Tom,
Since when have Pen-l postings required reference footnotes when the
information referred to is readily available and reported in government
reports and in evidence provided in class action suits against Monsanto
etc. Here, for instance is a report on superweeds related to canola
published in the New Scientist. Note that the chemical firms' only
defense is that GMO seeds are no different from seeds derived from
selective plant breeding though the widely reported evidence is quite
quite contrary to this position.
Paul.
Genetically-modified superweeds "not uncommon"
* 15:34 05 February 2002
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe
<http://www.newscientist.com/subscribe.ns?promcode=nsarttop> and
get 4 free issues.
* James Randerson
<http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1882&print=true>
Oilseed rape plants resistant to three or more herbicides are "not
uncommon" in Canada, says a report commissioned by English Nature, the
UK government's advisory body on conservation.
The so-called 'superweeds' result from accidental crosses between
neighbouring crops that have been genetically modified to resist
different herbicides. Farmers are often forced to resort to older
stronger herbicides to remove them.
Brian Johnson, at English Nature is alarmed by the speed of the process:
"This has happened in three or four years," he says. The report predicts
that, in the UK, plants with multiple herbicide resistance will be
"almost impossible to prevent unless the crops are very widely dispersed."
Adrian Bebb, of Friends of the Earth claims the research leaves a stark
choice: "Either we keep the current separation distances between GM and
non-GM crops, in which case contamination and gene stacking looks
certain. Or we can have an effective separation distance - of at least
three miles - in which case GM crops have no commercial future in the
UK. There is no third way."
However, Paul Rylott of biotech company Aventis argues many herbicide
tolerant crops are created through conventional breeding, "GM crops are
no different."
He suggests that crossing between conventional varieties could have the
same result. But Johnson notes that resistance bred into plant varieties
tends to be much weaker and there is no evidence of 'superweeds' having
been created in this way.
Multiple resistance
Oil seed rape, or canola, is typically alternated on a two-yearly cycle
with a cereal crop such as wheat. Multiple resistant oil seed rape
appears as a weed in the following year's crop, especially around field
margins where seeds spilled during harvest can gather.
The Canadian study found that these plants contained resistance genes
from up to three GM varieties - so-called gene stacking. Farmers were
forced to resort to a different and much more persistent herbicide,
2,4-D, to control them.
Multiple resistant 'superweeds' would not be capable of taking over the
countryside says Johnson. "They would only have an advantage in
agricultural fields," he says. "But agricultural land is very important
for biodiversity in Britain." So widespread use of persistent herbicides
to remove the 'superweeds' could be disastrous.
The biotechnology industry has admitted being slow to engage in the
public debate over GM crops. "We haven't done a brilliant job in the
past of selling the benefits of GM," says Tony Combes of Monsanto,
"Support for GM is dependent on people being able to weigh the benefits
against their concerns."
An opinion poll commissioned by the industry and released on Tuesday
suggests that two thirds of people feel they do not know enough about GM
and that many would be more favourable to the technology if
environmental or health benefits could be demonstrated.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/26/08,paul phillips said:
> The problem of gmo seeds is much more pervasive
> than just 'invasive species'.
What are your (peer reviewed?) sources for your "is" as distinguished
from, "possibly, may be"?
> Take the case of canola. The genes that allow the canola
> to be herbicide tolerant have spread by natural polination
> to almost all of the canola now produced -- but it has also
> spread to the weeds making them herbicide resistant.
What re your (peer reviewed?) sources for the implied "all" or "most"
and related implication that, if/when this occurs, the weeds referred
to are not herbicide resistant is comparatively easily controllable ways?
> The result is the need for even greater applications
> of chemicals than before. In effect, the weeds have
> become an invasive species.
DITTO for the "even greater, etc." characterization.
And, BTW, doesn't "weeds" in this context (whether or not affected by
GMO canola) connote being "invasive" in any event?
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
