Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Joe Wylie,
I’d like to know this: Is there any way that an organic crop could contaminate a GM crop?
Um not really. But yes kinda.
The reason for the weaselly answer is most organic crops are not elite cultivars for various reasons. Sometimes because for some reason the organic farmers* won't buy the elite cultivars but more usually because they are trying to grow a niche cultivar for a niche market eg heirloom tomatoes. So if pollen from a poorer cultivar "contaminated" a GM field you could see yield reduction.
There are two BUTs
But the first: most GM crops are grown from fresh seed each year, usually because they are hybrids made fresh each year by the seed company. So any organic pollen would be irrelevant.But the second: all GM crops are grown with strictly enforced non-GM refuges as a percentage of the field. So a GM field will contain 5-10% non-GM plants usually as islands. This is particularly true for insect or disease resistant varieties. The reason is to limit the development of resistant insects/diseases. So any non-GM organic contamination would be irrelevant.
*it's worth noting that the image of the single organic farmer managing a couple of hectares is not real. Most organic farms are huge enterprises usually owned by the same companies that produce the non-organic crops. Often side by side.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to James Butler,
How could a gene become dominant if it codes for infertility?
You're right it can't.
There are cases where alleles with negative traits can be maintained in a population as heterozygotes (you have 2 copies of each gene (alleles) heterozygotes have two different copies homozygotes have two copies the same). So the infertile progeny pops up in a portion of the progeny (1 in 4 in the simplest case).
But usually it's even more complicated than the simple case and the bad allele is maintained at a low percentage if at all. No real way for it to be able to wipe out a crop.
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
I am in constant awe of the way your mind works Ian
-
Up Front: P.A. Story, in reply to Emma Hart,
We’re at the witch’s place. Where is the Winkie of St Richie?
Well she's a witch so it will be in plain sight but look like something else entirely. Maybe a beautiful bronze sculpture by the gate, you know the kind everyone runs their hand over as they walk past ...
This thread is a relief.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
Again, I don’t follow this closely but isn’t there evidence of gene transfer between GM and non-GM horticultural species?
Couple of different things going on here.
First and most likely is cross pollination between the same or related species. Yes it does happen and yes it's real. So yes gene transfer via pollen. It's normal and expected and predictable. It's the issue that Joe's Canadian organic farmers are concerned about.
Does it do harm? No. The genes have all been approved and been tested to buggery and back. So the issue becomes if you don't want to grow GM crops for some reason you have a problem. But bear in mind it is only a problem because organic farmers have decided that growing GM crops is bad. Given that there is no evidence to support that claim I find it hard to have much empathy for their plight. As for being sued by Monsanto if their crops become contaminated, please bear in mind Monsanto only sues you if you select for the improved quality GM crops and actively try and grow them without having paid Monsanto for the seed. Monsanto have never sued anyone for an accidental contamination. Since GM farmers have no reason to do that ...
However, there is an issue where you'd like to keep wild species "pure" for whatever reason. In those cases local regulations prohibit using GM crops near native refuges. Unfortunately those are usually in areas where the farmers are incredibly poor and there has been a history of local farmers smuggling in GM seed because it gives them more food. It's not great but it's also hard to be angry with them. It also worth noting that it does not really reduce the genetic diversity of the wild species which is their real value scientifically and environmentally.
Second gene transfer is via bacteria. So there are bacteria who can take up DNA and incorporate it into their genome and then pass it on to a new plant. As far as we know this is really very rare. We can force it to happen in the lab with some bacteria. And we can show that it has happened in the past several million years by sequencing the genomes of plants and bacteria and fungi. It's almost impossible to estimate real probabilities to this kind of event as there are so many assumptions involved. But in short I'd rather be buying lotto tickets to support my lifestyle than betting on this kind of event happening in my lifetime.
BUT bacteria do swap DNA between each other quite a bit more frequently. So there is a real finite possibility (still vastly lower than winning lotto) that a gene from a GM organism could make it's way intact into a bacterial community. So the question becomes could that do harm? The answer to that depends on the genes themselves and what they do and that's one of the big factors in deciding whether a gene should be put into a crop or animal.
TLDR Yes, but it's very limited and no evidence that any harm results.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
I hope you can see how that might be regarded as exaggeration.
I accept there will always be bias, the question must be "does the bias affect the conclusions?" and that isn't easy to determine.
And actually speaking as a molecular biologist with over 30 years experience in this field I honestly cannot think of any way that having DNA in the water can do any harm.
/back of envelope
Getting DNA into another organism, without the organism simply chewing up the DNA and using it as nutrient is really hard to do in the lab. We can do it using methods developed over the past 50 years, but it isn't easy for most organisms. Then getting the DNA to do anything useful in the new organism is also hard, again we can do it in the lab but it's taken decades of research but it still isn't something we expect to work even when we actually try, let alone by accident in the wild. And then getting that DNA inherited by the progeny of the organism also hard. And then having that DNA do something bad?
/front of envelopeNo I'm going to stand by my original statement.
Oh and if you want experimental proof of my hypothesis look at the "escape" of DNA from the millions of hectares of GM crops grown for the last 2 decades. That strongly suggests experimental observations of (lack of) harm correlate well with theory.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I mean it’s not as if scientists who work at AgResearch could possibly be biased on this subject.
Of course they are biased. Yeah they work ridiculous hours for about half what they could earn in Aussie and a quarter what their managers earn. They get great science canned at the whim of politicians and strategic planners. They struggle to get publications. They get their cars splashed with acid and their children threatened by activists. And yet they continue to work on these projects.
Yeah these are the kinds of people who are likely to distort the truth.
Your point is valid Gio, yes they are employed on these projects and emotionally attached to the work they feel passionate about so yes they are biased. They also happen to be honest, I can say this because yes I know some of them.
Sorry I really need a coffee because I'm getting way too animated about this.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Joe Wylie,
If you’re really so wedded to the dedicated civil servant’s view of the public interest as a nuisance factor
Really? That is seriously the first time I've ever been targeted with that accusation.
Look I'm all in favour of making sure things get done properly and external review is a major part of that process. But Heinemann has a long history in this field. He doesn't address whether GMOs are safe he instead focusses on things like the possibility of DNA making it's way into the ecosystem. Which sounds very scary doesn't it. The fact that all life has DNA and there is no reason to even remotely believe that the "escape" of DNA could cause any harm is irrelevant. Instead you spend days arguing about whether it's possible for DNA in a burial pit to somehow eventually make it into the water table and concluding finally that nobody know for sure. That getting DNA into the water table would be utterly harmless never gets reported. So excuse my frustration with criticisms coming from Dr Heinemann.
As for Russell's show, I can't speak for his motivations but I view any exercise aimed at figuring out how to communicate science and scientific debates to the public as worthwhile.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Joe Wylie,
In other words, STFU, and you may touch the hem of my garment in order to ward off that awful Sue Kedgley. You’re such a charmer Bart.
OK I'm obviously not communicating well this morning, sorry.
I can't refute all of Heinemann's objections because it isn't my field of expertise. But it is the field of expertise of the scientists at AgResearch, they say he's full of shit, politely of course. I trust them, in some cases because I them.
You can choose to believe Heinemann or believe the researchers at AgR.
OR you can learn enough about the field and intricacies of the debate to know for yourself.
If you choose to believe one or other scientist then be very careful about the motivations of that scientist.
-
Hard News: Science: it's complicated, in reply to Sacha,
No dog in the fight.
Sorry, I overreacted.
At the time, 25 years ago, when allergies were raised as an issue they were taken very seriously by the community and a lot of research was done. Sadly most of it is buried in the applications for release of GMOs which makes it very hard to dig out.