Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition

[Lite Beer]

Govt to study genetically modified crops, despite opposition
Wasu Vipoosanapat
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The government is going ahead with a study to genetically develop four economic crops despite opposition from non-government organisations over what it maintains is the need to retain the country's regional agricultural competitiveness.

Several nearby countries including Myanmar and Vietnam have already openly used genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

"The Department of Agriculture (DoA) has come up with the initiative to launch this study because we need to boost the country's trade opportunities," said the department's deputy director-general Suwit Chaikiattiyos.

His department is under the supervision of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.

Suwit said 27 countries permitted open-field GM trials and made profits based on experimental results.

He said GM plants allow growers to increase yields, control costs and cut pesticide use.

"Yet at this point we remain unsure whether open-field GM trials will pave the path for fully-driven GM agriculture for Thailand," he said.

Suwit said according to a 2007 Cabinet resolution, GM experiments are allowed only on government land and only when conducted under the supervision of relevant government agencies.

"This makes the GM experiment process complicated," he said.

He said a feasibility study currently underway was subject to further review.

"We will have to weigh the pros and cons," he said.

While his department claims to have observed many good things about GMO, non-governmental groups say they have not.

Many NGOs feel GMOs do more harm than good.

Witoon Liemchamroon, director of the Biothai Foundation, warned that GMOs could spread to other farmland and contaminate crops.

"It has happened before," he said, citing the case in which papaya plants and seeds "leaked" from an experimental field in Khon Kaen.

Upset by the contamination, Greenpeace filed a complaint against the DoA. This decade-long battle is still pending in the Supreme Administrative Court.

Witoon believed that the government would not be able to control the contamination.

In his eyes, GMOs pose a threat to the country's export sector when it comes to agricultural produce.

"Many foreign countries have not yet accepted GMO products. Among them are the European Union members and Japan, which are big buyers of Thai crops," Witoon said.

He said last year Japan recalled GM papayas from Thailand, which affected 26 export companies.

Open-field GM trials should only be attemped after the Biosafety Bill is passed, he said. The bill is still being considered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment.

"After the bill becomes an Act, those held responsible for causing contamination will be required to pay compensation for GM-caused damages," he said.

Theera Wongcharoen, from the National Farmers Council, said farmers could face legal action for infringing GMO copyright and patents if there was widespread contamination.

In September, a large number of farmers staged nationwide protests after the DoA and the Ministry of Commerce decided to jointly study a feasibility study to genetically develop the four economic crops and carry out GM open-field experiments.

"If the plan is still going ahead, the farmers will continue to oppose this policy until it is called off," Theera said.

Witoon echoed Theera's concerns and warned that farming costs may increase as a result of the mandatory examination of a contamination.

"Many farmers have to spend higher cost to monitor their farm products to ensure that they won't get contaminated. Otherwise, no one will buy them," he said.

But Jessada Denduangboripant, a prominent lecturer at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Science, voiced support for development of GM crops. He described them as a good export option for the agricultural sector as it would benefit the economy.

"GM plants are important because they are more resistant to plant epidemics," he said.

"This was evident in an experiment the DoA did in 2003 as a result of the papaya epidemic in 1975," he said.

With widespread GM farming, he said Thailand would not have to rely on imported farm products such as GM corn seeds from the Philippines that were used for animal feed.

He said open-field GM trials would deliver more accurate results compared with close-field trials.

"An open-field experiment is necessary," he said. "Results will prove whether GM plants are counterproductive or beneficial. "It's just that for now people need to be more open-minded."

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Govt-to-study-genetically-modified-crops-despite-o-30248795.html

-- The Nation 2014-11-29

[Robby nz]

Missed the 'r" when I first read the headline and thought it would be a great idea.

But on second reading, well its hard to say, for opponents of these things use so much emotional argument that's its difficult to distinguish truth from fiction.

[Seastallion]

Missed the 'r" when I first read the headline and thought it would be a great idea.

But on second reading, well its hard to say, for opponents of these things use so much emotional argument that's its difficult to distinguish truth from fiction.

I know what you mean but the truth is actually quite easy to see. Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one. How do you stop birds carrying seed away?

When you start fiddling with nature, you circumvent evolution, and in so doing you can miss the vital evolutionary steps that bring harmony to an ecosystem. Introduced species, say rabbits in Australia and NZ are a good example. Because of lack of predators, rabbits have become a serious pest. There are many examples of introduced species wiping out natural species through over-use of resources, predation, etc. Remember, these are super-plants and can very easily take over from the natural species.

Monsanto, who hold patents to GMO seeds have stated that they will not sue a farmer for accidental contamination of his field. But when Somchai unknowingly plants some seeds from a papaya that accidentally sprung up in his neighbours field, and finds it a good strain and so the following year plants a whole field of the offspring it is no longer "accidental", albeit unwitting. Somchai could very well have his arse sued to the brink. And don't for a minute think Monsanto wouldn't.

[worgeordie]

Must be getting pressure from Monsanto.

regards Worgeordie

[terryp]

people who know the real deal about this garbage just dont want it...thats why so many Countrys are running away from it; not like idiotic thailand wanting to embrace it

[attrayant]

Oh no, there goes my weekend.

Many NGOs feel GMOs do more harm than good.

When they've got something other than a "feeling" to base their fears on, I'll listen.

Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one.

Has it ever been conclusively shown that this spread is a bad thing? I mean this kind of seed distribution happens to non-GMO seeds too, so that's also a kind of cross-contamination. Seems to me the statement simply begs the question (i.e. assumes the premise to be true) that GMO seeds are intrinsically bad.

Even the language used in discussing this situation strongly implies that something bad or evil is happening. Look at that word "contamination". Ooh, something evil must be happening! Scary, right?

people who know the real deal about this garbage just dont [sic] want it...thats [sic] why so many Countrys [double-sic] are running away from it

It turns out that the people who know "the real deal" don't actually know anything at all. When the man on the street is asked why they reject GMOs, their answer never has anything to do with the science. It's always something like "we shouldn't be messing with nature!" which is purely a philosophical position, not a scientific or rational one. Politicians, of course, always want to appeal to the lowest common denominator so they end up listening to these uninformed opinions of the man on the street.

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant

[FangFerang]

The problems are complex, especially in regards to native strains being competed out of existence by super plants. There have been some serious mistakes made, including cane toads in Australia, but there were also more success stories (especially in regards to introducing aphids and specific wasps to combat imbalances in ecosystems that came about through pesticides inadvertently killing predators that kept native pest species in check).

On the other side of the coin are the benefits. Take Golden Rice, for example -- a foodstuff that is literally a super-food -- and that leads back to the question of GM crops being owned by corporations, which Golden Rice is owned and patented. Once the seeds are controlled, farmers lose all self-reliance and self-sufficiency. That MUST be prevented.

I am actually pro-GM crops, but only after extensive testing and public domain ownership. It is possible to make a subspecies that cannot cross-pollinate with related subspecies by modifying the pollen produced by the GM crop to be incompatible with the reproductive organs of non-GM plants. In the animal kingdom, house cats cannot breed with lions, even using artificial insemination. Nature has many examples we can learn by, but through breeding we have had GM animals and plants for thousands of years.

Alternatively, the arguments about the loss of native species coming from the developed world is a huge chunk of dirty hypocrisy. There are over 400 species of apples, but western grocery stores sell what ships well--being about four varieties. These varieties are neither the most nutritious nor the best whole food varieties. They are grown, bred and sold for two things: appearance, and how well they hold that appearance for how long.

A good example is a banana rarely seen in the US, called elephant bananas here in Thailand. The flesh that is eaten is yellow -- indicating the presence of vitamin A (beta carotene). I only see it in Asia, not in major Asian stores, but only on roadside stands. The big bananas people favor have no beta carotene (or so little it is an inconsequential nutrient). Vitamin A deficiency is a big problem in Asia.

Literally millions of Asian children have serious long-term health liabilities from NOT having enough beta carotene in the first year they are weaned. Their lifespans are directly affected, as well as their healthy development. "Vitamin A is applied to the skin to improve wound healing, reduce wrinkles, and to protect the skin against UV radiation. Vitamin A is required for the proper development and functioning of our eyes, skin, immune system, and many other parts of our bodies."

One very important aspect of vitamin A is in treating anemia. Over 60% of all Thai women are anemic -- which leads to birth defects (such as lower intelligence) and can cause Down's syndrome.

[attrayant]

Take Golden Rice, for example -- a foodstuff that is literally a super-food -- and that leads back to the question of GM crops being owned by corporations, which Golden Rice is owned and patented. Once the seeds are controlled, farmers lose all self-reliance and self-sufficiency. That MUST be prevented.

That's a hard nut to crack. Should we really expect companies that put money into R&D not to be able to own the rights to the results and collect a return on their investment?

In 2000, Monsanto granted free licenses for Golden Rice to developing countries.

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant

[Tatsujin]

Do they learn "nothing" from what goes on outside the borders of Thailand?

[tbthailand]

the country seems to be doing its best to destroy the rest of the natural eco-system, why not add in GMO.

Someday, Thailand may have a better environmental conscience. There are Thai people who care, but apparently, not enough of them.

[Card]

people who know the real deal about this garbage just dont want it...thats why so many Countrys are running away from it; not like idiotic thailand wanting to embrace it

Many countries, including the EU, are running away from it because of the misinformation put about by those with a political agenda and the pressure and lobby groups allied to them. Many countries don't run away from them, including the USA, China and India where the technology is shown to be hugely beneficial. The world is suffering from lack of food, water and fertile land, pests, disease and pollution due largely to overuse and overpopulation. In the absence of action to address population growth, scientists have had to tackle to the other end of the problem and they have come up with some pretty startling developments. The only way crops will survive global warming is from the development of cultivars that resist flooding, heat, drought and pests and diseases that will ensue.

The only problem I see is not the 'contamination' of conventional or organic crops as those are not able to solve the problems anyway, but the control of the major food crop chain by multinationals. But without the profits and patents that are involved, GMOs would not be developed in the first place.

Those who whinge about drastic solutions are those who are not suffering from the problems.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Card

[Card]

Do they learn "nothing" from what goes on outside the borders of Thailand?

And what goes on outside its borders that it can learn from? Tell us.

[Card]

Take Golden Rice, for example -- a foodstuff that is literally a super-food -- and that leads back to the question of GM crops being owned by corporations, which Golden Rice is owned and patented. Once the seeds are controlled, farmers lose all self-reliance and self-sufficiency. That MUST be prevented.

That's a hard nut to crack. Should we really expect companies that put money into R&D not to be able to own the rights to the results and collect a return on their investment?

In 2000, Monsanto granted free licenses for Golden Rice to developing countries.

Likewise there are many international research institutes around the world financed by world bodies that develop tailored cutlivars for particular crops and locations in devloping countries. These are freely available and not patented for use by poor farmers. Not all the cultivars are owned by multinationals.

[Tatsujin]

Do they learn "nothing" from what goes on outside the borders of Thailand?

And what goes on outside its borders that it can learn from? Tell us.

Seriously?

How about auccesses, failures, mistakes, lessons learned etc etc rather that simply repeating the same things others have already learned the lessons from.

The same goes for any other country that isn't so myopic to believe that there is nothing to be learned from anyone outside their own borders.

[attrayant]

The post you quoted wasn't claiming that nothing can ever be learned from other countries, as your follow-up strongly suggests. You were simply asked to provide an example - that is relevant to the topic at hand - of what Thailand should be learning from other countries.

And we're still waiting.

[RPCVguy]

Geneticists issued a scathing report - GMO Myths and Truths:

Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops:

* Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops

* Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops

* Are strictly regulated for safety

* Increase crop yields

* Reduce pesticide use

* Benefit farmers and make their lives easier

* Bring economic benefits

* Benefit the environment

* Can help solve problems caused by climate change

* Reduce energy use

* Will help feed the world.

However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops:

Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops

* Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts

* Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety

* Do not increase yield potential

* Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it

* Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “super-weeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops

* Have mixed economic effects

* Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity

* Do not offer effective solutions to climate change

* Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops

* Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already exist. Conventional plant breeding, in some cases helped by safe modern technologies like gene mapping and marker assisted selection, continues to outperform GM in producing high-yield, drought-tolerant, and pest- and disease-resistant crops that can meet our present and future food needs.

Oh and about the authors of the report:

* Michael Antoniou, PhD is reader in molecular genetics and head, Gene Expression and Therapy Group, King’s College London School of Medicine, London, UK. He has 28 years’ experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organization and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and holds inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and safe and efficacious human somatic gene therapy for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

* Claire Robinson, MPhil, is research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editor at GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org), a public information service on issues relating to genetic modification, and was formerly managing editor at SpinProfiles (now Powerbase.org).

* John Fagan, PhD is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety, and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of one of the world’s first GMO testing and certification companies, through which he has pioneered the development of innovative tools to verify and advance food purity, safety and sustainability. He co-founded Earth Open Source, which uses open source collaboration to advance sustainable food production. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/news/60-why-genetically-engineered-food-is-dangerous-new-report-by-genetic-engineers

[Orac]

Missed the 'r" when I first read the headline and thought it would be a great idea.

But on second reading, well its hard to say, for opponents of these things use so much emotional argument that's its difficult to distinguish truth from fiction.

I know what you mean but the truth is actually quite easy to see. Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one. How do you stop birds carrying seed away?

When you start fiddling with nature, you circumvent evolution, and in so doing you can miss the vital evolutionary steps that bring harmony to an ecosystem. Introduced species, say rabbits in Australia and NZ are a good example. Because of lack of predators, rabbits have become a serious pest. There are many examples of introduced species wiping out natural species through over-use of resources, predation, etc. Remember, these are super-plants and can very easily take over from the natural species.

Monsanto, who hold patents to GMO seeds have stated that they will not sue a farmer for accidental contamination of his field. But when Somchai unknowingly plants some seeds from a papaya that accidentally sprung up in his neighbours field, and finds it a good strain and so the following year plants a whole field of the offspring it is no longer "accidental", albeit unwitting. Somchai could very well have his arse sued to the brink. And don't for a minute think Monsanto wouldn't.

No only Monsanto. Thailand has its very own agri-business conglomerate that is heavily involved in GMO as well.

http://www.thephuketnews.com/thailands-gmo-experiment-part-2-46788.php

"In March this year, the Seed Association of Thailand – of which both Monsanto and CP are members – filed charges against a community seed producing group in Prao district in Chiang Mai after tests showed that as much as 49 per cent of the DNA of sampled seeds resembled CP's 888 variety of hybrid corn."

[RPCVguy]

People ask "Where is the research that shows harm from GMOs?" ... and the Union of Concerned Scientists have been responding. What you are seeing by Monsanto, Syngenta and others is a marketing push to get their genetic seeds spread widely, let wind do the rest, and then claim ownership rights over the seeds of all major food ciltivation.

Are people aware of how the corporations legally block testing from being done? ... using laws to control access, contract clauses to prohibit publishing outside of their approval, and money to buy up research labs?

Just a quick sampling of articles available about the problem:

• "In 2009, 26 academic entomologists wrote to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that because patents on engineered genes do not provide for independent non-commercial research, they could not perform adequate research on these crops. "No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops," they wrote."By creating obstacles to independent research on its products, Monsanto makes it harder for farmers and policy makers to make informed decisions that can lead to more sustainable agriculture.
  http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html
• Story of a Whistle-blower.
  http://www.globalresearch.ca/monsanto-whistleblower-says-genetically-engineered-crops-may-cause-disease/3912
  Kirk Azevedo was an up-and-coming Monsanto employee - who had experience in related fields - experience that was not welcome at Monsanto.
  
• Dr. Don Huber did not seek fame when he quietly penned a confidential letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in January of this year, warning Vilsack of preliminary evidence of a microscopic organism that appears in high concentrations in genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybeans and "appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals and probably human beings." Huber, a retired Purdue University professor of plant pathology and U.S. Army colonel, requested the USDA's help in researching the matter and suggested Vilsack wait until the research was concluded before deregulating Roundup Ready alfalfa. But about a month after it was sent, the letter was leaked, soon becoming an internet phenomenon.
  http://www.alternet.org/story/150733/why_is_damning_new_evidence_about_monsanto%27s_most_widely_used_herbicide_being_silenced?akid=6945.229139.QqRcwK&rd=1&t=5&paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark
  

• Whatever the reasons, the results are clear: Public sector research has been blocked. In 2009, 26 university entomologists — bug scientists — wrote a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency protesting restricted access to seeds. The letter went public, but not most of the writers’ identities. They were afraid of retaliation from the companies that might further hamper their research.

  “No truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions involving these crops,” they wrote. Christian Krupke, a Purdue University entomologist who signed the letter, put it more succinctly to a reporter for a scientific journal. “Industry is completely driving the bus,” he said.

  http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/02/14/monsanto-blocks-research-on-gmo-safety/

[attrayant]

That's quite a Gish Gallop of talking points you've got there.

I couldn't help notice that the link to the report is dead (404 - page not found) and that the link goes to a page within the same website. So they are citing themselves as far as I can see. Searching by the report's title brings up no links to the report, only to blogs and health web sites that cite it. Even Google Scholar was no help. I gave up looking after the first four pages of results.

Since I don't have all day to sit here researching rebuttals, I'll just pick the first of the report's "key points":

1. Genetic engineering as used in crop development is not precise or predictable and has not been shown to be safe. The technique can result in the unexpected production of toxins or allergens in food that are unlikely to be spotted in current regulatory checks.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like you to meet the poison potato. And how was this deadly vegetable made? In a laboratory by the evil Monsanto Corporation you say? No! Through regular, friendly plant hybridization process that we've been doing for years. Apparently, traditional, "safe" hybrid farming has been proven to be unpredictable and unsafe. So with respect to this point, genetically modified crops have a much better track record than does traditional breeding.

Furthermore, the idea that targeting specific genes is not precise or reliable is laughable - they've got it exactly backwards. That's the whole point of genetic engineering. Traditional breeding (hybridization or mutagenasis) is the shotgun approach: blast a species with loads of random DNA and hope for the best. The outcome is random and unpredictable. But with genetic engineering, we introduce only the genes responsible for the specific result we're after. By using this targeted approach, we can introduce new characteristics while avoiding the undesirable ones.

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant

[dcutman]

He said GM plants allow growers to increase yields, control costs and cut pesticide use.

Before skipping to GM crops, maybe a better idea to just use more modern methods and practices of farming to get the results desired.

[attrayant]

Genetic engineering is a more modern method. What else did you have in mind as more modern?

[HerbalEd]

This is a huge mistake .. but alas Monsanto is spending billions to make it happen, and so it will. Unfortunately the world will regret it, but there'll be no going back.

Don't believe the myth that GMOs are being developed to use LESS pesticide. The opposite is true. Monsanto has already developed their "Roundup Ready" GMO seeds that enable the plants to take much higher levels of pesticides. This is a fact.

And don't believe the myth that GMO are the same as plant breeding where two plants of same genus (e.g., two varieties of oranges) are bred to make a new variety. Plant breeding is extremely different than adding genes from a completely different genus/species ... often from animals ... to a plant to make a made-made, never-before-seen plant.

I wouldn't object to GMOs IF there wasn't the problem of contamination from pollen drift whereby GMO corn (for example) can fly in the air for many miles and pollinate a non GMO field of corn. Eventually all non-GMO corn will become GMO corn and hundreds-of-thousands-of years of natural corn breeding will be lost forever.

Also, Monsanto is lying through their teeth when they say they won't take action against farmers who sell their corn (for example) which has been contaminated by pollen drift with Monsanto's GMO corn. In fact, they sued one Iowa farmer who's family has been growing seed corn for multi-generations ... and the farmer lost the case.

For those of you who buy Monsanto's multi-billion dollar re-education lies, you should educate yourself more.

[bluebellpepper]

One thing is for sure, GMO related companies have no interest in the people or the planet. The only thing they want is $$$, preferably lots of it.

We are talking about Bio-Chemistry or Genetic Roulette, something we still don't no f&%k about and is on itself not an issue.

What is an issue, is that food which contains GMO parts is never properly tested for a period of 10-20 years and therefore we do not know the impact on animals or humans. This (testing) has to be (properly) controlled by governments and not by companies like Monsanto which happens in the US.

There are many papers where both animals and humans got sick from GMO crops but that doesn't mean all GMO crops are bad.

Personally I would like to move away from monoculture and pesticides in general. I think permaculture / hydroponics / aquaponics is the future and luckily this is a growing trend.

Please think twice before dealing with companies like Monsanto, DuPont and others.

[Ragzilb]

Monsanta, Synagi, Dupont, Microsoft, WHO, WTO and so on, same Rotchchild company different name.

You do the math, same company that sponsored Vietnam and gave us napalm, now gives us orange agent, GMO, all biocides, nothing good comes from those companies please dont ever listen to the lies they tell you, I hope Thailand never get GMO.

[Mudcrab]

Humans have been modifying plants for centuries.

I can remember back in school many years ago being taught about a Monk (French Italian) who cross bred wheat, I think.

Cross bred two tall plants and got a result. crossbred a tall plant and a short plant. Got a result. Crossbred two small plants. Got a result. And documented the results and went on to breed the best of them. Probably the worlds first geneticist.

Why not use science to our advantage?

Then again the naysayers of genetic engineering based on science are the same mob who scream climate change...based on science!!!

[attrayant]

You do the math, same company that sponsored Vietnam and gave us napalm, now gives us orange agent, GMO, all biocides, nothing good comes from those companies please dont ever listen to the lies they tell you, I hope Thailand never get GMO.

Okay those of you who just can't get away from thinking that Monsanto is the devil incarnate need to take a deep breath for a moment and separate the corporation from the technology. Imagine, just for a moment, a world where Monsanto doesn't exist but GMO technology does. Is the technology still inherently bad?

While Monsantos business practices may be ethically questionable, they are not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field. You can disagree with Monsanto all you like but that should not muddy a strictly technical or scientific discussion of GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that grudge to every application of GMOs.

Don't believe the myth that GMOs are being developed to use LESS pesticide. The opposite is true. Monsanto has already developed their "Roundup Ready" GMO seeds that enable the plants to take much higher levels of pesticides. This is a fact.

You're a bit late with your facts. Glyphosate-resistant soybeans have been approved since 1994. Anyway, so what? What exactly is the problem with this? You've made the statement as if it's supposed to just be axiomatically accepted as a bad thing without explaining why it's a bad thing.

This exactly what we would expect to happen. The whole point of herbicide-resistant crops is to be able to spray the field with glyphosate and kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Prior to glyphosphate, farmers used a class of herbicides called sulfonyl ureas, but they could only be used in extremely low concentrations because of toxicity fears and the fact that they are non-selective (they damage weeds and crops equally). I would think that all the anti-toxin folks should be applauding the debut of glyphosphate (one of the least toxic herbicides there is), which targets weeds while leaving the resistant crops unharmed. Somebody will need to explain to me why that's a bad thing.

Secondly, the term "pesticide" is often used in a misleading way. It is used to refer to both insecticides and herbicides. Anti-GMO activists gloss over this complexity by lumping insecticides and herbicides under the confusing label of pesticides, and then complaining that "pesticide use" has increased.

How much herbicide is used, anyway? According to the product datasheet, farmers are advised to use 22-44 ounces of product per acre. The 44 ounce rate means that each liquid ounce is spread over an area of about 90 square meters. The active ingredient is applied at less than .1 grams per square meter.

[hughben]

Missed the 'r" when I first read the headline and thought it would be a great idea.

But on second reading, well its hard to say, for opponents of these things use so much emotional argument that's its difficult to distinguish truth from fiction.

I know what you mean but the truth is actually quite easy to see. Even this neutral-toned report indicates some of the real dangers. Cross-contamination, where the GMO is naturally spread to other fields is a big one. How do you stop birds carrying seed away?

When you start fiddling with nature, you circumvent evolution, and in so doing you can miss the vital evolutionary steps that bring harmony to an ecosystem. Introduced species, say rabbits in Australia and NZ are a good example. Because of lack of predators, rabbits have become a serious pest. There are many examples of introduced species wiping out natural species through over-use of resources, predation, etc. Remember, these are super-plants and can very easily take over from the natural species.

Monsanto, who hold patents to GMO seeds have stated that they will not sue a farmer for accidental contamination of his field. But when Somchai unknowingly plants some seeds from a papaya that accidentally sprung up in his neighbours field, and finds it a good strain and so the following year plants a whole field of the offspring it is no longer "accidental", albeit unwitting. Somchai could very well have his arse sued to the brink. And don't for a minute think Monsanto wouldn't.

Anyone who trusts Monsanto is an idiot.

[DerekMarshall]

We could do with genetically modified cops, the ones with the corruption DNA removed!

[HerbalEd]

You do the math, same company that sponsored Vietnam and gave us napalm, now gives us orange agent, GMO, all biocides, nothing good comes from those companies please dont ever listen to the lies they tell you, I hope Thailand never get GMO.

Okay those of you who just can't get away from thinking that Monsanto is the devil incarnate need to take a deep breath for a moment and separate the corporation from the technology. Imagine, just for a moment, a world where Monsanto doesn't exist but GMO technology does. Is the technology still inherently bad?

While Monsantos business practices may be ethically questionable, they are not the only company involved in GMO research. Many non-profit organizations and academic institutions are involved in this field. You can disagree with Monsanto all you like but that should not muddy a strictly technical or scientific discussion of GMOs. If you have a problem with Monsanto, have a problem with Monsanto. Don't extend that grudge to every application of GMOs.

Don't believe the myth that GMOs are being developed to use LESS pesticide. The opposite is true. Monsanto has already developed their "Roundup Ready" GMO seeds that enable the plants to take much higher levels of pesticides. This is a fact.

You're a bit late with your facts. Glyphosate-resistant soybeans have been approved since 1994. Anyway, so what? What exactly is the problem with this? You've made the statement as if it's supposed to just be axiomatically accepted as a bad thing without explaining why it's a bad thing.

This exactly what we would expect to happen. The whole point of herbicide-resistant crops is to be able to spray the field with glyphosate and kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Prior to glyphosphate, farmers used a class of herbicides called sulfonyl ureas, but they could only be used in extremely low concentrations because of toxicity fears and the fact that they are non-selective (they damage weeds and crops equally). I would think that all the anti-toxin folks should be applauding the debut of glyphosphate (one of the least toxic herbicides there is), which targets weeds while leaving the resistant crops unharmed. Somebody will need to explain to me why that's a bad thing.

Secondly, the term "pesticide" is often used in a misleading way. It is used to refer to both insecticides and herbicides. Anti-GMO activists gloss over this complexity by lumping insecticides and herbicides under the confusing label of pesticides, and then complaining that "pesticide use" has increased.

How much herbicide is used, anyway? According to the product datasheet, farmers are advised to use 22-44 ounces of product per acre. The 44 ounce rate means that each liquid ounce is spread over an area of about 90 square meters. The active ingredient is applied at less than .1 grams per square meter.

I happen to believe ... like many others ... it's a bad thing to put millions of more liters of pesticides on the earth to be spread to rivers and the oceans.

Also, more sprays on weeds eventually means more pesticide resistant weeds that require even more pesticides.

I'm ever amazed at those who are so quickly willing to accept GMOs based only upon the verbal assurance of the companies who make them. And who just as quickly dismiss the opponents of GMOs as anti-science and ignorant. How convenient for them ... and how intellectually lazy.

But science aside for a moment. My common sense tells me that after hundreds-of-thousands of years of natural plant selection, you can't start introducing multi-animal/plant genes organisms into the environment ... ones that are totally new and very different to nature ... and think there won't be problems.

[attrayant]

I'm ever amazed at those who are so quickly willing to accept GMOs based only upon the verbal assurance of the companies who make them. And who just as quickly dismiss the opponents of GMOs as anti-science and ignorant. How convenient for them ... and how intellectually lazy.

This is nothing more than an editorial comment which does not address the issue directly, and it's quite presumptuous of you. How do you know how "quickly" I've accepted anything, or how "quickly" I dismiss the arguments of others? It's quite the contrary: all you have to do is copy and paste from some anti-Monsanto blog, while I've got the onerous task of fact-checking and digging through research papers coming up with the rebuttals. I think you've got those "easy job" and "hard job" labels backwards.

But science aside for a moment.

No, let's not do that. Science doesn't take a back seat to your feelings, philosophical views or common sense (whatever that is).

My common sense tells me that after hundreds-of-thousands of years of natural plant selection, you can't start introducing multi-animal/plant genes organisms into the environment ... ones that are totally new and very different to nature ... and think there won't be problems.

That's nothing more than an assumption. You've yet to base that on anything substantial. On the other hand, we know that a study of 100 billion animals over the course of almost three decades has found GMOs to be safe.

Alison Van Eenennaam of University of California, Davis, led a comprehensive analysis of studies regarding livestock health between 1983 (13 years before GM crops were introduced) and 2011, which included a total of 100 billion animals collectively eating trillions of GM meals. Ultimately, the study has found that GM feed does not have a negative affect on the animals, and that they are about as nutritionally equivalent as animals who are not fed GM crops.

Edited November 29, 2014 by attrayant