Worrying research about pesticides

I agree if a particular modification is harmful to bees, then we need to stop using that modification. But that isn't an argument against GMO itself, only against one particular usage. And we need to be alert to that kind of danger in everything we do, not just genetic modification. "Traditional" farming caused some environmental damage too. There has to be a balance between protecting our food supply and protecting the environment we and all other species live in.

The GMO technique in itself is not "A Bad Thing". How it is used could be, but it could also be beneficial. And so human civilisation moves on adapting, changing, learning how to do things better...

Sadly Bags we are not talking about the kind of thing that happens in nature. It it was I would have no problem with it either believe me...my example of transferring a pig gene into a tomato plant was one that has actually been manipulate in GM tomatoes.

With the best will in the world there is no way a pig can breed with a tomato in the natural way of things!

But once such a transfer is made it then becomes part of that tomato's genome and is passed on in its pollen and ovules. It's the pollen, carrying this gene, which is then 'out there' and cannot be recalled.

Best explanation I can give in few words.

It's not breeding, aka. Nothing is bred from the moved gene. One gene moved from a pig to a tomato will be nothing to do with breeding but to do with something that gene does or helps to do which will be useful to the tomato plant. It's nothing to do with the pig's pigginess.

Surely all living things all derive from the same gene pool any way. It's only chance we have ended up with the ones we have.

GM technology would/will be able to provide us with some very useful crops if it were left to do the research properly, and not have their experiments trashed.

Well I'd better move on.

Please don't Aka, you sound as if you know what you're talking about. I find your posts informative.

Is big business far too powerful?

Yes

Big business being too powerful (I think some of it is) is a separate issue from whether GMO is intrinsically a bad thing.

I read a recent article in the Guardian on the latest fears about neonicotinoid pesticide use being the reason song bird numbers are declining in Europe. It is certainly a fear that should be investigated properly. The Guardian article was saying that the neonicotinoids were the cause of the decline but there was in fact no proper scientific statement to that effect in the entire article. It was waffle. It did not describe proper experiments to determine the cause of the decline which had, in any case, started before neonicotinoids were widely used. So, I wasn't convinced.

This doesn't mean I'm in favour of neonicotinoid use. I'm just, as yet, unconvinced that they are the cause of all that some people claim they are the cause of, especially as they are derived from a natural insecticide, nicotine, which evolved in the tobacco plant for that purpose – preventing insects from eating it. Nicotine itself is actually more dangerous to mammals than it is to insects, so something less harmful than organo-phosphate pesticides but as effective as nicotine, the natural insecticide, was researched. Neonicotinoids, eventually, were derived.

I would be very pleased to be pointed to any article about proper studies as to neocotinoid effects on song bird populations. The ones described in the Guardian did not sound very systematic or scientific.

I know there's a big thing in America and Australia about pesticide-laden produce and they call it The Dirty Dozen (I think the list is added to or changed each year) - I've had a quick look to see if there is a UK version but couldn't find anything.

I do, however, remember hearing on the news quite a while ago that to reduce your ingestion of pescitides, to eat only fruit and veg that has a non-permeable skin. I also remember that they said that in one carrot alone, they found 13 different types of pesticide. Now when you consider that people wear breathing apparatus, how can it be good that we eat it? The news item also said that modern pesticides kill off many of the bacteria that helps to rid plants of pests leaving plants more exposed than they would have been (or something like that anyway).

'The National Academy of Sciences estimates that between 4,000 and 20,000 cases of cancer are caused per year by pesticide residues in food in allowable amounts.[2]'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture

Organic is not an affordable choice for everyone but even organic doesn't escape completely as pesticides have been detected in rain (I can't get the link to open as my laptop is non-stop buffering again but if you type in SCIENCE WATCH; PESTICIDES IN THE RAIN it should take you to the link).

A final try then Nightowl just for you...

Most of our genetic material is carried on our chromosomes (it's too complicated to go into mitochondrial DNA but that doesn't count anyway in the explanation)
These chromosomes are thread like strands of DNA. They are paired and we, as humans, receive 23 from each parent making 46 in all. I think pigs have 38 (19x2) and tomatoes 24 (12x2)
Each chromosome contains numerous genes.
A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. A gene is any section along the DNA that has instructions encoded that allow a cell to produce a specific product - usually, a protein, such as an enzyme - that triggers a precise action.

It is these genes, carried on our chromosomes that pass on inherited characteristic.

In GM a gene is removed from a chromosome of eg a tomato and replaced by a gene from eg a pig. So it therefore become part of the tomato's DNA which is passed along to the tomato seeds it produces. (I'm assuming here that both paired chromosomes are treated to the transplant otherwise there is only a 25% pass on rate of the doubly paired piggy gene, 50% of one pair having piggy gene and 25% of no piggy gene)

So yes, the piggy gene is now embedded on the DNA of the tomato.

But the problem arises - that genes do not always act in isolation. (For example in breast cancer there are several genes involved in the heredity of this cancer. Four in particular are especially dangerous with at least another six rarer ones also involved. And even having all four of the 'worst' genes doesn't mean it's inevitable as genes work in pairs so a 'good' gene might dominate or even 'switch off' the bad one.)

So our understanding of how individual genes work in still in it's infancy and until we know a little more, we are making stabs in the dark when we mess around with inter-species gene transfers.

We simply do not know how that gene will act, if it might mutate, or if it could react with another gene and trigger an action which is unanticipated. And yes, it does carry an element of pigginess, after all it's genetic home was on a pig's chromosome.

We do not know....yet.

Hope that helped Nightowl (anything's better than the World Cup!!)

MrB has just looked some up and described the results. It does look as if the ban on neocotinoids is wise, because bees are so important. I think the makers of neonicotinoid pesticides have taken advantage of the uncertainty still surrounding the bee decline problem; it appears the exact reasons for the bee declines are not really understood, as yet, so being cautious as to neonicotinoid use while investigations continue is sensible.

I still don't object in principle to GMO though. That's completely different.

Very interesting posts Aka

www.davidsuzuki.org/what-you-can-do/queen-of-green/faqs/food/what-are-the-dirty-dozen-and-the-clean-fifteen/
A link from the David Suzuki Foundation

Suzuki says this in the above article if you don't want to follow the link:

^Should you avoid the dirty dozen?
Absolutely not! Fresh fruits and vegetables are always a healthier choice than processed foods. Besides, non-organic processed foods are sure to contain a slough of chemicals too!^

This link takes a robust look at the study

Sorry, aka, I hadn't read your latest post when I posted my last. Yes, I accept all that. I do understand that we don't know it all yet, but we never will if we don't try to find out, and trying to find out means doing experiments. Obviously those should be conducted as safely as possible and not released on the public, so to speak, until they are safe.

But, for all that, I personally don't mind if I'm eating genetically modified foods. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

There are just SO MANYfood fears and food warnings nowadays that I think I'm just weary of the lot. I'm also just weary so I'm off to bed.Goodnight all.

Thank you Aka. I have only just returned to the thread because the World Cup drove me to do some ironing - an activity quite unknown in this house. In fact I found several fossilised garments in the bottom of the ironing basket that I had no memory of at all. But that explanation helped a lot, thank you

Early morning update: except for the pigginess. A gene is a gene. I don't think it matters whether it comes out of a pig or a tomato. Changing its physical environment may change how it behaves. Only research will ascertain whether that is true or not, or whether it's sometimes true and if it's only sometimes, what the conditions are in which it is true.

I don't mind if I eat what was a pig gene in pig meat or in a tomato. It's still food.

It's perhaps (perhaps!) unfortunate that most scientific research is no longer done by rich dudes for their own entertainment but instead by people who have a living to make and shareholders to satisfy.

I think it matters if a gene comes out of a tomato or a pig.
I think if I buy a tomato I want it to be 100% tomato. Being vegetarian, I do not wish to eat anything comtaminated with pig genes.
I recall there was a problem with nut allergies when a nut gene was put into soya. The experiment had to be stopped.

Ah yes, of course, jend, it would never do for you to eat a single gene from an animal.

It's good that the soy and nut problem was discovered, isn't it?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

It makes me feel a bit queasy I must say, thinking of a pig gene in a tomato. What would be the advantage anyway?
I can understand cross-breeding tomatoes to produce the most disease-resistant and tasty type, or ones with particularly high levels of lycopene, but I cannot understand the meddling between species or across the animal/vegetable world. It seems to me to be a case of 'we should be able to do this so let us try and see what happens', rather than thinking carefully of the ethics of whether it is right or wrong and the potentially dangerous effects on food production and human (and animal) health.

It's all life, whichever phylum it now belongs to, ultimately evolved from the same things however many billion years ago. I find that thought quite comforting as it puts into perspective, for me, how insignificant we really are and how unimportant, except to ourselves, we are.

Yes, I realise everything evolved from simple life forms (the emphasis being on evolved) by natural selection; however I cannot see what advantage can be gained by inserting a pig gene into a tomato.
It could possibly mutate in ways that we cannot at present envisage, to the detriment of tomato crops everywhere.

I think research should concentrate on researching genetic abnormalities in single species with the aim of improving or eliminating them, not trying to cross one species with another for whatever reason.

Some people do see the advantage of using useful genes from one species in another so that is being researched.

Some people are researching how to correct or eliminate genetic abnormalities.

Sometimes those two fields of research overlap.