Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Lilith __,
Perhaps not to do with GM in itself, but the GM varieties we currently have require loads of fertilizer and pesticides
So I agree we use too much fertaliser and pesticide in producing our food and that damages the environment.
But from 1996 to 2009 GM crops reduced pesticide use by 393 million kg of active ingredient. In 2009 alone it was 39 million kg or about 10% of the total pesticide use! Solely as a result of using GM crops.
A majority of the maize and almost all the soybean in the USA is GM, and most of those crops have switched to no-till agriculture solely as a result of switching to GM. With all the benefits associated less soil loss, less tractor use.Just those two things alone have benefited the environment an amazing amount and at the same time as increasing yield.
I'm sorry if this sounds bad but I really cannot see how anyone who cares about the environment can be opposed to these kinds of benefits. If you oppose GM you really have to question why you are willing to do such damage to the environment.
I can’t see what other directions there are to go in with GM
Oh oh oh (picture me squirming in my seat with excitement). See this here - GM has such potential it is amazing. I'm sorry but if you think the internet has changed you life you haven't even begun to see what GM can do.
How about introducing nitrogen fixation into grain crops - so just like legumes they can fix their own nitrogen - then you wouldn't need nitrogen fertalisers for most of the worlds crops!
How about drought tolerance - so in marginal environments you don't need to irrigate to keep your crops alive and that means you don't get salination of soils and erosion and you get to keep the water for important things like drinking.
How about removing the cyanide genes from casava so it doesn't need to be cooked for 24 hours before it's edible - casava is the major carbohydrate source for most of Africa.
How about modifying indigenous food plants so they can produce good yields and replace maize where maize sucks (eg most of Africa).Oh god there is so much potential in this science. So many things we can and will do to make food better for everyone.
I think the way of the future will be in everybody growing their own where possible; urban and rooftop gardens that use every bit of space available
Sure, but at the moment you can't get the yields needed to feed you and your neighbours year round without using those fertalisers and pesticides that neither of us want to see used. And to be honest it's not about you and I it's about India and China and Africa and Sth America where no amount of rooftop gardens will suffice.
I don’t think GM will feed the world
I do, it's why I do my job. I also believe it is the most environmentally friendly way to do that.
I really passionately believe GM is the "greenist" technology we have ever seen and I so very very much wish that the environmental lobby groups had not chosen to oppose it, because they are wrong. GM is good and GM is green and the scientists working with it want to make the world better not worse.
Sorry, more ranting from me :).
-
The buffalo yogurt (non-vanilla) turned into an amazing baba ganoush in the hands of my partner. The pain is it's bloody hard to find.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to stever@cs.waikato.ac.nz,
Concentrations not worrying, apparently, but clearly something to be aware of….and further research around accumulation etc. I guess necessary, given the effects these toxins, in higher concentrations, can have
Thanks for that. Not a paper I had seen. As stated in the paper levels are 1000 fold lower than those that showed effects in cell culture assays in mice but as you say worth being aware of. Also worth noting all mothers had healthy babies with no complications.
The toxin they refer to is Bt toxin which is specifically an insect toxin and has no effect on animals. It is a protein itself that binds to a receptor in the insect gut. Those receptors are only found in insects and each Bt toxin is highly specific for specific receptors. That's why Bt toxin effective against corn pests has no effect on bees. Also why there is no effective Bt toxin for aphids :(.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to richard,
I think this is a copout.
No it's not a copout. If I never tried to explain my work and this was the reason I gave then it would be a copout.
It is however, the reason I fail when I try to explain my work. I'm not as good as those folks who really can explain bleeding edge science to lay audiences AND keep them engaged and interested.
I could try and explain what I do and why right here - but it would take five pages - and about 5 people would try to read it and one of those might succeed. And the other 4 would be bored catatonic and I would be responsible for their families.
I can do it OK over a coffee in about 45 minutes providing I have some paper to scribble on and providing my audience is willing to sit still for that long.
You think it's easy being able to explain science - I can assure it's much harder than the really talented folks make it look.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Lilith __,
the GM crops we have now require large-scale use of oil-derived fertilizers and pesticides and also long-distance transport to market, all of which is completely unsustainable in a post-peak-oil world.
None of those problems have anything to do with GM.
And while some organic producers use no-till agriculture it has been GM soybean and GM corn that has seen the implementation of it on a scale that has made a significant difference.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Lilith __,
monoculture, highly-mechanised farming, and use of strong pesticides
You know that those problems are exactly what we are trying to solve using GM. All those problems come from existing culture methods. GM, particularly of minor crops allows them to produce at levels that make them viable, they also allow less pesticide use we are talking huge differences in pesticide use. Add that to no-till agriculture as a result of GM and it's hard to argue GM has made those problems worse.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Lilith __,
But the actual herbicides that the herbicide-resistant plants get drenched in, I’m thinking that’s the toxic part.
That would be glyphosate which is less toxic than table salt. The formulations usually contain detergents which is what give each brand its point of difference. Not great to drink detergent but not likely to be a problem either even if you drank it neat - well getting the runs might be an issue. In the trace amounts left after withholding periods I can't believe that is a problem for anyone.
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to nzlemming,
No, not here too! This is my refuge!
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to stever@cs.waikato.ac.nz,
I think that there have also been reports that toxins in crops which are “GMed” to produce them (for protection of the crop, I guess) are turning up in people’s systems.
I haven't seen anything in the literature that describes that. I don't read all the literature (heh) so if you find the reference please link it.
As far as I'm aware none of the compounds in any GM food are toxic to humans even in pure form. I'm pretty sure that's right but I may have missed some of the newer crops.
All the insect resistance genes produce proteins that are harmless to animals and harmless to most insects as well. All the herbicide resistances are modifications of normal plant genes so as far as a human could tell the plant is normal, certainly not toxic.
Worth remembering that we've been eating GM crops for 20 years. That's a lot of people unharmed.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to st ephen,
Profit might be another one
Not our fault. Your government has insisted all research in NZ must demonstrate a profit for a NZ business.
But most of us just want to make better food. More nutritious. Less damage to the environment. Less land used to grow the same food.
Farm animals that produce healthier food with less damage to the environment.
Better medicines made using better safer methods.
These sound like slogans but they are the actual motivations of the scientists. Most of us could give a rats arse about profits.
There's something about science that isn't complex but also isn't communicated well.