Worrying research about pesticides

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

Well I'd better move on.

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.

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.

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.

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...

I like your explanation in para three, aka but, as I understand it, the kind of gene transfer we are talking about is the same kind of thing as happens naturally and is what drives evolution – i.e. random mutations in the DNA. These mutations can be beneficial to the species in question, or deleterious, or neutral. In fact a lot of DNA is neutral (doesn't code to any protein), i.e. is, in effect, junk. The kind of exchange you describe in the third paragraph is essentially the same as a random mutation. Life deals with random mutations.

With regard to your last sentence, if a genetic mutation applied to a domestic crop – which is what GMO is for – turns out to be deleterious (no bloody use/unsuccessful), you just ditch that experiment (don't breed from it) and try something else, another of those artificially induced mutations which behave in the same way as random ones. I think that covers the genes not acting in isolation thing too.

So that's why I think it's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal scientifically for human beings to have discovered all this, but biologically I don't think it's a big deal. Life on Earth has dealt with this stuff forever.

I'm still not afraid of GMO crops.

I signed the petition, as well as those relating specifically to bees. This summer I've been pleased to see we've had more flies around. Not that they're especially welcome of course, but it made me hope people are using less pesticides.

I have more worms in the garden than for a number of years, but suspect that's down to all the organic matter from the chickens (sadly now re-homed).

There is publicity today about the (alleged) benefits for organic food. It is expensive, but perhaps if there was more demand, there'd be more of it. As with free range chickens - all the supermarkets now stock organic free range chickens for meat eaters.

I'm worried, too durhamj Just because scientists can, doesn't mean that they should as far as I'm concerned.

I am worried about GM. I eat organic food and wish to retain that choice, not have the organic parameters changed just because Syngenta and others can sue the government for not allowing them to export GM.

Naughty bags, go and stand in Pedants' Corner for ten minutes.

They are different Bags inasmuch as genes from an unrelated species are being introduced into the genomes. When using traditional methods farmers, botanists, etc can only cross-fertilised between species which ave a biological relationship, eg between different breeds of cows, species of tomatoes, or occasionally in the same 'family' such as horse and zebra, lion and tiger.

You could never cross breed a tiger and a horse using traditional methods! Apart from the fact the tiger would eat the horse

But in GM crops you are taking a gene from a tomato for example and replacing it with one from a pig, for example. As genes don't act in isolation, some scientists are concerned with how that pig gene might behave inside the tomato nucleus.

We just don't know yet, and if anything does go amiss it can't be put right, ever.

Oh god! I just used 'different to' instead of 'different from'. The rot has set in!!!

I'm not over bothered about GM crops. Some of them seem like a jolly good idea and no different, in principle, to other kinds of plant modification that people have been engaging in since the dawn of agriculture. No different in principle, just quicker.

This is one of the reasons Syngenta, etc., want the TTIP agreement. If our governments stop farmers from using dangerous pesticides, the companies will be able to sue the government. We will also end up with GM crops by the back door.

It doesn't surprise me. We live in a cereal growing area in France and farmers are subject to the same EU rules as in the UK. But many have pesticides in their stores which are now banned but they still use them up. Dead wildlife have been found with evidence of poisoning from the banned pesticides.
There's ongoing research on the incidence of various types of cancer among farmers using these pesticides. As well as the reduction of the bee and wasp populations.
The reason for the continuation of the use is the financial power of the agricultural pharmacuetical companies.

click.mail.theguardian.com/?qs=86e3665cf4dc86f2121b251dd093bec144f577799b269e429bef9b1d96f71354

Oh it's so good to see a response to this! I was quite concerned and surprised that there seemed to be so little interest

It's good that 38degrees etc are on the ball, so many of these issues seem to receive little press/media coverage, plus some of the info that is realeased is often so lengthy and complex that it's almost impossible to sort the wheat from the chaff

Time to shift my soapbox to another issue . . .

I believe you're right ayse, and I heard someone talking about this on the radio the other day saying the two year ban is not long enough to test the effects. The pesticides are already in the crops and we will not see the true effects until at least 2016, when the ban ends. Was this a cynical measure so we can be told the ban has had no effect and will be reversed?

I understand that these pesticides have only been banned initially for 2 years by the EU as an attempt to study the impact on the environment. I know little about the science but do believe that the less manufactured chemicals we use on our food the better. I can't understand how these chemicals come into use and then go on to cause such problems e.g. DDT.
Is big business far too powerful?

I receive a lot of petitions from 38 degrees and change.org Eloethan.

I had signed this one and don't know if anyone else has heard that the Mother condemned to death for being Christian has been released thanks to pressure from foreign diplomats.

That is something we do agree on Eloethan - that often issues that I, at least, consider 'serious' get very little response or the response is from the same concerned few.

I have met the attitude in the real world that 'it's not going to affect me as I'll be gone by then'. I've had that said to me be several older people so I suppose that's what's behind the underlying apathy.

MiniMouse Thanks for the update on this, and don't be daft, of course you weren't "poaching".

Shamefully, I can't even remember whether I was aware of the petition or signed it. I don't know much about science but the article certainly scared me. I was worried that no-one on GN appeared to be bothered about it. Thank goodness some are.

Anyway, good news for now but these people never seem to give up, so I'm sure everyone who is concerned about the destruction of the natural environment will need to stay alert.

so little interest...

Thanks Eloethan too.

It's that such an important topic attracts to little interest.