# GM Crops/HFCS



## Velbert (Mar 19, 2006)

Do You Feed HFCS http://www.mercola.com:80/2007/mar/22/are-gm-crops-killing-honeybees.htm


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

OK, so none of the scientific sources are cited. (I think I know which studies they're using as references, but I'm not sure.)

And, apparently, if your bees feed on crops transformed to produce toxins that kill moths, the bacteria in the guts of the bees may also begin producing proteins that are toxic to specific moths.

Still seems peculiar to me that a product (GM crops) would be in widespread use for years and years, then suddenly have a profound effect on honey bees (CCD).

Of course, pinning the blame on farmers who grow GM crops or farmers who use specific pesticides neatly takes the blame off beekeepers (poor management? importation of bees from other countries, possibly bringing new diseases with them?) and pins it on another group of people.


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

I am no fan of GM crops. I think they are a danger to our food chain, and pose as yet unknown threats, that will show up years down the road.


But......I don't believe they are the cause of CCD....maybe the catalis that set it off.....but not the cause. I think CCD has been around for a long time, alot longer than GM crops have been. There has been cases of similar happenings in the 70's with the same type of symptoms. They know as much about it now, as they did then, which is to say, not much .


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Without dredging up all the arguments for or against GM crops, what makes GM crops different than conventional crops?

Let me explain a bit here: to create a transgenic (a.k.a. "GM") crop, a plant breeder takes a bit of DNA from one organism and adds to a different organism. Usually, trangenesis involves moving DNA from one species to a different species.

The same thing happens naturally all the time. Viruses and bacteria move bits of DNA among species.

In fact, vaccinations are essentially a form of "genetic modification." If you've been vaccinated, you're a GMO.

So, while GM may have some risks, how are those risks are different or any greater than the risks posed by "natural" transgenesis?


----------



## Jim Fischer (Jan 5, 2001)

The folks working on the problem have cautioned multiple times
against trying to blame this CCD thing on any one factor, on
any one cause.

_*Of Course*_ every wannabe activist on the planet has heard of
the CCD issue, so _*Of Course*_ they are going to point to the
problems with bees as some sort of "proof" of their pet theory,
pet peeve, whatever. These folks are wandering about with
preconceived answers in search of a problem, so they are
in the usual cognitive hole - when all one has is a hammer,
everything starts to look like a *thumb*! 

I, like others, don't see how any of these causes (pesticides,
GM crops) could be such a sudden problem, and so widespread
without there being a clear pattern revealed in the recent 
placement of the hives affected. 

But I certainly don't intend to pay any attention to what someone
who sells "Cocoa Casava bars", "Krill oil" and so on has to say
about CCD!


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

"So, while GM may have some risks, how are those risks are different or any greater than the risks posed by "natural" transgenesis?"


Lack of testing for one, placed on the market and claimed to be a great asset for another, without the benifit of testing............ 

Natural transgenesis sugests that it will happen in nature, has happened...ect. Some of the things they have done to GM plants i'm not so sure would have happened on their own in nature.....


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

GM crops have been exposed to more testing than any previous technology for crops.

Natural transgenesis DOES happen in nature. Ever have a virus? That virus moved into your cells and incorporated its DNA into your cells. Are you sure you're entirely rid of that DNA now? Are you sure of what any genes that may have been left behind could be producing?

Some of the things that may happen in nature are unlikely to be dreamed up by breeders, too.

And, what about wheat? Look up the ancestry of "wheat," then compare it to "GM." What's the difference?


----------



## peggjam (Mar 4, 2005)

Kieck said:


> GM crops have been exposed to more testing than any previous technology for crops.
> 
> Natural transgenesis DOES happen in nature. Ever have a virus? That virus moved into your cells and incorporated its DNA into your cells. Are you sure you're entirely rid of that DNA now? Are you sure of what any genes that may have been left behind could be producing?
> 
> ...


I think you and I have had this discussion before, and neither changed their mind, let's just agree to disagree!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm not trying to change your mind, really, peggjam. You don't like GM, that's your choice.

What I am trying to do is clarify your reasons behind your choice. You're not alone with the reasons you list, yet those who list those reasons seem unwilling to explain their thoughts.

For example, I've asked repeatedly (on this and other threads) how moving genes from one species to another (GM corn, for example) is any different than moving genes from one species to another (creating "wheat" as we know it). What makes one "risky" and the other not?


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Kieck said:


> I'm not trying to change your mind, really, peggjam. You don't like GM, that's your choice.
> 
> What I am trying to do is clarify your reasons behind your choice. You're not alone with the reasons you list, yet those who list those reasons seem unwilling to explain their thoughts.
> 
> For example, I've asked repeatedly (on this and other threads) how moving genes from one species to another (GM corn, for example) is any different than moving genes from one species to another (creating "wheat" as we know it). What makes one "risky" and the other not?


And I have answered you, Keick and you have just shifted your ground - or in this case, your forum.

You know full well that GM is wholly different to plant crossing and I have quoted you chapter and verse more than once. Now please let's stop this silly argument - I and others do not like or trust GM, while you and others do. No amount of quoting of this or that is going to make either of us shift our ground one iota, so let's just give it a break and get on with looking after the bees. You can rattle on if you choose to, but at this point I am bored and have better things to do.

Enough already!


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> And I have answered you, Keick and you have just shifted your ground. . . . -buckbee


Actually, I was responding to peggjam, not you buckbee, and simply asking much the same thing I had asked you in a different thread.

So far, no one has explained how plant crossing and GM are different, just said, "They're different." 

Maybe, but HOW?



> You know full well that GM is wholly different to plant crossing and I have quoted you chapter and verse more than once. -buckbee


Sorry, I missed the "chapter and verse." Repeat it for me, please?

I work with plant breeders on a daily basis. I've seen both hyridizations among species and transgenesis in person. Mechanically, the two are different. Practically, I see very little if any difference. Where do you see the practical difference?


----------



## hmeadq (Apr 11, 2005)

*Poor Management?*

I think blaming poor management is not teh answer. 

Personally, we managed our 2 hives horribly last year. Almost total neglect after spring feeding! No mite treatment or even checks. We stuck a supper on when we thought they might swarm because they were so crowded and that is it! 

((We did this because I got stung during a July hive inspection and ended up in the ER with a severe allergic reaction. It was a couple months before my DH felt confident to check the hives. ))

This being said our hives both lived, perhaps it helped that both deeps were CROWDED with honey. 

We have a friend who is a huge bee guy, does pollination, is president of our county bee association, teachs the beginner bee classes, and runs our local bee shop. He lost EVERY SINGLE HIVE in his main yard except one. He manages everything by the book! 

I think it is more then poor management, to be this drastic in one year. Our local bee inspector is estimating 75%-80% loss in our area, verses a normal of under 20%.


----------



## buckbee (Dec 2, 2004)

Here's a comment on this subject by a scientist:

-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod1
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 4:59 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: interspecific hybrids, induced mutation and GMOs

Thanks for the measured and serious response. If you review my original posting [30 March], you will find that I did acknowledge successful hybrids, i.e. those derived from closely related species (usually in the same genus, sometimes in the same family). Dr. Rebai himself acknowledges that recombining genes of species very distantly related presents an entirely new paradigm, one that is routinely rejected by evolution. It is the uncertainties of this new situation that concern not just activists but many biologists.

Dr. Rebai is incorrect, however, in stating that such uncertainties and potential risks have resulted in required GMO testing before commercial release. Rebai is completely wrong in assuming there have been no untested releases. We have genetically modified ingredients in many many food products, almost too many to list. These ingredients are sometimes the main ingredient (corn) and sometimes a lesser one or a process ingredient (canola oil, soya lecithin).

Moreover, test plantings here and abroad mean that we have ENVIRONMENTAL release, which is obviously far riskier than "commercial" release because these releases cannot be recalled, whereas foods not purchased can be recalled. It is this fact of environmental experimental plantings - which release pollen and GE exudates such as that from Bt corn - that are of grave concern to biologists and environmentalists. The fact is that, because the US refused to conduct proper environmental impact statements and assessments before allowing recombinant-DNA experiments to move ahead in the 1970s, we now have totally uncontrolled environmental releases of genetically engineered seeds and crops (as well as GM products within foods).

It is broad-scale commercialization, by routine incorporation in foodstuffs and selling of GM fruits, vegetables, etc., that has not yet taken hold, but withholding these is no hardship except to corporations and agribusiness. Consumers are not going to be deprived of healthy food if GMO commercialization is stopped. They seem to have managed without it for a long time.

But the ecological, health and social implications of global broadcasting of GE seeds and crops are only just now beginning to manifest themselves. Until Arpad Pusztai conducted his rat experiments using GM potatoes, the claims of "safety" of GM foods rested on a single, corporate-sponsored study (Monsanto) relating to Roundup Ready soybeans, which are used for animal feed mainly, not human food. Nonetheless, corporations, agribusiness, Big Science (National Academy of Sciences (NAS)) and their government allies are unrelenting in their insistence that no harm to public health has been demonstrated yet. (Critics of the NAS report point out that the NAS study did NOT deal with GE foodstuffs or potential health problems but ONLY with the issue of genetically modifying a genome to incorporate pesticide resistance. This is hardly a wholesale demonstration of safety).

As some scientists admit, lack of evidence of harm is no evidence of safety. And the problem is that pro-GE scientists and corporations are intent on using the global environment and human beings as their experimental arena. We used to have an illustration of this: a man falls off the top of the Empire State Building, and as he passes the 80th floor, he announces "So far, so good".

In our case it is alien and novel genomically-distorted organisms that could in some circumstances (especially if modified for pesticide resistance) be selected for and successfully compete with established biotic communities, not just weedy relations or crop land races, and become dominant, irreversibly changing ecosystems and undermining their established processes and functions. This is not sci fi; this is evolution and natural selection, purportedly the hypothetical infrastructure for scientific experimentation. If scientists themselves choose to ignore these facts, they will continue to provide the general public with good reason for distrusting all their claims, including the benign.

Lorna Salzman, USA


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> . . . recombining genes of species very distantly related presents an entirely new paradigm, one that is routinely rejected by evolution.
> 
> In our case it is alien and novel genomically-distorted organisms that could in some circumstances (especially if modified for pesticide resistance) be selected for and successfully compete with established biotic communities, not just weedy relations or crop land races, and become dominant, irreversibly changing ecosystems and undermining their established processes and functions. -Lorna Salzman, posted by buckbee


Now, if those two statements don't contradict one another. . . are organisms with genes from distantly-related species "rejected" evolutionarily, or are they likely to be exceedingly fit, evolutionarily?



> . . . the US refused to conduct proper environmental impact statements and assessments before allowing recombinant-DNA experiments to move ahead in the 1970s. . . . -Lorna Salzman


By Salzman's own admission, these GM crops have been around for 30 to 40 years already. One of the big arguments against GM is that we don't know the long-term effects.

First, if 30 to 40 years isn't "long-term," what is? How long do we have to study anything before finding "long-term" implications?

Then, have changes occurred in those 30 to 40 years? What changes? Are they really linked to GM crops?

(Funny, much the same arguments were made about hybrid varieties of crops when they were first released in the 1920s.)


----------



## hummingberd (Aug 26, 2006)

Kieck said:


> So far, no one has explained how plant crossing and GM are different, just said, "They're different."
> 
> Maybe, but HOW?
> 
> ...


----------



## Michael Bush (Aug 2, 2002)

>So far, no one has explained how plant crossing and GM are different, just said, "They're different."
>Maybe, but HOW?

When you cross corn with corn, you get different characteristics depending on the varieties involved, but you don't get any genes or any proteins as a result of genes, that weren't in corn to start with. When you splice genes out of a bacteria like Bt and put those into corn, the corn, now produces proteins (and has genes) 
that were never in corn before. No matter how much you cross corn with corn you'll never get those Bt proteins into the corn.


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

> Kieck, are all mutations in nature positive for humans? -hummingberd


No. In fact, most mutations are not even "positive" for the organisms in which they occur.



> If all mutations such as plant crossings are not beneficial to humans, then perhaps that's the point. -hummingberd


I'm not looking to pick a fight, either, hummingberd, but you do realize that the simplest answer to your point, then, is that humans could just insert genes willy-nilly (no selection for "beneficial" traits) and produce the same thing with transgenic crops?



> In my town there was a problem with a farmer growing organic crops for sale to the public. She had worked hard and payed the money to be certified. Her crops were "corrupted" by another farmer nearby growing GM crops. -hummingberd


First, I'm going to assume this refers to corn. I don't know what other crop would be likely to fit the criteria implied by the example (if my assumption is wrong, please let me know).

So, we have corn cross-pollinated with GM corn, and the "organic" corn is tested, most likely to Cry proteins, since that's really the test that's done on corn. Cry proteins are the Bt proteins. Corn is wind-pollinated, so those genes can be moved from one crop to another.

First, then what about covering the corn silks on her plants to prevent cross pollination? Sure, you'd have to deliberately pollinate with pollen of your choosing so the ears would develop, and the whole process would be a LOT of work, but how else could you ever really ensure the genetics of your corn?

Secondly, how could she demonstrate that the pollen that may have pollinated her corn came from the neighbor? It may have been the most seemingly likely source, but corn pollen can be carried many, many miles. (Think of it like a person living one mile from your bee hives suing you because one of "your" bees stung him; how does he know it's "your" bee?)

Then, did this organic producer spray with Bt after the ears were forming? Bt is allowed as an "organic" insecticide, and Bt produces Cry proteins (that's were the genes in Bt corn to make the corn produce Cry proteins came from), so, if she sprayed at the wrong time, perhaps she contaminated her own corn?

And, finally, is she sure see didn't plant (I'm assuming she's growing sweet corn, and not field corn) an "Attribute" variety? Attribute is the trademarked name for a Bt variety, but most people (even organic growers) that I've talked to are unaware that any sweet corn variety bearing the Attribute name is a transgenic variety.



> When you cross corn with corn, you get different characteristics depending on the varieties involved, but you don't get any genes or any proteins as a result of genes, that weren't in corn to start with. -Michael Bush


That's fine when you're talking about corn, Michael, but what about this?



> So, "wheat" likely began as a diploid grass, Triticum monococcum. "Hybridization" turned "wheat" into a tetraploid grass when likely Triticum dicoccoides was crossed with T. monococcum.
> 
> Then, Aegilops tauschii and possibly Aegilops speltoides were crossed with that tetraploid grass, creating what we consider our modern "wheat." Wheat is now a hexaploid organism. --Kieck (myself), on the "imidacloprid" thread


Isn't that "splicing" in genes that were not in the species previously?

Also, what about viruses? Viruses are just bits of DNA or RNA, really, that insert themselves (and sometimes bits of DNA or RNA from their previous hosts, too) into organisms' genomes to make different "traits."


----------



## Keith Benson (Feb 17, 2003)

"Also, what about viruses? Viruses are just bits of DNA or RNA, really, that insert themselves (and sometimes bits of DNA or RNA from their previous hosts, too) into organisms' genomes to make different "traits."

Ahhhhh - we're all GMOs!!!

Keith


----------



## Kieck (Dec 2, 2005)

Yep, in a sense, we ARE all GMOs.

(I've tried to make that point a couple times, but either no one took it seriously, or no one chose to respond. Viruses or bacteria are typically the tools used now to carry specific genes into plants or animals in "transgenic events." They do it every day, so why not just have them carry the genes we wish to have in crops?)


----------

