Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Trial of Genetically Modified Wheat Ends In Disappointment
sciencehabit writes: A controversial GM wheat trial has failed after more than £2 million of public money was spent protecting it from GM opponents. Researchers had hoped that the wheat modified to produce a warning pheromone would keep aphids away and attract their natural enemies, reducing the need for insecticides. Despite showing promise in the laboratory, the field trial failed to show any effect. “If you make a transgenic plant that produces that alarm continuously, it’s not going to work,” ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”
Proponents of GMOs tend to focus on the opposition to GMOs based on perceived health risks but there are many other reasons that GMOs are problematic. A huge issue is that patents are being granted on life, on genes. The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money. All GMO work should be open source and open license. This doesn't solve the many other problems but it chips away at the problems. Of course, the GMO proponents will oppose this.
It is easy to explain why an experiment failed after the event, but that does not mean the result was obvious. This is a case in point. Had the experiment succeeded, cheaper, safer food with reduced environmental impact would have been possible. Sadly, it failed. Now, we need to look at other approaches.
I would have expected better from Slashdot than to say the experiment had failed. It might not have produced the result the experimenters had hoped for, but it has produced a result (the GM crop does not significantly deter aphids) and has therefore been a successful experiment. In addition, it appears to have given them other ideas (try to make a crop that only sporadically gives off the pheromone) which will progress this area of science.
Sadly, no.
http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pd...
You are welcome on my lawn.
I would agree with the "cry wolf" assessment. Having worked in pest control in my experience pheromones don't work well and/or very long; about the only good use I've found is for monitoring. I once talked to a Chemistry professor working with an Entomologist to synthesize fire ant trail pheromones (how they make paths to food) to see if it could be used to confuse workers. He told me it worked for all of a few minutes before they "figured it out" and started trailing through it like nothing happened. Smell is the primary sense for most insects and can be extremely acute (some moths can sense a few MOLECULES per square foot), so I think it will be relatively difficult to find a way to trick them in that way.
I'm glad they're trying new things, we're ganna need it along with intelligent usage so we don't end up needlessly wasting away their effective life-spans like we've done with previous pesticides and anti-biotics. Shelf what doesn't work but continue encouraging innovation (which I think the current gene patent situation is probably stifling)
The food costs twice as much because of companies like Monsanto, corporate farming (greed), and costs of pesticides. Einstein...
There are two points to this. In crops where insect damage is a big deal, the Bt trait has actually reduced total pesticide use. Where weeds are more prominent of a threat, pesticide use in the form of herbicides has increased. However, in the case of herbicide resistance traits (i.e. roundup-ready), the use of less-toxic pesticides (i.e. Roundup) has increased because that is what the crop has been designed to tolerate. Prior to the use of the RR trait, farmers primarily used various selective herbicides like atrazine which are a lot more toxic than Roundup. So this is actually a net benefit since Roundup can replace all of the toxic selective pesticides that were being used previously. Compare the LD50's of Roundup vs. the older pesticides to see proof.
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/
"ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”
It's the Netherlands goddamit, use the appropriate 'the dike leaks' metaphor instead of the wolf.
Yes, it is well known that businesses (like farming) use the highest cost option when there are cheaper alternatives available. That is why the farms switched to GMO even though cheaper (or free) seeds are available - because it drives their cost UP. Not too smart, are you?
After cursory glance at that, it seems neither of the graphs in the EWG thing you linked to even mention GE. More widely accepted publications tend to say otherwise, depending on the situation.
I also like the part where no one ever explains how insect resistance is supposed to increase insecticide use, but only when that resistance is transgenic. No one would ever argue against conventionally bred resistances, and somehow, once genetic engineering is involved, then the genetic component of integrated pest management (which is to say, select varieties and/or species resistant to your local insect populations as a first line of defense against them, as opposed to chemical controls later) is suddenly a bad thing.
I do love that they mentioned the insects that have overcome the transgenic defenses. Typical anti-GE nonsense: deny the crops help pest problems, meanwhile say the crop resistances are creating selection pressure for resistance overcoming insects (which shows they slept through population genetics), then deny there are benefits, meanwhile say that the resistant pests are a huge problem. I mean, yeah they genuinely are a problem, but because they threaten the benefits we've already gotten.
That form of transfer only occurs in a very small population and expands only very slowly, and in a situation where the rest of the ecosystem can adapt to the changed scenario.
Moreover, since it happens slowly, the bad effects can be seen before a massive problem is inevitable from the size of the mutated population.
However, in agribusiness, a billion acres of the same modified organism will be produced. So before any assessment of a problem can be found, the problem will already be massive in scale. Moreover, since it will be bred with active culling of other species and their coadaption limited, any coadaptive action that causes a problem will become a huge problem before it's able to be measured and explained.
Since the business makes massive profits nearly immediately and, long before any long term issue can arise (see Thalidomide), the ones who benefited from introducing the new product will be unreachable and the company held "blameless" because nobody there now is responsible for actions taken by others.
Lastly, the money involved will ensure that any problem will be swept under the carpet of "unreasonable doubt" and the problem peddled as "alarmist eco claptrap" because the profit is reaped now by the people able to do something about it, whereas the storm will be reaped by everyone and avoidable by those who have enough money (e.g. via profiting from the problematic product) to isolate themselves.
Such crossbreeding and transgenic transfer occur so infrequently and progress so slowly, nobody makes a quick killing off it before the problems can be seen.