybean meal can be replaced by some cellulose waste product(?) from the industry. Do you know anything about this?
As rog already has experienced as well as myself( Rog really surpises me!!!) organic pork is more tasty than factory farmed or pig raised on GM fodder.
Schiller, no master chef for a five star restaurant would serve GM meat for their guests for dinner!!! I can assure you that.
Roger, regarding organic or what we in Sweden call ecologic milk, just yesterday a scientific study showed that organic milk was much more healthier and more nutrient than milk from factory farmed cows. The fatty acids in the organic milk were more healthier!
Greenpeace has scientists who work for them because they’re not good enough to find real work elsewhere. The Greenpeace scientists don’t do any real research, they just feed quasi-scientific twaddle to the group’s spinmeisters.
Greenpeace’s promotion of soybean imports from Brazil was irresponsible because it distorted trade, driving demand that led to a glut, driving Brazil soy prices so low that farmers could only survive with subsidies the government was forced to provide. Most people are against subsidies. At the same time, the EU demand for Brazilian soy drove additional clearing of rain forest. Many people don’t like cutting down rain forest.
So, by fomenting GMO scares, Greenpeace is revealed as the cause of additional ag subsidies and additional clearing of rain forest.
Ann, there is no such thing as GM meat on the market. However, European markets are chock-full of meat from animals fed on GM crops. That’s where the imported corn and soy go, kiddo! And lots of it shows up on the plates in five-star restaurants.
It is true that “all Nordic NGOs and organic farmers have very good arguments against GMOs,” but that’s just because it’s easy. When you ignore the facts, as all Nordic NGOs and organic farmers do, it is very easy to construct the nicest arguments imaginable.
A recent Swiss study found that organic cows produce less milk because of a poor diet, and suffer more mastitis and other infections because the cows aren’t allowed modern medical care. In addition, the organic milk has more bacteria. See
http://milkismilk.com/news-lid-lifted-on-organic-milk-05.html
Schiller, I’m very well aware there doesn’t exist any GM meat, this was a typo. We at Greenpeace have had an European consumers campaign during the summer urging the EU to label meat products if the animal has been fed on GM feed or not . This has been a very big campaign and we have about 800 000 signatures.
One more comment detribe!
Detribe: “..Greenpeace’s irresponsible promotion of massive soybean imports from Brazil..”
Where from did you get that idea??? As far as I know Greenpeace had an action against McDonald’s import of non-GM sobean from Brazil.
###Yes that’s this year, but go back to why EU soy imports massively switched to BRazil from the USA a few years back. Thats what I’m referrring to. A massive boost in Brazilian soy imports triggered by Greenpeace activism.
Yes, I believe most European soybean come from Brazil and I know Greenpeace Nordic’s statement on this is that is very bad ###but it’s even worse to import GM soybean.###
### No the last statement is the misjudgmemt. I would have been better for the Brazilian rainforest to have continued importing US soybeans.
You are the one who is in this business,
### I’m not “in” this business. Why do you jump to the conclusion that I’m in a business. I teach biology and genetics at a University.
I have heard rumours that the soybean meal can be replaced by some cellulose waste product(?) from the industry. Do you know anything about this?
###No. But where is the nitrogen and protein going to come from?, (which is why the soy is valuable) What’s the source of the rumour?
Another Question for ANNE;
What about the GM carbon dioxide that plants take up: shouldnt that be on the label?
THis labeling activism has immoral consequences in denying African’s ability to choose technology to help themseves move out of poverty due to fear of EU trade bans on meat exports. Of course, rich well fed Scandinavians don’t suffer themselves.
I must say that I read your responses at face value, and dont regard them as disingenuous spin, but I am surprised at the ignorance of Greenpeace about the consequences of their own actions, and the parachialism of a viewpoint that ignores food security issues in Africa and Asia.
“However, I think your words on Greenpeace are too harsh, remember they have their own scientists as well and all Nordic NGOs and organic farmers have very good arguments against GMOs.”
I have read Greenpeace International’s documents on Genetics from their own website.
They are not science, but non-scientific spin that, scholasticaly speaking, is absurd ill-informed propaganda. My scientific colleagues agree with me. On basic genetics, Greenpeace are simply spinning harmful propaganda and vile distortion. This is the organisation you are associated with.
Your Nordic NGOs have been asleep while this has happened, and asleep while Greenpeace spread misinformation world wide about Golden RIce (for example absurd vile cartoom propaganda I myself got by email ), and asleep while Greenpeace Australia appointed non-science spinmeisters in Australia to run their “True Foods campaign” ( no scientific credentials were called for in their advertisments for the jobs – scientists are bad at propaganda).
All this using vast amounts of money that would be better spent helping African farmers be more sucessful.
No Anne, I’m not being too harsh about Greepeace, I’m not harsh enough. Your activities getting signatures to label meat fed GM produce are self-indulgent, do real harm, while serving only to protect subsidised rich country farmers in world trade. They are in no way a welfare benefit, and cause indirect environmental harm elsewhere. They are well intentioned, I concede, but wrong.
The tragedy is that Nordic NGOs are unaware of the harm they cause, possibly because they mainly talk to themeselves and don’t frankly engage with their critics. How you can believe that Nordic NGO arguments are good if you are unable to explain what the arguments are without getting further advice is beyond me.
What your response means is: “these people are good, they have good intentions, so I have never bothered to logically and factually scrutinise what they say myself.”
Ann,
Now that Greenpeace has 800,000 signatures, I’m sure you’ll explain to us how it’s impossible for 800,000 people to sponsor a stupid idea.
Being a former State Government employed policy maker in GM crops area I agree with detribe and Schiller. During the public hearings the Government arranged, where GM crops were scrutinized by an independent reviewer, the personal abuse and political bullying was all coming from Greenpeace Australias GM campaigner , a former lawyer, and politically well connected person.
Nordic Greenpeace might be different but I have a sneaky suspicion that Green peas International is running a tight ship and coordinating the activities of all national Green peas organisations.
The Australian Greenpeace campaigner has been ‘promoted’ and is now working for Green peas International in Amsterdam.
Ann, you misrepresent what I said, the GM status of the animal feed has nothing to do with flavour or quality of the meat.
I know that English is not your 1st language but really…
800,000 signatures from an EU population of 467.5M – wheres my calculator….heck, you dont even constitute as a minority!
My favourite soup, green peas and ham
Rog, sorry if I interpreted your post in the wrong way…hey, I knew I couldn’t trust you on this!!!
Chris Preston’s only link did not function, so in the interests of fair play I am posting a working version –
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MicePreferNonGM.php
Detribe has posted a large number of links and so it will take me a few days to research his points and respond properly, I apologise for the delay.
In view of Detribe’s very large number of pro-GM links to David Tribe’s ‘authorative’ Blog, I would be most grateful if someone could elaborate on who Mr Tribe is and his qualifications.
If he is Mr D. E. Tribe then I congratulate Detribe and Roger Kalla (contributor to David Tribe’s blog) on their talent for self publicity and cant help wondering if Rog is also Mr R Kalla, since they both enjoy ‘green peas’.
First of all , I’m not employed by Greenpeace Nordic, even if they have asked me if I want to. I,m just a volunteer and help out with some campaigns…
Secondly, I have mentioned this many times before on this blog that I don’t spout Greenpeace policy 7/24 and don’t always agree with their opinions, but I’m glad that Greenpeace exists, and like friend of mine , who really doesn’t like Greenpeace either back on the whaling debate and thread , I think it is very good to look at both sides and arguments, hey we don’t live in North Korea!
Dr. Tribe and all,
We don’t have to be especially hard on Ann. She is doing she was hired to do, and that is to prop up the European farmer subsidy program by protectionist methods, relying primarily on artfully crafted programs to scare consumers and leveraging that into political capital. Greenpeace, like most Netherlands-based NGOs, are bought and paid for with government funds, primarily the Netherlands, where most of the pan-European agricultural combines are based.
Ann’s stakeholders pay her well to help ensure that European farmers don’t compete on the open market. If there were an open market, the vastly inefficient, neo-Stalinist European agriculture would go down the drain, and along with it, a vast rural welfare economy. (Calling any part of Western Europe “rural” is a farce.)
Billions of Euros (money) are riding on the success of Ann’s opinioneering, and as we have seen, Greenpeace doesn’t care about casualties of their programs on the “dark continent.” Countless documentaries and televised pleas for donations have hardened people to the notion that Africans die as a matter of routine.
Ann’s arguments are as weak as they deserve to be, because Greenpeace kills.
Detribe, you always describe yourself as some kind of a guardian angel for poor African people and think this GM food can help starving people.
We also know FAO stats show we have enough food to support 1,5 Moder Earths.
What really surprises me is that you have forgotten to mention a whole continent, South America. Sure you must know the opposition from the indians and native people to GM maize? Their old , ancient maize is holy for them, and they have really expressed fears that this GM maize will destroy their whole culture. A guy from Guatemala told me this.
Sorry for the gramma, read of course Mother Earth, need another coffee…
For Schiller, some information from Oxfam on European farming subsidies. Greenpeace share the same views as Oxfam:
http://www.maketradefair.com/en/index.php?file=wto_prtr33.htm
Ann,
If you can get a tiny minority of 800,000 Europeans to subscribe to wretched and ignorant notions, having Greenpeace and Oxfam agree on the same points is an equally sad comment on the state of affairs.
The European CAP sucks down about sixty percent of European income tax for the sake of artificially inflating farm income by 20-30 percent. The average European cow receives more income annually than the average African.
Europe is largely immune from criticism over farm subsidies, even though the subsidies are the most immense on Earth, because the Europeans also subsidize activists heavily in the cause of European trade protectionism. Greenpeace and allies won’t bite the hands that feed them.
Green Power, Black Death. Read the book.
http://www.eco-imperialism.com/main.php
Detribe, I believe Greenpeace’s statement that biotechnology may threaten biological diversity has its origin from the Cartagen Protocol on Biosafety. Excerpt from the protocol: “… biotechnology …its potential adverse effects on biological diversity”.
“In view of Detribe’s very large number of pro-GM links to David Tribe’s ‘authorative’ Blog, I would be most grateful if someone could elaborate on who Mr Tribe is and his qualifications.
If he is Mr D. E. Tribe then I congratulate Detribe and Roger Kalla (contributor to David Tribe’s blog) on their talent for self publicity and cant help wondering if Rog is also Mr R Kalla, since they both enjoy ‘green peas’.”
###For the record, detribe = David Edward Tribe. Since commentors raise the matter of qualifications, I have bachelor degrees in biochemistry and chemistry and a Ph.D. conferred in 1975 in the area of molecular genetics, and have extensive and broad research experience in those areas as recorded on PubMed scientific publications. If you are going to use titles for Dr Kalla then at least use the professional one in this context. I personally doubt rog=Kalla; their personal styles don’t seem consistent. Who rog is , I’m not sure.
###I draw readers attention to a swich over to ad hominem comment in the above rather than response to the factual issues by ? Susan Malan?. (Nasus ).
The speculation that I use my own name at a blog and link to it here for merely personal self-promotion is an improper comment in civilised debate.
###The purpose of linking to the posts at GMO Pundit’s was merely to provide convenient access to the sources cited at that blog. That why they are posted at GMO Pundit – to improve access to orginal sources. Full sourcing of original statement is available at GMO Pundit, and the links to Pundit reduce the amount of writing and comment detail need here. The pupose of using the real name at the blog and here, David Tribe, is to be willingly accountable for accuracy, which is not possible using anonymity. Nasus (Susan ?) will have to post her own real name if she is going to continue this line.
“Detribe, you always describe yourself as some kind of a guardian angel ”
###No I don’t describe myself as a guardian angel. Never have. I’m happy to argue for benefits to poor people though. Are we, to be consistent, imply that all environmentalists as describing themselves as guardian angels for the planet just because they argue the case for better planetary stewardship? I think not.
“We also know FAO stats show we have enough food to support 1,5 Moder Earths.”
####The point is, there are projected global increases in food and feed and fuel and fibre demand over the next few decades that mean that we need to produce much more food on less land. It will well exceed this “theoretical” 50% excess.
But to really discuss food security believing that this crude theoretical average figure is a basis for complacency about food security, shows a gross lack of understanding of the global challenge of food security today, let alone those looming challenges of the next ten to twenty years.
A good starting point to find out about the inadequacy of this 1,5 figure is the ABIC Manifesto
http://www.agrometeorology.org/index.php?id=386
“What really surprises me is that you have forgotten to mention a whole continent, South America.”
####No I havent forgotten . I have deliberately concentrated on Africa because that’s where the issue of food and poverty is most challenging.
Its very interesting Anne that you appear to have been involved in a GM labelling campaign without understanding the global implications of the policy, and without knowing enough about the seriousness and detail of the issue without consulting with other experts before you can answer questions. This disengagement from policy implications by the protaganists is one ethical reason for ignoring the Greenpeace signature campaign.
“Sure you must know the opposition from the indians and native people to GM maize? Their old , ancient maize is holy for them, and they have really expressed fears that this GM maize will destroy their whole culture. A guy from Guatemala told me this”.
This issue is not relevant to GM maize in North America, Africa, EU, China. I also have ethical concerns about these native people’s opinions being manipulated by European NGOs, and underwritten by misguided EU trade self-interest.
But good to see Greenpeace agree wth Oxfam on trade subsidy iseas. EU agricutural subsidies are obscene. On that topic I also agree with Oxfam, but on many others I do not. The slowness of change on EU Agric subsidies is still wrong, and the creation of de facto subsidy/trade bariers to replace them is wrong also.
Detribe,
You may find it strange why I haven’t replied to your post before consulting a Greenpeace campaigner.
Well, today I had a short discussion on your cooment that “… and theoretically you’d expect a hybrid to yield more because of the increase in crop genetic bio diversity…”with GP Nordic’s GMO campaigner.
Frankly, we didn’t understand what you really mean with biodiversity. Does this include GM hybrids as well?I wonder what’s the correct definition of biodiversity? This issue can of course be discussed endlessly!
Regarding biodiversity, Royal Society( England), has published ” Farm Scale Evaluations”.
This study has showed that ” some GMO crops show decreased biological diversity”.
As regards why I am participating in EU labelling campaigns without fully understanding the topic, I really don’t understand what you mean!
If you are out in the street campaigning for this labelling of meat produced from animals that have been fed with GM fodder, you really don’t talk about plant genetics so much since the common consumer in Sweden hardly know what GMOs are.
We just want the consumer to support farmers that use non GM feed to their animals , and we especially support those farmers that raise their animals with non GM fodder which is also growned from their own crops and not imported.
Hi again detribe,
Actually I reread the whole thread again and I got the impression that our discussion now is a bit confused.
What I want to point out is this question( sorry for my ignorance)does this heterosis in GM hybrids always give a positive result? Have there been any unsuccesful cases?
Ann
There are several ways in which biodiversity can be measured. One way is to measure the amount of genetic diversity present, as one of one the resons for promoting biodiversity is to incease genetic diversity. Hybrids have more genetic diversity than open pollinated varieties of the parents because there many more genetic loci where there are two different genetic alleles rather than two identical alleles. There more genetic diversity present because there is less-inbreeding and each plant is more genetically diverse when you take into account this chromosome diversity, in the same way that two identical twins have less diversity than two normal siblings.
I note that you want to support local farmers. Why you need to express your support by means of campaigns against GM crops I don’t understand. Your choice of supporing local farmers in ways that hamper innovation in other countries and which thus discourage better stewardship of the environment and haper improvements to human welfare in these other regions I find irresponsible. That’s not something to be proud of.(But admittedly this is not as irresponsible as direct sabotage of agricultural research in other countries as done by Greenpeace, and proudly admitted by them).
Why not avoid doing harm elsewhere and choose activities that respect the freedom of others to do things differently to you, and avoid engaging in activities that restrict those freedoms while achieving nothing tangible? It’s this self-indulgent lack of consideration for others for no tangible gain, but which detrimentally affects the prospects of rural poor in the developing world that I am criticising.
No Ann, rog is not = roger kalla. detribe and I are two fiercely independent commentators and trained scientists that happen to have got overlapping views of the world that might not be the same as those held by a Greenpeace activist.
Neither David nor I are paid by any multinational company but I am a stakeholder in Australias agbiotech future through my company Korn Technologies.
Greenpeace Australia seems to have similar objections to feeding animals GM soy as Nordic Greenpeace.
Here in Australia they have been campaigning for the chicken producers to feed their chickens 100 % GM free soy. 100 % GM free is an unscientific claim which is continously undermined by the development of hyper sensitive DNA testing technology. If you promise 100 % purity of anything in a marketing campaign you expose yourself to tiny amounts of unintended presence of GM soy which the Consumer Protection Authorities will prosecute as they have in New Zealand.
This ridiculous PR campaign has also exposed the duplicity of Greenpeace in building up a demand for non-GM soy bean grown in Brazil on cleared rainforest.
Greenpeace doesn’t seem to think about the environmental consequences of their actions and the scientific base for their claims.
But then Greenpeace campaigners are not hired for their scientific minds but for their marketing skills. As long as it gets media attention and money from public seems to be what counts.
For my CV and the profile of my company see http://www.korntechnologies.com.
And yes I am a PhD but I don’t demand that people address me as Dr Kalla.
Ann suggests David may find it strange didn’t reply to his post “before consulting a Greenpeace campaigner.”
I didn’t find it strange at all. Most people would be inspired to consult a scientist on scientific matters–but greenpeacers prefer to consult campaigners instead.
Is it any wonder why greenpeacers are so viciously naive?
Ann suggests David may find it strange she didn’t reply to his post “before consulting a Greenpeace campaigner.”
I didn’t find it strange at all. Most people would be inspired to consult a scientist on scientific matters–but greenpeacers prefer to consult campaigners instead.
Is it any wonder why greenpeacers are so viciously naive?
Greenpeace campaigners act to distort the market just as much as tariffs and subsidies do, Ann. Greenpeace are the “useful idiots” of the EU trade policy
Anne
The short answer to your question is yes, hybrids generally and without exception offer yield advantages.How great this benefit might be dependsa on the parents to the hybrid and the quality of the existing non-hybrid alternatives.
Here is a full discussion of heterosis.
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-hybrids-and-hybrid-vigour-came.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/how-hybrid-vigor-heterosis-works-in.html
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/01/paradoxically-years-of-corn-breeding.html
Hybrid vigour yield benefits are highly sought after, and new artificial hybrid breeding systems have been developed in several crops in recent decades for very good reasons and with proven benefits – rice and cotton in India are famous examples.
They all take advantage of the genetic diversity in a population, and where there is available genetic diversity in the parents it is highly likely that some benefits will be offered in the hybrid. Conversly if the total available parent population is a clone (say in Mangroves) benefits from heterosis would be expected to be minimal.
But if a crop and its relatives are widely dispered to different habitats, natural selection is very likly to have created (selected for) that necessary population genetic divesity.
Self-pollinating species like wheat are not technically suited to a hybrid system, but these technical barriers migh be overcome with some crops in this class, but generally have not.
I will make another major point that is avoided by Greenpeace and their associates:
The main argument for wanting diversity in crops is the theoretical protection it offers against disease and vagaries of climate, and transgenic techniques offer a way to target those genes whose functions are especially relevant to crop protection – eg mildew resistance – and to speed their addition to crops in a way that is superior to conventional wild crosses from many perpectives. It a a powerful tool for inceasing relevant crop genetic diversity above that offered by conventional breeding.
In short, the reason for scientific engagement in this issue is the propect of vastly better crops and crop security.
This general biological research approach is providing real access to greatly improved practical crop biodiversity in the future, and a HUGE amount of current plant science is devoted to using this idea to improve agriculture.
BY opposing this work and generally seeking to stop and delay its implementation, and avoiding any serious discussion of its importance, Greenpeace and it allies are generally sabotaging global food security. They are also shooting themselves in the foot.
They have convinced themselves that all objections to their views are simply PR spin by big business to stop their “righteous crusade”, in my judgement. Their self-righteuosness is preventing them from hearing or believing objections to their actions.
This is one of the saddest and most insidiously damaging delusions we face in todays world.
You Ann, and Nasus too, betray traces of this delusion this in your responses to my initial post, you by immediately mentioning “spin”, and Nasus by immediately and reflexively reverting to a sly ad hominem attack.
Unfortunately this mode of response is quite common, and is preventing honest commenters such as youself see the seriousness of the mess into which GP and allies are getting themselves into.
Peter Raven in a speech to the Holy See has used the term ( http://vatican.usembassy.gov/policy/topics/biotech/biotechnology.pdf ) “Crimes against humanity” in this context.
I think all Greenpeacers should think about this issue, as leaving it unattended (as they are now doing) only adds to the weight of evidence to Peter Ravens concern. Sooner or later this will destroy the credentials of many well intentioned NGOs, and the issue is only going to get bigger as time marches on and global food security challenges mount higher.
It will not go away as numerous members of the scientific community are outrages by the immorality and irresponsibility of the NGO approach on this issue. This is the reason GMO Pundit exists, and why I am not perturbed by Nasus’s clumsy attempts to attack the man and not the issue.
I think Peter Raven’s Vatican talk is well worth reading. It also touches on biodiversity
Key Quote of Peter Raven 2004:
In conclusion, one might well ask why a general ban on GM foods and the cultivation of GM crops exists in Europe. In view of the lack of scientific evidence that such cultivation would be harmful, one can only conclude that the reasons for the ban are emotional, personal, and political. The major drop in genetic research in Europe over
the past five years or so clearly has to do with this ban. Extended, it will continue to limit greatly the potentially important fruits of European research in this area and
indeed to threaten the continent’s economic development. Where does the gain for anyone lie in the perpetuation of this situation? Whatever policy might be adopted for
Europe, persuading governments responsible for the lives of hundreds of thousands of starving people in Africa to forego food aid on the basis of politically or economically
motivated disinformation seems to me to constitute a serious crime against humanity.
I maintain that those responsible for this misinformation bear a responsibility for the lives of the people who are dying, and urge them to begin to deal rationally with the
situation by allowing the fruits of human ingenuity to be applied to the solution of the extremely serious problem of hunger. Fortunately, India and China, as well as many
of the countries in Latin America, have decided to utilized GM crops to improve their economies and the nutrition of their people, which leaves Africa and some countries of
South East Asia, notably Thailand, left to be pushed hard by the European Community on the issue. It is important to keep in mind that all of this controversy is taking place without a single case of human or animal sickness or environmental problem anywhere in the world reliably attributed to GM crop
Ann, Your Greenpeace colleague’s use of the Farm-Scale Evaluations as evidence that GM reduces biodiversity is smowhat misleading. What these studies showed was that for canola (rapeseed in the UK) and sugar beets that the herbicides used with GM crops controlled more weeds and hence had lower populations of those insects that depend on weeds. What the studies also showed, but has been overlooked by most is that the crop effect was generally larger than the herbicide effect. That is, there was more biodiversity in GM canola than there was in non-GM corn. I should point out that there was more biodiversity in GM corn than non-GM corn in these studies, but I haven’t heard Greenpeace calling for the introduction of GM corn.
There are a lot of ways of increasing biodiversity and not all of them need rely on having large amounts of biodiversity on crop land. Likewise, non-GM is not equivalent to more biodiversity. It is somewhat ironic that the clamour for non-GM soybeans is leading to loss of rainforest in northern Brazil.
Hi Dr Tribe,
Thank you for clarifying your connection to the ‘GMO Pundit’ blog. In return I would like to assure you that I am not Susan Malan….. or indeed female.
I am not linking to my own blog as a reference, so who I am outside of cyberspace is not germane to the debate; I have a ‘nym, it is the only one I use for posting on blogs or discussion sites and I always use it.
I will state for the record however that I derive no financial benefit of any kind whatsoever from or because of my activism, quite the reverse.
Unlike the ‘fiercely independant’ Dr Kalla, unless there was some remarkably obtuse subliminal information hidden in Korn Technologies attractive yet minimalist website, that I missed?
I was slightly perplexed that you failed to mention that you would have been able to collect your copy of Dr Norton’s report in person, since you appear to have a shared campus.
Is there a web version of your lecture from 2000 ‘Ten Thousand Years of Sowing Seeds, One Hundred Years of Harvesting Genes’ available?
I clearly stated in my post that I would be unable to respond in detail to your comments for several days, that remains the case. I will however have some free time at the weekend and so I hope to have that response posted on Monday.
I hope to have also had time to read your 2005 report as Biotechnology Co-ordinator, University of Melbourne (co-authored with Dr Kalla, Director of Korn Technologies) to the Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group*.
The report does seem to demonstrate considerable commercial awareness for an academic ‘not “in” this business.’
You ‘teach biology and genetics at a University’ but I think you are being modest about the extent of your talents, commercial interests and political lobbying.
Although quite how ‘rich, well fed’ Australians’ ‘adoption of GM cotton’ which has ‘ensured the competitiveness of Australian cotton growers AGAINST (my capitals) GM cotton producers in India’ and ‘China’ is helping to feed third world poor is unclear.
I believe it is a factor ‘which detrimentally affects the prospects of rural poor in the developing world’ and to ‘hamper improvements to human welfare in these other regions I find irresponsible…not something to be proud of.’
Describing a compliment on your capabilities as an ad hominem is an unusual approach, particularly after some of your own comments to other contributors on this thread however at least we can all agree that the EU’s CAP is obscene.
It is a popular, persistant and disingenuous neo-conservative suggestion that because an international environmental activist posts do not continuously criticise their own national interest or economic bloc, that the activist does not pursue actions against environmentally damaging corporations, industries and government policies ‘at home’.
This suggestion is of course a total fallacy, proven by the fact that there are plenty of European neoconservative individuals, lobby groups and politicians loudly complaining about European environmental activists.
* – The Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group was commissioned in March 2005 to help guide the development of future directions in Australian Government policies and programs affecting the agriculture and food sector.
To detribe,roger,chris,
I’m not going into any discussions with you on plant genetics since my knowledge on this is minimal…
I just talk as a concerned citizen and as a former medical student I just wonder what health effects GMOs will have in the long run on human and animal health. As a matter of fact the GM products have only been on the market for about a decade.
As far as I know no negative health effects have been detected so far in humans but sure some signs have been detected in lab animals that have been silenced as far as I know.
And what happened with the study that some mice showed antibody production in their blood after eating GM peas(?).
We have to take the health effects more seriously since GM feed in my opionion is unnatural for the body.
BTW Roger, this was not me who confused dr Kalla with rog!
Ann, when you consider that bees, ants, birds, animals and wind have been creating transgenic plants for eons and that horticulturalists and others have been crossing genes for that perfect flower or fruit or grain for such a long time (hybrid wheats stretch back +8,000 years)….I would be hesitant in endorsing statements of which I know little.
Have you guys studied the human digestive tract and all its enzymes down to molecular level at the Uni and understanding what a slightest change of food molecular composition really means?
Just think about the mad cow disease!
Anne
Why do you single out GMOs for special treatment and not also apply the same standards of concern to the new transgenic varieties of plant created by conventional breeding?
Also this excessive precautionary concern about safety based on no tangible evidence of increased hazards has itself long term adverse consequences of harming agriculture’s adaption to wefare and environmental challenge. That is, excessive precaution has real long term adverse effects. It is of concern to many of us that the tangible harm from addressing negligilbe concerns about GMOs exceeds significantly the long term postulated dangers of using the technology. Golden Rice is a good ilustration given that 2000 children die a day from vitamin A deficiency. With your attitude we would have no vaccines today because vaccination in “unnatural”, so banning vaccines is dangerous too.
Your argument that GM food is unnatural to the body is a scientifically meaningless statement. Since when has natural been a criteria of safety, and since whem has DNA rearrangement per se been unnatural?
You mentioned a GM pea was found to be allergenic. There is no understanding as to whether the allergy signal is connected with GM techniques in general, and many conventional foods suffer from toxicity issues created by breeders. Using your argument, conventional breeding is therefore “dangerous ” too.
Nasus: “I was slightly perplexed that you failed to mention that you would have been able to collect your copy of Dr Norton’s report in person, since you appear to have a shared campus.”
—-What you’re getting at with this, Nasus I cannot imagine . I have copies of Dr Norton’s report from the web, downloaded from the old Avcare site I recall but I don’t recall ever speaking to Dr Norton or ever meeting him, and don’t think we even share a campus, as I suspect he works out of Horsham, Victoria and I’m in Parkville. I just read his publications with great interest.
“Is there a web version of your lecture from 2000 ‘Ten Thousand Years of Sowing Seeds, One Hundred Years of Harvesting Genes’ available?”
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/Biotech3.pdf
“The report does seem to demonstrate considerable commercial awareness for an academic ‘not “in” this business.’
You ‘teach biology and genetics at a University’ but I think you are being modest about the extent of your talents, commercial interests and political lobbying.”
——One moment I’m self promoting, the next I’m being modest. It’s so difficult difficult to please.
I teach B. Sc. courses where commercial context is highly relevant, but with hardly any relevance to agriculture (perhaps 1% of my teaching time). I’m glad you perceive I’m not an Ivory Tower academic. My University places a premium on outreach to the community.
“Although quite how ‘rich, well fed’ Australians’ ‘adoption of GM cotton’ which has ‘ensured the competitiveness of Australian cotton growers AGAINST (my capitals) GM cotton producers in India’ and ‘China’ is helping to feed third world poor is unclear.”
——Thats your statement not mine. However, prompt adoption of better agricultural technology and productivity improvements in developing countries is very important in promoting improved rural incomes in these counties and thus minimising rural food insecurity and rural poverty (see for example
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/agbiotechs-potential-to-provide-3fs-to.html
http://www.ifpri.org/pubs/agm05/jvbagm2005.asp#read0
The prompt adoption of better technology in a large market like India is more relevant to global trade and market prices than the prices effects of technology in a smaller producer like Australia. If anything Indian productivity spurts and entry into cotton exports is going to harm Auratian cotton incomes rather than the reverse.
“It is a popular, persistant and disingenuous neo-conservative suggestion …environmental activists.”
——Nasus, you’ll have to spell this out more directly: again you are being to obtuse for me. But whether or not it (what it is Im a bit unclear on) is a neo-conservative suggestion matters little to me, and why you drag these labels into the discussion I don’t really fathom. I’d prefer to discuss the argument and whether it is true, not who makes it. It a “playing the ball not the man thing”.
Hi Dr Tribe
‘adoption of GM cotton….ensured the competitiveness of Australian cotton growers AGAINST (my capitals) GM cotton producers in India….China’
‘thats your statement not mine’ –
Errr, not quite….it contains quotes taken directly from Dr Tribe and Dr Kalla’s 2005 report to The Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group which goes on to advise the Australian government that there is no point in fighting the introduction of GM crops since contamination of non GM stocks by GM, makes it inevitable that GM will succeed.
I must say it is heartwarming to see that Dr Tribe and Dr Kalla’s report supports my criticism of the GM lobby’s disingenuous attempts to oust non-GM products using this exact strategy on another recent thread with Chris Preston.
‘One moment I’m self promoting, the next I’m being modest. It’s so difficult difficult to please’ –
Not at all, self promotion when it advances your interests and conspicuously silent when it doesn’t.
‘Of course, rich well fed Scandinavians don’t suffer themselves.’ – Detribe
I guess its a “playing the ball not the man thing”
presumably justified by the fact that Ann isn’t a man?
I have always found it highly educational that whenever a group of testosterone fueled anti-environmentalists (why are the vast majority of them men, I wonder?) get together on any discussion forum, the accusation of ‘playing the ball not the man’ is always hurled at environmentalists but never used as a criticism of anyone voicing an anti-environmental message, no matter how shrill and abusive.
Pinch of salt anyone?
‘thats your statement not mine’ –
“Errr, not quite….it contains quotes taken directly from Dr Tribe and Dr Kalla’s 2005 report to The Agriculture and Food Policy Reference Group”
Well Nasus, you choose your words very strangely -“it contains quotes taken directly “- to try and cover up the fact that you constructed a statement I never made as a pastiche of phrases from different sources taken out of context put together by you in a sentance that does not represent an opinion I hold.
The words “It contains” may be accurate, but that is not the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Your ploy is a deliberate and intellectually dishonest attempt to play misleading games with words. Continue such dishonest semantic nonsense and we’ll just have to ignore you.
Your use of the word “report’ is also inexact. The document you mention is a “submission” to a public enquiry. Kalla and I are simply exerting our democratic freedom to make a submission to a public enqury which called for submissions by any interested parties, and about 50 did. It’s much like the submissions in these comments-and GMO Pundit Blog – active particupation on public debate.
‘conspicuously silent when it doesn’t’
You’ll have to be explicit here as your innuendo is very vague. But if you continue to avoid discussing the facts I supplied that you called for about crop yields, about which you seem to have now lost interest, and natter on and on about me personally instead, I can only conclude that you are attempting to confuse the arguement with red herrings.
You are just continuing to be annoying and boring in trying to attack the man (yes I am a man) and not address the argument, which is about agricultural policy. I don’t have any interest in your fastasies about particular groups (neo-conservatives and testrosterone fueled anti-environmentalists for instance) and in any case, after 60 years of life any influence of testosterone on me (which was always pretty weak)is rapidly diminishing.
I’m still interested your response on the issue of whether there is good evidence that GM technology can, and often does, improve yields. By your conspicuous silence so far on that, can I assume you find that there is just too much good evidence on the the issue with which you entered this thread for your own liking?
Lamna, when you made your comments about my associations on another thread I chose to ignore them. However, as you seem to want to play the same game here I feel obliged to respond. Frankly these sorts of comments merely indicate that you are bereft of arguments on the topic and are using guilt by association as a means of attempting to tarnish reputations.
I happen to know Rob Norton well having served on a couple of committees with him. He is based at Longeranong in western Victoria. David Tribe could decide to pick up a report from him, but it would be a 4 hour drive. The fact that they work for the same institution in no way suggests that they are conspiring. It would be likely that I have much more interaction with Rob, as we both work in farming systems, than does David.
From your other thread. Yes I do sit on a committee with David Moore from Monsanto. I will be seeing him when we meet again in two weeks time. I would happily say hello to him for you, except I suspect you have never met him. I fail to see how my service on a committee, whose dedicated purpose is to improve the sustainability of glyphosate use (read reduce the amount used), in any way compromises my opinions.
For the record, my research group does receive research funding from Monsanto. There are two projects they fund. The first is a collaboration with researchers in the Cotton CRC and is a risk assessment for herbicide resistance in weeds from the use of Roundup Ready cotton in Australia. The second project is a collaboration with researchers at Colorado State University and the University of Georgia looking at resistance and gene flow in glyphosate-resistant palmer amaranth. However, this funding is dwarfed by the funding my group receives from the Grains Research and Development Corporation (farmer money) for research into the management of herbicide resistant weeds in Australia. If I am in the pocket of anyone, it is the farmers of Australia. This is all a matter of public record.
The fact that you are attempting to besmirch David Tribe, Roger Kalla and myself whilst hiding behind anonymity, just makes your behaviour more pathetic.
This is a recent News release about hybrid rice in India. It shows what heterosis (hybrid vigour) can do. This involves an unnatural and artificial breeding technique which in this hybrid rice case, does not actually involve GM methods, but GM methods offer generally useful routes to opening up new hybrid systems in other crops, of which Liberty Link (Bayer) canola is but one excellant example.
The fact that both in India cotton and Egytian rice have proven the benfits of unnatural artificially contrived crop breeding innovations for addressing and at least patially fixing key poverty and food security issues in both India and Egypt these last few seasons – this is not speculation but facts on the record – only adds to the seriousness of Greenpeace and other NGOs attempts to sabotage and delay similar developments that do rely on GM methods. Educated Scandinavian activists should know about these issues, and should have been actively correcting the misinformation put out by Greenpeace. That would me a far more moral activity that collecting signatures to help sandinavian farmers; the moral priorities in scandinavia have poorly organised.
Record rice yields for Egypt: FAO-led project to solve rice production gap
05.sep.06
CropBiotech Update
FAO Press Release
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000387/index.html
Rome/Krasnodar (Russia) – Egypt has achieved record rice yields with varieties that included hybrids developed locally under an FAO-led project.
“The world’s highest national average rice yield in 2005 was 9.5 tonnes per hectare from Egypt,” the Executive Secretary of the International Rice Commission, Mr Nguu Nguyen, told an international scientific conference on sustainable rice production in Krasnodar, Russia today.
Egypt’s average yields were boosted by the introduction of newly-developed hybrid varieties such as SK 2034 and SK 2046, which outperformed the best local varieties by 20-30 percent. They were selected from more than 200 hybrid varieties under the FAO-led project, intended to help Egypt produce more rice with less water and less land.
Implemented by the Cairo Agricultural Research Centre and the Rice Research and Training Centre (RRTC), the project also helped train seed breeders and production personnel as well as extension workers and farmers.
Population growth
The new hybrids are aimed at increasing Egyptian rice output to resolve a national production gap stemming from population growth of 2.2 percent a year combined with increasingly limited land and water resources. Egypt’s population is set to increase from a current 75 million to 100 million inhabitants by 2025. Three million tons of rice will be needed by 2010 compared with current requirements of 2.8 million tonnes.
Egypt’s appetite for rice mirrors growing international demand for what is already the world’s most widely-consumed food. Rice is the fastest-increasing food crop in Africa for example.
Globally, 618 million tonnes of rice was produced in 2005 but with world population growing by more than 70 million a year, an extra 153 million tonnes will be needed by 2030.
Despite Egypt’s success, and progress towards a new generation of varieties, hybrid rice seed production is not a panacea. There are, for example, a number of countries lacking technical skills and infrastructure to carry out hybrid rice seed production programmes.
In the medium term, increasing rice production in such countries could require a different approach, one based on introduction of better crop management practices, Mr Nguyen said.
“The results from pilot tests in developing countries since 2000 have demonstrated that very high yield with existing varieties can be obtained with improved crop management (ICM),” he noted.
In the Philippines, for instance, ICM had almost doubled yields of testing farmers from 4.5 tonnes/ha to over 8 tonnes/ha, he added.
ICM includes such practices as setting planting dates to expose crops to higher solar radiation, optimizing seeding density, balanced plant nutrition and careful water management.
To Schiller who thinks I am paid by Greenpeace for commenting here on this blog!! Actually you guys are so amusing that I can’t get away from this blog, but the truth is ,not a single sane Greenpeacer would ever take part in discussions in the blogosphere…. they are afraid to be harrased!!!
Anne
Its rather odd that Greenpeace have the courage to destroy farms by destructive vandalism (as recently in France and Germany) and directly sabatoge crop research in Asia but don’t want to engage in comments on blogs because they are afraid of harrassment. They harrass others, but don’t have the courage to answer questions honestly.
But it’s good that you are so amused Anne. It gives me hope that you will rescind the remark you made (in another thread) that you are leaving this blog because you have wandered into territory that you are unfamiliar.
I am still hopeful that you will honestly and frankly dialogue with your Greepeace colleagues, and with us, on the issues we have raised with you. Particularly the Golden Rice misinformation and the actual bad consequences that flow from Greepeace’s good intentions.
I’m also keenly interested to see if you are going to acknowledge even the possible existence of any of the serious issues we have raised.
It would be a first, to get Greenpeace to acknowledge the existence of problems in their anti-GM stance. So far we only get only Greenpeace silence and Greenpeace spin, including a silence from you, and it’s this silence which is the moral issue.
Why the silence: lack of intellect?, don’t understand the issue? PR-spin?, lack of moral courage? confusion? misplaced party loyalty? Why such a silence, when you have been so vocal in raising a string of other factoids, almost all just a fragment of the full issue? Why silence about the problems with Greenpeace? Is it possible that you arn’t really independent from them and that’s why you are so quiet?
Come on Anne, don’t be shy – you are touted by Geenpeace as a celebrated cyber activist.
Are there sane Greenpeacers? Some time ago they formed SANE BP (Shareholders Against New oil Exploration). Ancient history now, much as green warrior Lord Brownes tenure at BP.
http://tinyurl.com/qvf2h
OK Detribe , thanks to your friendly style this time, I’ll give the discussions a new try.
Firstly a personal comment on Greenpeace’s direct actions , in this case against the GM crops in Europe.
No, even if I’m a Greenpeacer , and represent Greenpeace in schools and in organisations ( giving speeches to students mostly on Oceans issues)I usually don’t support this kind of actions .
I believe they could be totally counterproductive, I have experience on that from anti whaling actions in Norway.
I meet lots of people , people supporting Greenpeace and people against Greenpeace. The people against Greenpeace sometimes say they support our ultimate goals but are against our methods.
Especially in times like this with the terrorists our methods may give the wrong message.
I can give you an example. Last year at the Greenpeace’s campaigners meeting we discussed if there was going to be any direct action in connection to the Nobel Peace Prize fetivities in Oslo against the IAEA that was awarded the Peace Prize.
The powerful and big German sector wanted some kind of an action but me together with Greenpeace Norway strongly opposed such idea. We were afraid that a Greenpeace against the IAEA in connection with the Nobel festivities only could make the common man opposed to Greenpeace, in this case we would be looked at as ” party destroyers”.
Apologies, one word was left out in the above post.
Read: ” We were afraid that a Greenpeace action against the IAEA…”
Rog, of course no Greenpeacer is completely sane …but there is a resistance from campaigners side to be out in the blogosphere. They have expressed fears that people will call them middle in the night and receive hate mails.
Probably that is a bit exaggerated since I have never received any hate mail only two very nice e-mails from readers of this blog that were glad that I commented on the whaling thread…
Detribe, I’ll go through your posts on Monday since I’m just about to leave home…
Back again at the health issue.
Greenpeace see it as a big drawback that the research from Monsanto’s lab on mice is labelled as ” top secret” or corporate secreties.
For example , we know that a study on GM maize (Mon 683) , showed that the lab mice had received damage on internal organs, changes on blood corpuscles and elevated blood sugar after consuming the GM maize.
Monsanto however called these changes on the internal organs as ” insignificant”, but still Monsanto and the Swedish Board of Agriculture refused to let Greenpeace to take part of the study, so these ” insignificant” changes on the internal organs are unknown for us!
Anne
‘I meet lots of people , people supporting Greenpeace and people against Greenpeace. The people against Greenpeace sometimes say they support our ultimate goals but are against our methods.’
Here Ann you get to the heart of the problem, the Greenpeace belief that ends (ultimate goals) are sufficient to justify their means, coupled with their belief that Greenpeace should not engage with those who disagree with them to avoid harrasment.
If Greenpeace’s position is justified why should they fear harrassment?- the harassment is just another good opportunity to argue their case. And if Greenpeace’s case is not justified, is it not morally wrong to avoid putting it to the fair test of open public debate?
This fear of harassment it means that Greepeace are cut off from reality and cut off from confronting the real bad consequences of their own actions. In other words, their lack of moral courage leads them to continue mistakes that harm others, and they are definitely responsible for these harms they cause if they are so lacking in moral courage. This imagined fear of harrassment may even indicate an unconscious guilt that their position is actually wrong but they don’t have the courage to defend it or talk about it.
There is an easy approach to handling harassment: make sure that you are completely open to fair criticism and only interested in the truth, and tell any harrassers exactly where they are wrong. In my experience harrasment only comes from people who have a weak or shoddy stance – that why they have to resort to emotional bluster.
Here is my GM rebuttal, in response to Dr Tribe’s increasingly shrill demands, despite being given a time scale….twice.
‘GM canola enables an efficient hybrid system to be created and theoretically you’d expect a hybrid to yield more because of the increase in crop genetic biodiversity and strees tolerance through heterosis, otherwise known as hybrid vigour’ – Detribe
So does non-GM selective improvement of natural hybrids to improve yields and counter local pests and growing conditions, like the Lyamunga 90 bean in Africa; facile attempts to claim this as a unique benefit of GM crops do not increase Dr Tribe’s credibility.
http://www.unsystem.org/ngls/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.10.htm
Dr Tribe’s first link to his blog is a discussion of the rise and fall in commodities prices responding to market demand and Dr Tribe is not an economist or a commodities trader. I have read it, and interpret it differently to Dr Tribe. That lack of market understanding is also why Dr Tribe does not address what happens when a commodity market is flooded with product….Coffee anyone?
Dr Tribe’s second link is merely to the Canola Council of Canada which promotes…..Crikey! canola. Since Dr Tribe has not indicated why this link has been included, apart presumably from Dr Tribe’s deep and abiding love for GM canola, we will move on.
Dr Tribes third link is to his blog again.
Hmmm…….. Canola biodeisel, well thats not going to feed the world’s starving and canola biodiesel is not an energy efficient solution to the world’s energy problems.
It is also very odd that the conventional variety of canola achieved a flat one hundred across the board but GM products show a wide variety of values. I think we are only being given part of the story here and its for only one year, rather than five or ten years to give a more accurate picture of yield robustness.
Since Dr Tribe gives no comparisons between climate, soil quality, pest susceptibility differences, etc between Manitoba, Australia and Africa his argument is disingenuous and hopelessly flawed.
“There are three types of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disreali
Dr Tribe’s forth link is to a freeby Manitoba publication. If Dr Tribe is providing a bibliography it would be courteous to make that clear; otherwise readers may suspect we are back in Canola Council country.
During my research into yields of conventional and GM crops, it suddenly occurred to me that since Dr Tribe was suspiciously interested in recent stats and very specific areas, perhaps I should be looking behind the statistics at the causes of yield improvements and as a result I came across a very, very interesting piece of data.
Improved yields are directly related to research into the most ‘successful’ stock. ‘Success’ for these purposes is measured purely by the largest quantities of seed sold. GM crops are doing a similar trick with yields that they are attempting to do with contamination.
Once GM products reach tipping point on commercial sales, research into improving yields automatically switches from conventional crops to GM crops, regardless of any other factor. Hi Monsanto, your business model is well and truly rumbled!
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7KPYStUhRlcJ:www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/2002proceedings/gaskaroundupready.pdf+gm+yield+lag&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=12
The way GM lobbyists burble on, readers might misled into believing that conventional breeding was unable to provide equivalent benefits, this is of course a complete fallacy:
‘Scientists of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service (ARS) developed two salt tolerant wheat lines by conventional breeding. Salt tolerance of wheat is an important trait. In the irrigated wheat producing regions in the west of the USA, the improper irrigation accelerates building up of salts. The two breeding lines W4909 and W4910 resulted from one parent containing genes from wheatgrass (Agropyron smithii), a wild relative from wheat that had shown salt tolerance before. The other parent contains genes that schedule another gene that would otherwise block the transfer of wheatgrass genes into domestic wheat, which is called PH1b gene-inhibition. The scientists want to reveal the mechanism of salt tolerance. The article „New Plants Shrug Off Salinity“ is published in Agriculture Research/January 2003 and can be downloaded from the internet (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jan03/salin0103.pdf).’
While we are on the subject of GM crops in Manitoba:
http://list.wayground.ca/pipermail/canada-activist/2005-September/000510.html
On the subject of GM crops ‘benefits’ for biodiversity or otherwise:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/monarch.cfm
The US government is only now finally running its first full environmental impact assessment of a GM plant.
Why? Because an unapproved one escaped:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/mg19125643.100-escaped-golfcourse-grass-frees-gene-genie-in-the-us.html
Of course GM scientists are not saying that conventional crops are not interesting, merely that they have not pirated the genetic material for a patent, so they cannot ‘own’ conventional crops properly; therefore though GM corporations buy seed banks of conventional crops in order to plunder their genetic diversity, those crops cannot be regarded as a ‘commercial’ success.
That in a nutshell is the real ‘benefit’ of GM crops, they allow corporations to ‘own’ nature.
In the same way that indigenous people around the globe have had their land rights stolen (GM has accelerated this); GM corporations are in the process of stealing nature then selling it back to us with a very real and legally binding patent.
Time to spit the dummy folks!
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/mg19125643.900-waterproof-rice-can-outlast-the-floods.html
http://www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1604
Environmental groups learnt the hard way from Corporate sponsored scientists and lobby groups that to ignore the political arena results in being outflanked by cynical and machiavellian opponents. Now corporate sponsored scientists and lobby groups have discovered their traditional propaganda is no longer fooling an increasingly well informed public, who after the cigarette industry’s classic example of fake science, can no longer be relied on to unquestionlingly accept corporate press releases and ‘expert’ corroboration. Understandably corporations are far from happy about this situation and are funding greenwashing NGOs and scientists in an effort to strike back and protect their revenue streams.
Think about it, are multibillion dollar companies and industries really going to sit idly by while environmental organisations point out all their ugly secrets and in so doing reduce the profits that corporations are legally required to maximise for their shareholders ?
Of course not! It would be wholly illogical and fly in the face of all corporate history in a multiplicity of industries.
‘Monsanto Lines Up Heavy-Hitters As Lobbyists’
by Jon Sawyer, Terence Samuel and Nahal Toosi
‘Once upon a time, Monsanto Co. had a corporate slogan that said, “Without chemicals, life itself would be impossible.” Today, under fire for its genetically modified agricultural products and the constant topic of rumors as to the company’s possible merger or sale, Monsanto’s top brass appears to be placing its bets on lobbyists instead. The firm of Griffin, Johnson, Dover & Stewart Inc. and several of its members registered with the Senate last month as lobbyists for Monsanto. That’s Griffin as in Patrick J. Griffin, former chief congressional lobbyist for President Bill Clinton, and Johnson as in David E. Johnson, former director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Not to slight the GOP, the Griffin firm also lists on its roster of Monsanto lobbyists Leonard Swinehart, a top aide to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Keith Heard, from the staff of Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.
Monsanto spokeswoman Lori J. Fisher confirmed the new hires with deft understatement: “I’m told that they are currently working with Monsanto on a variety of biotech issues,” she said. “As you know, they have experience with both congressional and administration circles in D.C.” They almost sound like volunteers. We’d guess not, although the first report on fees isn’t required until early next year. Monsanto’s own most recent report says that for the first half of 1999 it shelled out $2 million on D.C. lobbying activities.’
– St. Louis Post-Dispatch, November 21, 1999,
To corporations environmental problems are an externality, only to be dealt with after a very protracted legal battle to minimise or escape the penalties and even if the legal case is lost, a good accountancy firm should be able to get tax benefits to offset against those losses. If even that isn’t possible, then getting taken over by another corporation and ceasing to exist as an entity that can be held legally accountable is a permissable legal strategy. Big round of applause for Union Carbide….Not!
Monsanto’s lawyers preempting liability to an externality:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/wheatdefeat021003.cfm
Anyone wishing to keep up to date with Monsanto’s activities can do so here –
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/monsanto.html
I commented on the glaring flaws in Dr Nortons argument . Everything else being equal if you increase the area planted with GM crops you will increase yield. Dr Norton’s report was therefore a self fulfilling prophecy and as a result valueless, which leads to the logical conclusion that the specification for the report is extremely dubious.
Indian cotton farmers? fascinating subject:
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/ip250505.txt
Does Dr Tribe have a specific argument to raise and substantiate against the Soil Association report? If so why does he not articulate it?
Completely objective science never claims to have a definitive answer, which is all the ‘wriggle’ room corporations and their lobbyists need.
Interesting further reading on GM crops:
http://www.greenpartysask.ca/GPS_Principles_Platform/Backgrounder_Articles/Agriculture/GM%20Crops%20_%20Going%20Against%20the%20Grain.htm
http://www.grain.org/seedling/?id=280
http://www.biotech-monitor.nl/4802.htm
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=5790
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Jul/msg00118.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmnebraskasoycomment.htm
http://www.safe-food.org/-news/1999-12-04.html
Playing the ball not the man?
‘Why the silence: lack of intellect?, don’t understand the issue? PR-spin?, lack of moral courage? confusion?’ – Detribe
‘I might point out that his career was intensively discussed on a previous thread.’ – Chris Preston
Dr Tribe, Dr Kalla and Dr Preston are on a public forum making political points (whether they wish to acknowledge that fact or not) and in earlier statements they have been economical with the truth, either by outright denying a commercial interest (Dr Tribe), failing to state a commercial association (Dr Preston) or attempting to mislead readers over their commercial interest (the ‘fiercly independant’ Dr Kalla).
These gentlemen would have readers believe that they very occasionally exercise their democratic right as private citizens to express certain views; however this is quite clearly not the case.
They are not confining themselves to the odd blog comment or submission as ‘private citizens’ at all.
They are actively involved in the biotech industry through their careers in the real world, make submissions to government enquiries using academic and corporate titles and promote industry viewpoints in cyberspace. Efforts to suggest otherwise are disingenuous in the extreme.
Dr Preston claims not not have as direct a link as Dr Tribe and Dr Kalla, but in response I would query why his first response to me read like an advert for GM crops and contained not a single scientific link.
For these gentlemen to start complaining when their personal associations are queried while at the same time using their qualifications and careers to lend weight to their arguments and querying the professionalism of others is laughable.
The reason my name is unimportant is because I do not have a commercial interest in this, therefore declaring my name would add nothing to the debate, in which case Lamna nasus is as good as any other name.
‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.’ – Upton Sinclair
‘I don’t accept the Soil Association as an authority in matters of herbicide tolerant crops. Their own description of their methods in the Seeds of Doubt report: “focusing on the data and analysis of independent US and Canadian experts and government bodies, rather than that supplied by the biotechnology industry” are what we would describe in the academic world as bias.’
– Chris Preston
Really? It is of course completely justifiable for the Soil Association to view submissions made by the biotech industry with suspicion, since history has proven that the biotech industry cannot be trusted not to deliberately weight the data and analysis they supply in such a manner as to skew ‘independant’ reports. They have certainly been caught producing shill reports and bribing officials before.
The fact that the academic Dr. Preston does not like independant studies and prefers industry submissions speaks volumes.
Lamnus Nasus
I contend that the matters you are raising are irrelevant to factual discussion of agronomics.
They are also not-scholarly ethics and still constitute an ad hominem diversion. You are shooting yourself in the foot and not intimidating me at all as there is no basis for your innuendo
You are seeking to politicise the discussion.
Yiou are seeking to imply that my comments are motivated by financial gain through links to the agriculture industry.
You are ding this by a series of associations and innuendo which are factually wrong and consist of a series of hypothetical implied links you do not specify exactly.
The implications your are making are false but even if they were true are irrelevant to the argument you are trying to pursue.
I earn my living this way: I teach in a microbiology department in the medical faculty. I teach science students applied microbiology. I have done research on infectious disease. The connections between this and the agricultural biotech industry are tenuous.
I do not say that I have no contact with the agricultural sector. As I teach applied microbiology it is healthy for me to know what is going on in indudsty. I comment on agricultural matters as a public service which is a role the University expects of its academics.To do this you have to know as much as possible about the industry, which I endeavour to do.
I also take on this role BECAUSE I have no material involvement in research in this sector. The reason for doing it this way is precisely demonstrated by your comments and innuendo. Routinely, unethical policically savvy NGO activists try and silence informed comment in the same way as you do, without addressing the factual agricultural and economic aspects that are pertinent, which I note you still have not found the energy to do.
d
Since I have anticipate this (your) unethical behavour (as it is so common) I have deliberately avoided placing myself in the position you are trying to unethically imply I am, without precisely saying it because you have nothing to say except absurd comments such as you made linking me and DR Norton, whom I have never met.
If you think that comments that are not informed by knowledge of the agricultural biotechnology sector are worth listeming too, go elsewhere.
You are mis-interpreting Dr Preston. He rejects the studies you are referring to because of their opoor intellectual quality, and so do I.
When are you going to discuss the yioeld data I gave you?
‘Why the silence: lack of intellect?, don’t understand the issue? PR-spin?, lack of moral courage? confusion?’ – Detribe
Note Nasus, these are questions in response to Anne bypassing challenging issues. They are not statements, and I still would like to hear her answers, particularly those addressing serious issues such as the Greenpeace misiformation about vitamin A content and availablity in Golden Rice, for which you will note, there has so far been no comment in this thread.
I am referring to a notorious ~9.5 kg rice GP assertion, presented at their website against a photo of a huge pile of rice which GP claimed (wrongly) was the amount needed to be eaten to supply a nutritionally helpful quantity of vitamin per day in the developing world. Greepeace was out by a factor of at least 6-fold when they made the statement, and susequence research indicated Syngenta Golden Rice Two will effectively supply about 40 -fold (20-fold increased quantity, 2 to 3 fold better availability) more vitamin than GPs was claiming in diets.
Note Greenpeace’s assessment that the Golden Rice was useless was out by a factor of TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (~ 200-fold). This is a serous factual error.
We are still waiting to see corrections of this misinformation from Greenpeace, and of related misinformation that farmers will have to pay for the Golden Rice rice when it will be free for farmers on low incomes.
Because 2000 children die a DAY from vitamin A deficiency, unneeeded delays in research on this rice actually kill people, so do you think it is unfair for me to expect Greenpeace to respond to such a question and to be held accountable for unnecessary delays in Golden Rice availablity they are causing? Isnt 2000 deaths a day woreth some robust questions and honest frank answers?
Thus Nasus, I do not apologise for trying to get reponses from Greenpeace on this, as unecessary death is more serious that asking hard questions, or even hassament ot blog sites by trolls.
And since Greepeace are so reticent about discussing issues frankly, how do you suggest that I go about getting a response? Whispering gently? Waiting another 5 years, with thousands of children dying?. This is a situation Greenpeace have created by their unwillingness to be frank, and by failure to correct their own misinformation, so a few direct questions of a good person like Anne are quite in order. I don’t really expect a reply but I’m hopeful it generates internal discussion within the GP organisation..
“statements they have been economical with the truth, either by outright denying a commercial interest (Dr Tribe)”
Nasus. I said I am not in that industry. I still assert that.
Secondly, since you are now assert that I have a “commercial interest” I state directly that I do not have a commercial interest, and more so, that my full-time University employment precludes it. I am happy to acknowledge an open involvement in pro bono public service in this area, encouraged by the University, and driven by a desire to make sure that farmers, the environment, and community benefit better and quicker from science in this area and concern that misguided opinions based on propaganda rather than evidence is the magjor impediment.
You Nasus seem to think that such an activity can only come because I am paid to do it.
Is actually driven from disgust at the harm of lies and half-truth factoids (Annes were half-truth factoids) spead by misguided and PAID NGO acticists who continually spread these lies / half-truths and do not seem to care about accuracy.
Ill give you one specif example. The Genethics Network in Australia claimed recently, in a public meeting that I was present at, “that the first generat BT cotton was withdrawn from the market because it failed to control insect damage and because insect resistance (to Bt) had becaome a probem.”
This statement by Genethics is untrue, misleading and either deliberately made to confuse the issue, or reflects gross incompetance on behalf of that organisation (Genethics) which, BTW, I understand is at least funded by Organic farming interests and supervised by organic industry executives.
In fact The withdrawal of “Bollgard I” cottons in Australia was government mandated to enable a cplente, environmentally protective, sustainability enhancing, switch to Bollgard II double Bt trait cotton as a precautionary measure to give better stewardship of potential insect resistance. It was based on cogent biological and genetic arguments that the two-trait crop provides better assurance against emergence of future insect resistance to the Bt proteins. Genethics public statement was an attempt to “spin” responsible industry/government actions into a technology failure (that never was).
-*-
In short Nasus, you’re part of the problem not the solution, and I’m really keen to see the problems be solved. Still looking forward though to your comments on GM crop yield data and a return to discussing agricultural policy, not politics.
Hi detribe,
You wanted a reply from me or from Greenpeace on the Golden Rice II.
Since I’m no spokesman for Greenpeace I have forwarded your question to Greenpeace Nordic’s GM campaigner, Kathleen McCaughey and to Lindsey Kennan Greenpeace International.
As you may understand my position on Golden Rice II or on GE rice generally, is different from yours. We both share the view that malnutrition must end as soon as possible and it can’t be tolerated that people go blind due to Vitamin A deficiency.
However , I see the situation as political. Poor people just can’t afford to buy decent food, that’s why we have Vitamin A- deficiancy.
Once again I don’t see the GE rice as a quick fix.
If you want my position on GE rice this is my standpoint(for now):
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0510/S00279.htm
Hi again,
Detribe’s second question or statement to me was ” bad consequences that flow from GP’s good intentions”.
Of course I could pose the opposite question to detribe! And I have pointed out just some flaws with the GE crops as well.
Both sides have very good arguments no doubt and maybe in the near future we can pick out the best options from both camps!
Back again to Africa. Does Detribe think that Mali farmers rejection of GM crops is one of those examples of Greenpeace’s bad consequences that flow from GP’s good intentions?
Excerpt from the Independent:
Mali farmers reject GM crops as attack on their way of living.
The fourth poorest country in the world, have told their Government they do not want to see genetically modified crops being grown on their land, after Africa’s first ” farmers jury” debated the issue.
Their verdict comes as the Mali government decides wheteher to allow trials of genetically modified crops to begin in the country.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article342135.ece
Detribe,
If actually 2000 persons die every day of Vitamin A deficiency surely some kind of an acute arrangements for those people are needed!
Don’t want to be rude, but it seems like it would be better if Syngenta handed out vitamin pills for poor farmers instead of giving them free or cheaper GE rice.
Don’t want to be cynic, but why on Earth is Syngenta handing out the GE rice for free? I think it is only a publicity stunt , something that will give the company profit in the future and not concern of poor farmers, hope though I’m totally wrong!!!
‘When are you going to discuss the yioeld data I gave you?…………Still looking forward though to your comments on GM crop yield data’ – Detribe
Really? Which part of this response did you forget to read –
During my research into yields of conventional and GM crops, it suddenly occurred to me that since Dr Tribe was suspiciously interested in recent stats and very specific areas, perhaps I should be looking behind the statistics at the causes of yield improvements and as a result I came across a very, very interesting piece of data.
Improved yields are directly related to research into the most ‘successful’ stock. ‘Success’ for these purposes is measured purely by the largest quantities of seed sold. GM crops are doing a similar trick with yields that they are attempting to do with contamination.
Once GM products reach tipping point on commercial sales, research into improving yields automatically switches from conventional crops to GM crops, regardless of any other factor. Hi Monsanto, your business model is well and truly rumbled!
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7KPYStUhRlcJ:www.soils.wisc.edu/extension/FAPM/2002proceedings/gaskaroundupready.pdf+gm+yield+lag&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=12
‘return to discussing agricultural policy, not politics.’ – Detribe
Strange comment to make in view of the innordinate amount of time you and Schiller spend fulminating against the politics of European agricultural policy and environmental global conspiracy theories. Have your cake and eat it, you cannot.
Indeed considering the importance to global politics of the deliberations and agreements of the WTO, your comment is either staggeringly uninformed or deliberately disingenuous.
Narsus, so I have to make a full disclosure every time I write a piece in blogspace and if not I am economical with the truth – you mean lying of course. But … there are separate rules for you. You may say what you about people, make all sorts of insinuations about them while hiding behind anonymity – and that is OK because your cause is right.
Give me a break.
I don’t have a commercial stake in GM crops either. Therefore, under your rules, my name and what I do should not matter. I chose to identify myself here because I was commenting on my own work. In my mind it would look a bit silly to do otherwise.
Further to my comments about the Soil Association’s report I should point out in all fairness, that despite their claim to not use the biotechnologies industry’s publications, they in fact did when such reports could be construed as showing a negative impact of GM crops. In addition, they ignored all research not linked to the biotechnology industry that showed any benefit to GM crops. That is the main reason why I dismiss their work. It was not a piece of scholarship or research, but a piece of advocacy. The little snippet you quoted about the mice and the GM maize was illustrative of the way they were willing to change stories and even the facts to suit their own view.
If you want to discuss farming systems and the potential impact of GM crops on that, I am happy to do so, but I am uninterested in your ridiculous sniping.
I would be happy to dispassionately discuss farming systems with Dr Preston, Dr Tribe and Dr Kallla, if they respected their own demands for zero advocacy and hadn’t had to have their professional associations highlighted by a third party rather than making full and honest disclosure; which contrary to Dr Preston’s disingenuous claim is an extremely important issue when we are discussing the biotechnology industry which all three of them are directly involved with and are advocates of, in the real world as well as here in cyberspace, while as I have already stated, I am not.
I fully expect them to have a titanic struggle not to use their ‘expertise’ as justification for their arguments being ‘superior’ to mine, it will be interesting to see if they can resist that temptation, in the interests of objective debate.
The unseemly and thuggish treatment of Ann, who has a genuine interest in exchanges of information and does not automatically agree with everything Greenpeace does (as I have witnessed on a number of different forums) is a consistantly unpleasant demonstration of what happens if environmentalists allow corporate and/or neoconservative blandishments about objective debate to blind them to political reality and the extremely well founded cynicism some activists have built up over the last three decades.
I am not going to facilitate your terms of engagement in what is quite clearly a political debate gentlemen, with the rules governing what constitutes advocacy changing as the debate progresses depending on who is making a statement.
While we are on that subject, perhaps Dr Kalla can explain why he origionally posted his Chinese GM Rice thread as ‘Anon’ before reconsidering…yes, Dr Kalla some of us did read the origional version, although admittedly it was a fairly shoddy disguise.
‘ridiculuos sniping’ – Chris Preston
No more ridiculous than first intimating that the Soil Association had not used biotech data then changing your mind and stating that they did just not the data you liked and without any references to support that claim, Dr Preston.
‘the mice and the GM maize’ – Chris Preston
Interesting that the farming community is an unreliable source of information when critical of GM products but stalwart, rural heroes bravely defying ‘evil’ environmental NGOs when they are buying GM product.
Still since Dr Preston prefers biotech data, lets use biotech data…Monsanto’s data in fact:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:N58WHjYmZRsJ:eu.greenpeace.org/downloads/gmo/MON863briefing0601.pdf+rats+gm+maize&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3
Detribe,
If actually 2000 persons die every day of Vitamin A deficiency surely some kind of an acute arrangements for those people are needed!
Don’t want to be rude, but it seems like it would be better if Syngenta handed out vitamin pills for poor farmers instead of giving them free or cheaper GE rice.
Yes Anne it is a good idea to distribute vitamin pills but there are problems with reaching everyone, and so a different program has the benefit of increasing coverage. Second, giving seed has the advantage over pills that a permanment source of vitamin is available season after season, as the farmer can replant the seed, without extra costs. Pills on the other hand do not grow.No one is saying that efforts shouldnt be made to distribute pills but giving seed is a better approach because it is sustainable and doesnt need ongoing funding.
Don’t want to be cynic, but why on Earth is Syngenta handing out the GE rice for free? I think it is only a publicity stunt , something that will give the company profit in the future and not concern of poor farmers, hope though I’m totally wrong!!!
Anne: is the farmers are given the seen and are given the freedom to replant it, as Sybgenta Golden rice announce, this does not generate profits for Syngenta. The project is a philanthropic effert, and Im surprised that you do not support it. Have you gone to the Golden Rice Web site
http://www.goldenrice.org/index.html
The Basics of the Licensing Agreement between Syngenta and the inventors of Golden Rice
Universities are not set up to develop products. From the onset of the Golden Rice Project it was clear that in case of success during the research phase, a product should be developed, and that the product had to reach vitamin A-deficient people in developing countries. That means, it had to be a humanitarian project.
Industries are set up to develop products. Thus, an industrial partner was sought that would agree to the humanitarian purpose of the project. Such a partner was found with Syngenta, an agrichemicals and seeds company with headquarters in Switzerland. Syngenta was instrumental in converting the proof-of-concept results generated at the University of Freiburg and ETH Zurich into deliverable products. This contribution was based on the understanding that Syngenta would retain commercial exclusivity for the technology, including large agricultural setups in developing countries.
In 2005 Syngenta decided not to go commercial with Golden Rice in developed countries, a main reason being that there is practically no vitamin A deficiency in such countries. Thus, it would be probably a vitamin-enriched product with little commercial interest, even though antioxidants are very fashionable, and provitamin A is such an antioxidant. But still, Syngenta continues to support the project with advice and scientific knowhow.
The essence of the Sublicensing Agreement
* The inventors have assigned their exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology to Syngenta.
* Syngenta added some further technologies, and arranged licences with other companies for some additional technologies to be included in the original Golden Rice.
* Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries, to the full set of necessary technologies.
* Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.
* ’Humanitarian Use’ means (and includes research leading to):
o Use in developing countries (low-income, food-deficit countries as defined by FAO)
o Resource-poor farmer use (earning less than US$10,000 per year from farming)
o The technology must be introduced into public germplasm ( = seed) only (see below).
o No surcharge may be charged for the technology (i.e. the seed may cost only as much as a seed without the trait)
o National sales are allowed by such farmers (in this way urban needs can also be covered)
o Reusing the harvested seed in the following planting season is allowed (the farmer is the owner of his seeds
* Regulatory imperative and national sovereignty, i.e. Golden Rice may not be released in a country lacking biosafety regulations, and the decision to adopt the technology is a national matter.
* No export allowed (except for research to other licensees): this is a humanitarian project, i.e. the seeds are meant to cover the daily requirements of the poor populations that are deficient in vitamin A.
* Improvements to licensed technology:
o Commercial rights of improvements to the technology go to Syngenta, but
o Humanitarian Use of such improvements is guaranteed under the same terms of the original agreement (in this way any improvements to the technology will serve the humanitarian purpose).
* No warranties are given by licensor(s) (this is also related the fact that every receiving country will determine what biosafety and agronomic requirements to impose before approval of a Golden Rice variety.
* Liabilities and costs — each party is responsible for what it controls (this follows also from the fact that this is a humanitarian project and not a commercial enterprise).
Selection of locally adapted varieties as receptors of the Golden trait:
While countries adopting the technology are free to introduce the trait into their preferred varieties, there are some criteria on which strategic decisions for selection should be based. For example, receptor rice varieties should preferably be widely used by farmers. Those varieties should also be expected to maintain prominence over time and be grown by most productive farmers in vitamin A deficiency-prone regions (for local and regional supply).
See also:
# Kryder D, Kowalsi SP, Krattiger AF. 2000. ‘The Intellectual and Technical Property Components of pro-Vitamin A Rice (GoldenRice™): A Preliminary Freedom-To-Operate Review’, ISAAA Briefs No 20. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY. 56 p.
NASUS: Here is my GM rebuttal, in response to Dr Tribe’s increasingly shrill demands
detribe: If you think my responses to your repeated false statements about me are shrill, simply stop being shrill in repeatingly making false statements about me under the cover of anonymity.
NASUS So does non-GM selective improvement of natural hybrids to improve yields and counter local pests and growing conditions, like the Lyamunga 90 bean in Africa;
detribe:Great, I favour any system for crop improvement that shows merit in objective trials being encouraged.
NASUS: facile attempts to claim this as a unique benefit of GM crops http://www.unsystem.org/ngls/documents/publications.en/voices.africa/number6/vfa6.10.htm
detribe: I do NOT claim it is a unique benefit, just that a that good canola hybrid system has been developed by Bayer, and there is good evidence in Canada that it performs well, that there continues to be enthusiastic take up of these hybrids in Canada, and there is a wide range of evidence (including that at the Canola Council of Canada) that it boosts yields (which you fail to acknowledge Nasus) , and that GM potentially could offer hybrid systems in other crops.
NASUS Dr Tribe’s first link to his blog is a discussion of the rise and fall in commodities prices responding to market demand and Dr Tribe is not an economist or a commodities trader.
detribe: Im puzzeled as to How do you infer Nasus that I not an economist and that I have not had commodities trading experience; where did you get that from – the same speculative imagination that imagined Dr Norton and I share the same campus, or that Dr Preston has less (!!!!) commercial agricultural experience than I, he being a professional agricultural scientist with a strong research record, and me only being a professional applied microbiologist and biochemist and all.
And why not some argument and analysis about facts in the blog post rather than yet another shrill ad hominem attach on my “credibility”.
Nasus Dr Tribe’s second link is merely to the Canola Council of Canada which promotes…..Crikey! canola. Since Dr Tribe has not indicated why this link has been included, apart presumably from Dr Tribe’s deep and abiding love for GM canola, we will move on.
detribe: Nasus, take the trouble to read the data on crop performance at the site: It has a vast amount of statistical and agronomically relevant information.
eg
http://81.137.139.227/podnew/index.aspx
http://www.canola-council.org/hybridssyntheticcanola.aspx
http://www.canola-council.org/growing_research.html
http://www.canola-council.org/PDF/cpc_on_2004.pdf#zoom=100
(yield data)
and so on.
NASUS:Dr Tribes third link is to his blog again.
Hmmm…….. Canola biodeisel.
detribe:
The post in question is this:
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/25-to-50-percent-biodiesel-yield.html
Nasus what you don’t mention or discuss that there several GMO studies and reports relating to yield in this post. Readers can check this through the link, but to be sure I describe the main points below.
(Your other relevant remark comment was in reponse to my question:
detribe: ‘When are you going to discuss the yioeld data I gave you?…………Still looking forward though to your comments on GM crop yield data’ – Detribe
Your response
Nasus: Really? Which part of this response did you forget to read – )
detribe: its your lack of reponse to the citation in the post
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/25-to-50-percent-biodiesel-yield.html
characterised by you as about “biodiesel” where I was unable ( I didnt forget) to read your analysis of yield data, because you say NOTHING about the yield data that are actually in it in it.
You gloss over the title of the post which shows it is relevant to yield as well as biodiesel. It happens yield is important for biodiesel and food oil economics. Wherer or not biodiesel is a good idea doesnt stop the yield data being relevant.
GMO Pundit Post title
“25 to 50 percent Biodiesel Yield Improvements Matter: Canola GM hybrids are way out ahead of the conventional competition”
Canola yield items in the post you are silent about:
Caption to data
“Click to Display table showing performance of ###high yielding GM hybrid canola### in Canada extracted from Manitoban Dept of Agriculture canola variety information.”
Why not discuss this NASUS, that’s mentioned too:
“Seed Manitoba – Variety Selection and Grower’s Guide
This guide is compliments of Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Manitoba Seed Growers Association and Farmer’s Independent Weekly. Seed Manitoba provides a unbiased source of information on how varieties performed in trials under a variety of soil and weather conditions. The data has been collected from several sites across Manitoba. New varieties are listed along with varietal characteristics of all varieties tested. This easy-to-follow guide also features a listing of seed vendors in Manitoba.”
Why not also mention in my “biodiesel post” post I cited this key agronomic paper:
Cited Canola yield field trial studies:
Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., Hall, L. M., Warwick, S. I., Légère, A., Sikkema, P. H., Clayton, G.
W., Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., Séguin-Swartz, G. and Simard, M.-J. 2005. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85: 000-000.
Graphs from above paper
And this comment about yields:
Review of University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program.
BrassicaCorp Ltd. S. J. Cambell Investments Ltd. October 4 2005.
“We believe that farm yields are poised for a further increase in the next few years now that canola hybrids are becomining more widely available. As can be seen from Figure 4, the yield of the best hybrid canola variety with a normal fatty acid profile was 128% of the check variety in the 2004 Prairie Canola Varity Trials. The yield of the best low linolenic hybrid was 106.4% of the check variety”
You quote:
NASUS:There are three types of lies – lies, damn lies, and statistics.” – Benjamin Disreali
detribe: Why, then, commit the sin of omission yourself Nasus?
Nasus: Since Dr Tribe gives no comparisons between climate, soil quality, pest susceptibility differences, etc between Manitoba, Australia and Africa his argument is disingenuous and hopelessly flawed.
detribe: The point you raised is whether there is evidence for better yields from GM canola. Untill you discuss the data I have mentioned which you so far choose to ignore (see above) or mock, why should we change the topic?
Nasus:The way GM lobbyists burble on, readers might misled into believing that conventional breeding was unable to provide equivalent benefits
detribe: No Nasus, GM trait development and conventional breeding are complementary, and new traits need good germplasm to go into. I happens (as stated already) I strongly support both conventional and marker assisted breeding
Nasus:I commented on the glaring flaws in Dr Nortons argument
detribe: given your comments in this thread Nasus, readers should be urged to read Dr Norton in the original and make up their own minds
http://www.croplifeaustralia.org.au/files/biotechnology/information/Conservation%20farming%20systems%20and%20canola%20final%20report.pdf
Does Dr Tribe have a specific argument to raise and substantiate against the Soil Association report? If so why does he not articulate it?
I do Nasus, but I’m more interested in having discussion of evidence for yield boosts in GM Canola and seeing you Nasus respond to the available evidence rather than ignore it.
Detribe’s strident advocacy for a GM solution to vitamin A deficiency conveniently ignores the fact that there are conventional crop solutions to the problem:
http://www.futureharvest.org/news/sweetpotato.bckgrnd.shtml
Cynics might suspect that free distribution of a patented crop that farmers can be charged for in the future might have something to do with the ‘generosity’of Syngenta’s free distribution. It also has the additional benefit for the biotech industry of contaminating the food chain in new areas with patented GM product.
Lets have a closer look at the small print:
Syngenta’s commercial business model –
1. ‘Syngenta retains commercial rights, although it has no plans to commercialize Golden Rice.’
Translation – This of course can be changed at any time
2. ‘The inventors have assigned their exclusive rights to the Golden Rice technology to Syngenta.
Syngenta added some further technologies, and arranged licences with other companies for some additional technologies to be included in the original Golden Rice.
Syngenta, in turn, has given the inventors a humanitarian licence with the right to sublicense public research institutions and low-income farmers in developing countries, to the full set of necessary technologies.’
Translation – This addition of new technologies to the product gives Syngenta total commercial control of the product just in case the inventors should try to recover their exclusive rights, as indicated by the fact that the inventors now need a ‘humanitarian licence’ to ‘sublicence’ their invention from Syngenta.
3. ‘Improvements to licensed technology:
Commercial rights of improvements to the technology go to Syngenta…..technology will serve the humanitarian purpose’
Translation – Anyone improving the product, including farmers through normal hybridization will automatically cede the commercial rights of those improvements to Syngenta, though Syngenta will not penalise farmers for this as long as they remain in poverty.
4. ‘No export allowed’ – Syngenta will keep the African farmers in poverty or the farmers will pay for the crops.
This is a covert commercial enterprise to contaminate the food chain with GM product. Some enterprises have a short term profit cycle and some require a longer term investment before reaping dividends.
Syngenta’s standard biotech legal avoidence of any and all liabilities for environmental externalities
1.’Regulatory imperative and national sovereignty, i.e. Golden Rice may not be released in a country lacking biosafety regulations, and the decision to adopt the technology is a national matter.’
2. ‘No warranties are given by licensor(s)’
3. ‘Liabilities and costs — each party is responsible for what it controls ‘
Translation – Syngenta knows these countries do not have the wherewithall to ensure biosafety regulations so this is a clear and legally binding
disclaimer that any biosafety failures are the national responsibility of the sovereign government concerned (Hello Union Carbide).
Addendum
1. ‘this is a humanitarian project and not a commercial enterprise.’
Translation – we are using poverty stricken countries to conduct field trials with no liabilities and contaminating new markets with GM product but because we are giving it away free this is not a commercial enterprise….no really we mean it…its really not….honest.
‘return to discussing agricultural policy, not politics.’ – Detribe
Strange comment to make in view of the innordinate amount of time you and Schiller spend fulminating against the politics of European agricultural policy
Nasus: You asked a question about yields. I supplied data about yields. You largely ignored the data and went on a rant about political ideology. I do not see a switch to politics as a logical anaysis of factual information about yields. I like to keep clarity about analysis of factual situations.
But I do not see politics as unimportant or uninteresting . It happens I disaggree about politics with you on some matters and agree on others. For example I agree with Oxfam in the obscentity of subsidies.
But since we have so much trouble discussing a relatively simple matter of yields and agronomics, I think it wise to leave alone more complex issues such as trade, economics and the WTO, id would be so futile. You’d probably be surprised at how much I’ve thought about them though.
Why you think Schiller has something do do with my comments, I don’t know. I ignore his comments, in case you havn’t noticed.
SHORT SUMMARY OF DATA NASUS FORGETS
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/25-to-50-percent-biodiesel-yield.html
“25 to 50 percent Biodiesel Yield Improvements Matter: Canola GM hybrids are way out ahead of the conventional competition”
“Click to Display table showing performance of high yielding GM hybrid canola in Canada extracted from Manitoban Dept of Agriculture canola variety information.”
Seed Manitoba – Variety Selection and Grower’s Guide
This guide is compliments of Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives, Manitoba Seed Growers Association and Farmer’s Independent Weekly. Seed Manitoba provides a unbiased source of information on how varieties performed in trials under a variety of soil and weather conditions. The data has been collected from several sites across Manitoba. New varieties are listed along with varietal characteristics of all varieties tested. This easy-to-follow guide also features a listing of seed vendors in Manitoba.
Canola yield field trial studies:
Beckie, H. J., Harker, K. N., Hall, L. M., Warwick, S. I., Légère, A., Sikkema, P. H., Clayton, G.
W., Thomas, A. G., Leeson, J. Y., Séguin-Swartz, G. and Simard, M.-J. 2005. A decade of herbicide-resistant crops in Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85: 000-000.
Graphs from above paper
Review of University of Alberta Canola Breeding Program.
BrassicaCorp Ltd. S. J. Cambell Investments Ltd. October 4 2005.
We believe that farm yields are poised for a further increase in the next few years now that canola hybrids are becomining more widely available. As can be seen from Figure 4, the yield of the best hybrid canola variety with a normal fatty acid profile was 128% of the check variety in the 2004 Prairie Canola Varity Trials. The yield of the best low linolenic hybrid was 106.4% of the check variety
‘You largely ignored the data’ –
Dr Tribe I find it very odd that you seem to have developed a blind spot to the very clear statement I have now made twice about yields.
GM yields are now starting to equal or exceed conventional crops in markets where GM crop take up is highest. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an intrinsic superiority of GM over conventional crops. It is based on a very simple cause.
Scientific focus for improving yields is concentrated on the strains with the highest sales. So when Monsanto et al. ensure (as they have now managed to do in certain markets) that the majority of sales are of GM seed then all scientific focus for increased yield is on GM strains not conventional strains; ipso facto GM strains then start to produce higher yields than conventional ones because little or no research is being done on the conventional strains to increase yields because ‘not enough’ conventional product is being sold in those markets.
If there is anything you still find confusing about this clarification, please state what it is because after making the point three times, I am starting to wonder why an academic is having so much trouble interpreting my meaning.
“GM yields are now starting to equal or exceed conventional crops in markets where GM crop take up is highest. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an intrinsic superiority of GM over conventional crops. It is based on a very simple cause.
Scientific focus for improving yields is concentrated on the strains with the highest sales. So when Monsanto et al. ensure (as they have now managed to do in certain markets) that the majority of sales are of GM seed then all scientific focus for increased yield is on GM strains not conventional strains; ipso facto GM strains then start to produce higher yields than conventional ones because little or no research is being done on the conventional strains to increase yields because ‘not enough’ conventional product is being sold in those markets.”NASUS
detribe:
There aspects of what you say here that are useful, but I didn’t see these statements as particularly compelling or original, or indeed cover the full story. I see the actual situation as bit different from how you interpret it, just as I see Robert Nortons report differently to you, but it is rather pointless to think you’ll listen to my arguments. They are don’t relate to the main point that GM canola hybrids give a yield boost whwen you dont address.
It’s well known takes a while for the GM trait to be backcrossed into the best germplasm, and that one can cogently argue that in the early days of trait introduction the GM trait is often not in the best germplasm, so one has to wait and see a few seasons to pass for realistic yields. I’ve heard this a few times in Australia and South Africa.
And yes from GM there is not always a significant yield increment – herbicide tolerance largely just saves money, labour, diesel fuel and helps conservation tillage and build up of soil carbon. Just those significant financial and environmental benefits.
I don’t in fact argue that GM traits will necessarily or always improve yield, but they can reduce losses and enhance stress tolerance and minimise variability in yield, and save on pesticide sprays . This is certainly true with Bt cotton in India – in the case of Bt and cotton in India for example, the GM trait does reduce losses so in practical terms yields are improved.
However the fact remains when it come to canola hybrids the GM hybrids seems to be much more practical than other Brassica systems and the GM hybrid canola thus offers intrinsic yield improvement over non hybrids. That the issue you first bought up and you don’t discuss the data that relate to it.
Its interesting though that your arguments have some force in that Australia is now effectively currently cutting itself off from Canadian GM germplasm , so it is now more difficult to use the best Canadian stock as it is largely GM, and genetic resources resources for Australian breeders are now less extensive
If your wondering why I’m not responding to your insights perhaps you could try makinging them relevant to canola hybrid yield data.
PS
Nasus: There is one other aspect of GM traits where a intrinsic and definite yield increment is offered by GM crops.
We currently grow large areas of triazine herbicide tolerant TT (non GM canola) especially in West Australia.
TT canola suffers from a yield penalty (values given in R Norton’s report (~8% from memory).
Rounduup ready canola (GM) does not bear this yield penalty so replacement of TT with RR canola would boost yields from the discontinuation of the TT mutant allele which impairs photosynthetic efficiency. It also allows triazine (atrazine) herbicide to be replaced with glyphosate which is an environmenmtal plus.
NASUS: Detribe’s strident advocacy for a GM solution to vitamin A deficiency conveniently ignores the fact that there are conventional crop solutions to the problem
detribe
Certainly the sweet potato option you allude to should be encouraged, but isn’t it premature to conclude it is a complete solution; Golden rice might indeed help complement it in area where sweet pototo doesnt grow well and provide greater vitamin security?
Nasus
Cynics might suspect that free distribution of a patented crop that farmers can be charged for in the future might have something to do with the ‘generosity’of Syngenta’s free distribution. It also has the additional benefit for the biotech industry of contaminating the food chain in new areas with patented GM product.. Lets have a closer look at the small print: Syngenta’s commercial business model etc etc
detribe:
Nasus since you refuse to accept Potrykus, Beyer and Syngenta’s clear statement that the Golden rice will be made available free to poor farmers and have constucted a vile scenario in which you imagine they will revoke their donated efforts, there is no point in discussing Golden Rice with you except to simply note that yours is the same mindless lack of charity and willingness to promote delay that is evident in Greenpeaces attitudes to the Golden Rice project.
Yes Nasus you are indeed a morose cynic. Life for you must be a miserable experience
‘Constructed a vile scenario’ – Detribe
No, just extrapolating from existing biotech corporate behaviour in other markets –
‘During the early years of introducing transgenic soybean into Argentina, Monsanto did not charge farmers royalties to use the technology. But now that farmers are hooked, the multinational is pressuring the government for payment of intellectual property rights, despite the fact that Argentina signed UPOV 78, which allows farmers to save seeds for their own use. Nevertheless, Paraguayan farmers have just signed an agreement with Monsanto to pay the company $2 per tonne.
– Prof. Miguel A. Altieri, University of California, Berkeley and Prof. Walter A. Pengue, University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SDILA.php
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=6435
http://bittergreensgazette.blogspot.com/2005/04/monsanto-marches-on.html
There are none so blind as though who will not see.
Life for me is actually a very beautiful experience, marred by corporate greed.
‘If your wondering why I’m not responding to your insights perhaps you could try makinging them relevant to canola hybrid yield data.’ – Detribe
GM biotech companies are deliberately skewing canola hybrid yield research into canola hybrid yield improvemnts in favour of GM canola hybrid product by monopolising certain canola hybrid market places as demonstrated by the canola hybrid yield data supplied by Dr Tribe.
I wonder if I mentioned canola hybrid yield enough for Dr Tribe this time? Probably not. :o)
‘where sweet pototo doesnt grow well’ – Detribe
Which areas did you mean and in what way are they more suited to rice?
‘You’d probably be surprised at how much I’ve thought about them though’ – Detribe
Are you sure? Since you have so much trouble discussing a relatively simple matter of yields and agronomics, I fully intend to cover the more complex issues such as trade, economics and the WTO in order to broaden your horizons. :o)
I certainly find it amusing that Detribe can wander off topic and thread in his posts but wishes to restrict the content of my posts to his specific requirements….. like thats going to happen.
Unfortunately for Detribe and his disingenuous ‘vile scenario’ comment, I have submitted a post that shows the vile scenario actually being carried out by a biotech company, unfortunately Jennifer’s spam filter doesn’t like posts with links in them, so up until today a number of my posts have got stuck in limbo for varying lengths of time (from hours to days).
My format will therefore change, in future I will concentrate more on quotes than links.
I apologise to any readers who found the links helpful but I am trying to work efficiently within the existing system. Anyone wishing to refer to the more important links will find that an edited anthology of my GMO rebuttals will appear on my blog in a couple of days.