# Bees & genetically modified crops



## Juandefuca (Mar 16, 2000)

Hi Phil
The other side of the pond has questions about that also but I have not seen an uproar about that yet. But then again I might not be aware of it either.
Personally I usually take a reserved view on any fooling around with mother Nature. Whenever mother sees fit to modify , she does it quite well by her lonesome.
Catfish


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2000)

I feel uncomfortable with it, in that there are so many unknowns, that it may come back to bite us later. I think it is here to stay, however, and we will now have to make the best of it.

OTOH, it has greatly reduced pesticide damage to my bees, because there is much less insecticide spraying during the early part of cotton bloom. Bees can now make some honey, instead of getting killed or greatly weakened.



------------------
Dave
The Pollination Home Page
http://pollinator.com


----------



## Phil Chandler (Mar 16, 2000)

I'm surprised by your apathy! Do you really want to eat honey full of GM pollen? I take your point about pesticides, but GMs ARE sprayed with Roundup (or similar noxious substance) in any case - the crop is resistant to it but the weeds (many of which the bees love) are not, and are killed off as ever. Surely beekeepers should be supporting organic and other non-chemical farming practices?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pollinator:
*
I feel uncomfortable with it, in that there are so many unknowns, that it may come back to bite us later. I think it is here to stay, however, and we will now have to make the best of it.

OTOH, it has greatly reduced pesticide damage to my bees, because there is much less insecticide spraying during the early part of cotton bloom. Bees can now make some honey, instead of getting killed or greatly weakened.

*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2000)

>I'm surprised by your apathy! 

You don't know me, do you? I think I've established my credentials as a non-apathetic person. I've campaigned against pesticide misuse for many years, and really put the heat on "bought-out" officials who refuse to enforce pesticide laws that protect bees. 

>Do you really want to eat honey full of GM pollen? 

Would you rather eat pesticide-laced pollen?

>I take your point about pesticides, but GMs ARE sprayed with Roundup (or similar noxious >substance) in any case - the crop is resistant to it but the weeds (many of which >the bees love) are not, and are killed off as ever. Surely beekeepers should be >supporting organic and other non-chemical farming practices?

The high cost of pesticides, and the ever increasing regulation of them will help reduce their use. But a beekeeper who tries to force farms in his area to go organic would be laughed out of the discussion. On the other hand, when an applicator violates the label directions, he can be prosecuted, and he should be.

I use pesticides myself. I use them carefully and sparingly, but I do not see any alternative to using some. So I am not against pesticide use; rather I am against pesticide misuse. Now, THAT is a viable stance for beekeepers.

Pollinator


----------



## Phil Chandler (Mar 16, 2000)

I said:
>I'm surprised by your apathy! 
You said:
You don't know me, do you? I think I've established my credentials as a non-apathetic person. I've campaigned against pesticide misuse for many years, and really put the heat on "bought-out" officials who refuse to enforce pesticide laws that protect bees. 

>>I did not mean to impugn your integrity! But as far as I am concerned, any use of pesticides is abuse. Maybe I'm an extremist, but as an organic/biodynamic grower (on a small scale) I have never felt the need to use poisons of any kind: my efforts are concentrated on creating healthy soil and I leave the rest to nature. Maybe that doesn't work for everyone, but my neighbour, who runs the biggest organic farm in the UK, has the same attitude and it works for him, too.

I said:
>Do you really want to eat honey full of GM pollen? 

You said:
Would you rather eat pesticide-laced pollen?

>>Absolutely not - but you seem to be suggesting that this is the only alternative, which I do not believe.

I said:
>I take your point about pesticides, but GMs ARE sprayed with Roundup (or similar noxious >substance) in any case - the crop is resistant to it but the weeds (many of which >the bees love) are not, and are killed off as ever. Surely beekeepers should be >supporting organic and other non-chemical farming practices?

You said:
The high cost of pesticides, and the ever increasing regulation of them will help reduce their use. But a beekeeper who tries to force farms in his area to go organic would be laughed out of the discussion. On the other hand, when an applicator violates the label directions, he can be prosecuted, and he should be.

>>Well I don't know where you live, but clearly you have a way to go to persuade your community of the benefits of organic farming...!

best wishes,
Phil Chandler
Devon, UK


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Phil Chandler said:


> I'm surprised by your apathy! Do you really want to eat honey full of GM pollen? I take your point about pesticides, but GMs ARE sprayed with Roundup (or similar noxious substance) in any case - the crop is resistant to it but the weeds (many of which the bees love) are not, and are killed off as ever. Surely beekeepers should be supporting organic and other non-chemical.



How on earth did I just respond to a thread that is over a decade old?
:scratch:


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

I didn't even know that they had the internet in 2000....oh wait it was the 2000 election when Al Gore claimed he invented it. Interesting that postings by unregistered users was allowed then. Probably just Barry's way of debating on the sly.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

TIL; they were arguing about GMOs at the turn of the century.



Posting on this crazy iPad. I must hit the wrong button and was transported back in time.


----------



## BeeCurious (Aug 7, 2007)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



jim lyon said:


> I didn't even know that they had the internet in 2000....oh wait it was the 2000 election when Al Gore claimed he invented it.


He did help with the creation of the "internet"...

This is what Gore's contribution was: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Performance_Computing_and_Communication_Act_of_1991


----------



## Baja (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

And by the way North America is still apathetic about GMO's and pesticides. We're happy that Monsanto runs our government. I'm just wondering when Monsanto (Beelogics) comes out with a genetically modified bee (Franken-bee).


----------



## Birdman (May 8, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

When we graft a fruit tree, doe's that not make geneticlly modified? When we breed queens, do we not change the genetics? I think every thing we eat has been modified.


----------



## tabby (Jul 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Birdman said:


> When we graft a fruit tree, doe's that not make geneticlly modified? When we breed queens, do we not change the genetics? I think every thing we eat has been modified.


Grafting is more closely related to cloning, so it's almost the opposite of changing the genetics. Grafting allows us to create many individual living things with the same genetics. The root stock on the fruit tree may modify the growth behavior of the fruit tree, but it doesn't change the genetics of the graft. 
Breeding only affects the genetics in that certain genes are selected for so those become more predominant in our stock, but it usually doesn't insert a gene into that population that wasn't already in that species. Sometimes we can create hybrids by breeding two different species that are very close to begin with (mules). 
GMOs are organisms that have genes inserted in them that are usually, if not always, from completely different species. Sometimes the genes aren't even from the same Kingdoms (bacterial genes inserted into plants). This is extremely different from any genetic change that could occur from just breeding or grafting.


----------



## Baja (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

This is the response the biotech companies always use to confuse people saying that farmers have been genetically modifying for generations. Hybridization and genetic modification are two totalling different actions. Hybridization is a sexual act between two similar species. Usually, the process of genetic modification involves genes from totally different species (infused using a gene gun or through the introduction of bacterial infection) that could never be crossbred—wheat genes injected into soybeans, for example. Sometimes, genes are transferred not just from another species, but from a different kingdom, such as animal cells injected into plant cells (i.e. salmon genes into a tomato). Genetic engineering is the process of breaking the natural boundaries that exist between species to produce new life forms and signs of adverse reactions by humans to the consumption of these new life forms are occurring. It's like saying that global warming has occurred before. True but never has it been caused by human actions and never in so short a period of time.


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Has anyone had bees on roundup ready alfalfa?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Grafting has nothing to do with genetic modification. What about gama/chemically induced mutations that's been used? Don't just say breeding is breeding. Genetic modificaiton is much more specific than those techniques. What signs of adverse effects are present? Salmon into a tomato?? We eat salmon all the time so why would a salmon gene in a tomato do anything using you're example?? Understand the science, don't just buy into all the 'stories' you hear or the badly designed studies by interest groups. If you were to biochemically analyze a lot of the stuff we eat, gmo, organic, or conventionally grown, you could not distinguish it, so again, I ask, why would there be adverse affects in those cases?


----------



## Baja (Oct 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

I agee 100% that you should not believe studies produced by either the agro-chemical companies or the environmental groups. Both have an intended purpose to prove their argument. That is why I usually ignore studies done by either one side or the other. I don't know the complete effects of gmo products on humans or the environment nor can anyone else claim to. But I do know a few adverse effects that have arisen in initial studies that should at least give us reason to be concerned. First biochemically you can distinguish between gmo and non gmo foods. Secondly, a few of the adverse affects are that there is unintended harm to other organisms like B.t. corn has caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars; there has been reduced effectiveness of pesticides with developed resistance (pests and super weeds); Gene transfer to non-target species cross - breed between weeds and gmo crop plants creating super weeds and introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops - Monsanto patent infringements against farmers and the inadvertent cross pollination of native species (i.e Corn in southern Mexico). A serious concern is the ownership of the newly created genetically modified life form through patent. This means that if that patented life form finds it's way on to your land (this can occur by inadvertent wind or bird transfer of seed or through cross pollination) you can be sued. In the case of a farmer you can be sued for your whole season's crop as was the case in farmer
Percy Schmeiser against Monsanto http://youtu.be/Se-1zesy450. ; Allergenicity- existing allergies to one of the species introduced or new allergies to the new species. I don't know everything about gmo crops and don't pretend to but personally think there is enough proof to be concerned about a policy of unrestricted creation of new species of life who's ownership lies in the patent holder (i.e Monsanto). What is to prevent someone from genetically modifying humans?


----------



## tabby (Jul 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



JRG13 said:


> We eat salmon all the time so why would a salmon gene in a tomato do anything using you're example?? Understand the science, don't just buy into all the 'stories' you hear or the badly designed studies by interest groups. If you were to biochemically analyze a lot of the stuff we eat, gmo, organic, or conventionally grown, you could not distinguish it, so again, I ask, why would there be adverse affects in those cases?


Those of us with strong allergies to certain things have serious worries about this. For instance, someone with a fish allergy could unknowingly eat a tomato with salmon genes and have a bad reaction if the salmon gene in the tomato expressed the trait that caused the allergy. I, personally, am concerned with soybean genes being spliced into other plants.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Baja said:


> And by the way North America is still apathetic about GMO's and pesticides. We're happy that Monsanto runs our government. I'm just wondering when Monsanto (Beelogics) comes out with a genetically modified bee (Franken-bee).


and this thread that has been dug up from the deep past demonstrates one thing- we have been using GMOs for over 10 years and despite all the fear, there has not been one problem that has been realized. A lot of what ifs? but not one thing that anyone can point to _after ten years of actual use. FWIW _ - +10 years of actual use in the environment trumps 10 years of government studies by a factor of approximately 10 (IMO).


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

oh brother, you got to be kidding



Baja said:


> And by the way North America is still apathetic about GMO's and pesticides. We're happy that Monsanto runs our government. I'm just wondering when Monsanto (Beelogics) comes out with a genetically modified bee (Franken-bee).


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

>>Hybridization and genetic modification are two totalling different actions

they expose the plants to levels of radiation, and search for mutation in the plant which are favourable. its not the nice and rosy breeding programs we think of.


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

......and to the best of my knowledge the Percy Schmeiser case is the only case where Monsanto has ever taken a farmer to court over planting seed allegedly contaminated by wind blown pollen. Schmeiser is a political activist who used a somewhat incredible story to publicly goad Monsanto into a fight. 3 different courts ruled against him.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Yes, Schmeiser got alot of press, and for what? He was a farmer, and he was fighting big chemical.
He did not mention that the field that was under investigation, was planted in rows, and sprayed in such a manner to take all advantage of the round up resistance it held. Who would spray their crop with round up if they had no idea the roundup tolerant trait was in it


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

oh boy, Im going to un subscribe from this thread, looks like its 12 year old. 
This argument has run its course lol!!


----------



## seyc (Jul 15, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Genetic Engineering - To modify the genetics of something to get what you want out of it. That includes everything from selective breeding to gene splicing.

Genetic Modification - To modify the genetics of something using Molecular techniques. Gene splicing (addition/removal).


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Tabby, I can understand the concerns there. You have to look at the regulation costs and tests done before approval though. Any novel proteins made in the target species are screened against all known allergens and toxins. Any similarities and the product will not be approved. Not sure of the soybean splicing, haven't heard anything about that. Again, you would have to look at what they're trying to move, whether it's for plant health or consumer benefit (i.e. moving plant resistance genes vs improving nutrition/yield/composition of end product for consumer).


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Nabber86 said:


> and this thread that has been dug up from the deep past demonstrates one thing- we have been using GMOs for over 10 years and despite all the fear, there has not been one problem that has been realized. ...


 It is just indication how big corporations including Monsanto controls our government. Europe already made decision on GMOs. FDA will do something after 100 deaths, which brings politician's attention to the subject. Decision again will be made not on the facts, but of political will. Working on pollution from aircraft, I discovered that health standards established by FDA sometime 10-100 times worst than in Europe or Japan. *It is very disturbing that NOTHING changed in US GMOs policies for 10 years!*


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Who will be the Rosa Parks of the modern age who will draw attention to this problem? Who will be the Medger Evers willing to take a bullet for this cause? Who will be the Martin Luther King, speaking out against the social injustice of GMOs and the case study we are all living in, laying down their life for the betterment of all?

Untill there is a critical mass of the masses and people like these willing to do what needs doing and willing to go all the way to martyrdom this is only so much "blowin' in the wind".


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



sqkcrk said:


> Who will be the Rosa Parks .... to go all the way to martyrdom this is only so much "blowin' in the wind".


 Well, outside the beekeepers community many people think differently. There is a hope since Obama is claimed to be "greener" than others... I think, this issue will be resolved as soon as enough statistics will be collected on allergy and other effects from GMOs. It took them 50 (?) years to prove that smoking increases the lung cancer and even after that - many smokers claimed that they are healthy. The thing about this is that alive people could claim that they are healthy (even 2 days before cancer diagnosis), but dead people - could not vote against smoking since they are dead already... sort of too late... sorry for cynicism - as a pathology-histologist I saw many blackened lungs with horrible cancers...


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Where is our Rachel Carson? Or our Bill McKibben? Or our Al Gore?


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Eventually the economics and severe lack of genetic diversity will kill off the GMO crops. They are VERY expensive, require lots of chemicals, and are ruining standard agriculture due to weed infestations from sloppy farming practices. 

The real problem here is monopolies in the production of food -- a few companies control all the markets, with the result that they control prices, meaning independent farmers are getting squeezed out in favor of massive agribusiness.

Shouldn't be a surprise, it's been official USDA policy since 1954.

Peter


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Peter, the lines are bred into elite varieties, always changing to meet yield demands and agronomic traits. Why would you say they require lots of chemicals?? They're grown just like any other conventional crop. A lot of the resistances are because of sloppy farming practices, I agree there and more should've been done to monitor farm practices and make sure proper refuge etc... was being done. We all know growing the same traits and applying the same herbicides year after year lead to resistances, nothing new there.


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

The genes are put into ANYTHING that Monsanto and other big companies (mostly Monsanto, I chose NOT to work there in the 90s) want. Elite lines, perhaps.

Are you saying the huge tankers of Roundup aren't chemicals? BT corn doesn't require chemicals to control stalk borers or rootworm, but neither were a problem until monoculture corn came along in the late 60's and early 70's -- proper crop rotation, including at least one year with cover crops and cows, control rootworm just fine, thank you. That's why it wasn't a problem until people started planting corn every year in the same field and leaving stubble up instead of plowing.

RoundUp ready crops have raised us up a huge crop of RoundUp resistant weeds, so everyone is using both RoundUp and older herbicides.

Extremely expensive, non-diverse crops are not the answer, never have been, but they make Monsanto tons of money in concert with "plant patent" laws (which I hold in the same reguard as "software patent" laws -- to whit, nonsense).

And this completely neglects the impact on beekeeping -- all that RoundUp has pretty much eliminated wildflowers anywhere near fields -- the overspray kills them off much more readily that the resistant weeds in the fields. The crappy farming practices result in huge soil loss -- the field across the road from my window is at least three feet lower than it was thirty years ago -- and the soil structure is going to hell as a result of that and the use of stunning amounts of chemical fertilizers.

It's a long and complicated story, but GMO crops aren't going to save us.

Peter


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



psfred said:


> Eventually the economics and severe lack of genetic diversity will kill off the GMO crops. They are VERY expensive, require lots of chemicals, and are ruining standard agriculture due to weed infestations from sloppy farming practices.
> 
> 
> Peter


comes from someone who does not know anything about farming. . . . .


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Yeah I hear a lot about "super weeds" that are resistent to glyphosate. Yes they are showing up here and there but they really dont have much of an impact as the few I am aware of are pretty easily controlled by prudent farming practices. Crop rotation is the norm in our area and the only weeds that can have an economic impact on your crop are late emerging weeds that hide under crop canopies. Not so many years ago the norm in midwest crop farming was disc, plow, disc, plant, a possible trip through with a rotary hoe, then cultivate, and cultivate again and there were usually still lots of areas of problem weeds that would worsen partly because the ground would wash so badly from all the trips through the field. Lots of fuel was used and lots of erosion resulted. Not exactly the good old days.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



JRG13 said:


> Peter, the lines are bred into elite varieties, always changing to meet yield demands and agronomic traits. ...


 GMOs are entirely different story - it is not bred. Particular, sometime artificial or foreign genes "implanted" into genome to perform unusual to the host function, for instance to be resistant to the Roundup. In case of Roundup, I believe, they introduced entirely foreign gene into corm. Gene produces a protein, enzyme in this case, which never was in the corn. Consuming GMO corn, you consume this foreign artificially implanted protein. Nobody really know what this protein could do to animals and humans. Simplest thing - allergy. Now, Monsanto is applying the same approach to the bees, so they would not be sensitive to the Roundup. I could not believe that normally conservative and careful beekeepers are so open to GMOs...

From another hand, there are very interesting approaches in GMOs. For instance, scientists introduced genes to enrich goat milk with specific antibodies - this way antibodies may be isolated from the milk cheaply. Antibodies are most universal and powerful anti-bacterial AND anti-viral agent. I am fine with such approach as long as it is under control and final product is identical to natural antibodies - nobody is going to force beekeepers to drink that milk!


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

>>consume this foreign artificially implanted protein. Nobody really know what this protein could do to animals and humans.

the same way we handle all other proteins of this manner, right?


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> >>consume this foreign artificially implanted protein. Nobody really know what this protein could do to animals and humans.
> 
> the same way we handle all other proteins of this manner, right?


 Not exactly. Are you familiar with prions? It is not "just protein". It is the whole system. If one changed one thing, other thing will change also... In science, we do gene-engineering all the time. But it is under very strict control to ensure that new strains will not escape and alternate the nature. Monsanto really DO alternate the Mother Nature... it is very serious. In fact, "Monsanto genes" already contaminated corn genome in both Americas.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

So your suggesting prions are involved with GMOs


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

FROM "GMO testimony"
Submitted by Joe Rowland 
to the N.Y. Assembly standing committees on agriculture, consumer affairs
and the assembly task force on food, farm, and nutrition policy
October 3, 2000

http://www.biotech-info.net/JR_testimony.html


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Everything in that piece was derived from speculation. Nothing was shown to prove anything, other than supporting pre determined assumptions


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

So the author supports the use of antibiotics in the hive, but is having a problem with GMOs?

I am surprised that the conclusion wasn’t geared toward bashing antibiotics. Certainly after 40 years of tetracycline use, American Foulbrood would have developed resistance to tetracycline. I guess bashing antibiotics is not in vogue anymore because GMOs are a bigger target and do a better job at grabbing the headlines.

Seems odd.



> Before the advent of antibiotics, this bacterial infection [American Foulbrood] was the most serious bee disease in the world. Tetracycline had been used effectively against AFB for 40 years until 1996. In that year, tetracycline resistance was confirmed in both Argentina and the upper Midwestern states of Wisconsin and Minnesota. Since then, it has spread to at least 17 states, including New York. During the 1990's, millions of acres of Round-up Ready crops were planted in the U.S. and Argentina. According to my information, the antibiotic resistant gene used in the creation of Round-up Ready crops was resistant to tetracycline. After 40 years of effective usage against an infective bacterium found in the guts of honeybees, suddenly 2 geographically isolated countries develop tetracycline resistance simultaneously. A common thread between the U.S. and Argentina is the widespread and recent cultivation of GM crops containing tetracycline resistant genes.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> So your suggesting prions are involved with GMOs


 Not exactly, but prion is a good example how protein easily switch from its innocent into deadly form by simple shift of pH. My point was that there is no "innocent" proteins especially if they are enzymes - everything must be in place where Mother Nature placed it after 100 million years of experiments. In fact, many diseases are happened when something misplaced at molecular or cellular level. Prion story is very interested - take a look on the Internet. The guy, who discovered it was harassed by his own university for many years until he got the Nobel Prize.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



irwin harlton said:


> FROM "GMO testimony"...
> October 3, 2000...http://www.biotech-info.net/JR_testimony.html


 Surprisingly good presentation. Quite balanced analysis and in simple words - I would recommend to read this. I especially love: _ "Information which is absolutely essential for the independent validation of Biotech company claims regarding the safety of GMO's is unavailable to the GMO consuming public. It is my understanding that FDA policy is similar to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency."_ Again - 10 years later and NOTHING done!


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Nabber86 said:


> So the author supports the use of antibiotics in the hive, but is having a problem with GMOs?... I guess bashing antibiotics is not in vogue anymore because GMOs are a bigger target and do a better job at grabbing the headlines. .


 Antibiotics and GMOs are entirely different stories. If the goal is to deliver a message regarding GMOs, it would be stupid to be distracted by antibiotics. I personally find that making connection between antibiotics and GOPs was smart selling point - people do not want antibiotic-resistant strains!


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> Everything in that piece was derived from speculation. Nothing was shown to prove anything, other than supporting pre determined assumptions


 Non-sense - author referred to well-respected research performed in Europe. It is sad that US (and Canada?) and its citizens are well behind Europe on this matter.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> Not exactly, but prion is a good example how protein easily switch from its innocent into deadly form by simple shift of pH......


Your explanation of the science is fine and I am not going to argue with it. I do however; have some problems with your conclusions:



> My point was that there is no "innocent" proteins especially if they are enzymes - everything must be in place where Mother Nature placed it after 100 million years of experiments.


Biology has no definition of innocence. Anthropomorphism does not help in any scientific argument.
Why must “everything must be in place where Mother Nature placed it after 100 million years of experiments”? (Appeal to nature). 



> In fact, many diseases are happened when something misplaced at molecular or cellular level.


Although it may be true in a general sense, the above statement has not been shown to apply to GMOs. GMOs have been around for over 30 years and unless you can point out instances of GMOs causing disease (or allergies, if that is what you are talking about), then your argument is pure speculation and is further weakened by ignoring 30 years of actual GMO use in the environment. This use represents an enormous amount of data, more than can be gathered in decades of academic research. I believe that the “proof is in the pudding” in this case.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Your explanation of the science is fine and I am not going to argue with it. I do however; have some problems with your conclusions:

Biology has no definition of innocence. Anthropomorphism does not help in any scientific argument. *===>I am sorry, I am not presenting any scientific arguments here - for science we have scientific conferences.*

Why must “everything must be in place where Mother Nature placed it after 100 million years of experiments”? (Appeal to nature). *===> well, because evolution placed every protein in its place by 100 million years long optimization process. *

Although it may be true in a general sense, the above statement has not been shown to apply to GMOs. * ===> yes, I am speaking generally. The basic science is applied to particular cases. If there is no data on GMOs, it does not mean that general science may not be applied - this is a foundation of science - we made a model and apply it to unknown cases. If you disagree - well, I could not help... *

GMOs have been around for over 30 years and unless you can point out instances of GMOs causing disease (or allergies, if that is what you are talking about), then your argument is pure speculation and is further weakened by ignoring 30 years of actual GMO use in the environment. This use represents an enormous amount of data, more than can be gathered in decades of academic research. *===> there is no truthful publicly available data on public health effects of GMOs. There are plenty of data from very respectful scientists that Monsanto genes already contaminated native species in both Americas, which presents serious risk for native species. *

Also, the whole discussion is about proper labeling of the GMOs. Since, there is no proper labeling, how we could collect statistical data on GMOs effects if we just simply do not know what kind and how much GMOs present in the food or other source?

Please, do not ask for references - do your home work before arguing, at least Wikipedia... that GMOs report is also good.
http://www.biotech-info.net/JR_testimony.html


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> Why must “everything must be in place where Mother Nature placed it after 100 million years of experiments”? (Appeal to nature). *===> well, because evolution placed every protein in its place by 100 million years long optimization process. *


*
*
And that lends absolutely nothing to you argument. Next time I get in trouble at work in a scientific debate I guess I will take your approach and say, "Well, that's the way we have always done it, so it must be right." Do you see how ridiculous your position is?




cerezha said:


> MOs have been around for over 30 years and unless you can point out instances of GMOs causing disease (or allergies, if that is what you are talking about), then your argument is pure speculation and is further weakened by ignoring 30 years of actual GMO use in the environment. This use represents an enormous amount of data, more than can be gathered in decades of academic researc*===> there is no truthful publicly available data on public health effects of GMOs. There are plenty of data from very respectful scientists that Monsanto genes already contaminated native species in both Americas, which presents serious risk for native species. *


Already contaminating native species? Presents a serious risks? You have added nothing but more worthless conjecture. I specifically asked for you to provide actual cases of disease caused by GMOs, as you asserted above. I am calling your bluff. Surely you have something to show after more than 30 years of actual use of GMOs in the environment. If you have proof to show, let's see it.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> Non-sense - author referred to well-respected research performed in Europe. It is sad that US (and Canada?) and its citizens are well behind Europe on this matter.


well cited from inconclusive research, 
you say we are behind Europe, I say our government has not been controlled by special group activism

funny how you make use prions in your example when prions have absolutely nothing to do with any of this,.? I know alot about prions , well as much as a lay person can practically know about prions, 
Prions had affected my livelihood with BSE


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Prions are a unique class of protein in itself. It's able to cause an isomeric transition of your native protein which causes cyrstallization of said protein. To de-regulate a GMO event for human consumption, the novel protein is well studied and screened against a database of all known allergies, antigens, pathogens, and toxins. Any hits or even vague similarities it will be rejected.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

I'd like to know what crops have tetracycline resistance in them or is this speculation. The antibiotic marker typically isn't needed in the plant especially if it's Round-Up ready.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Int J Biol Sci. 2010; 6(6): 590–598.
Published online 2010 October 5.
PMCID: PMC2952409
Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests
Joël Spiroux de Vendômois,1 Dominique Cellier,1,2 Christian Vélot,1,3 Emilie Clair,1,4 Robin Mesnage,1,4 and Gilles-Eric Séralini1,4,

Apparently, permission to use Monsanto GMO was issued based on 3-month-long health risk assessment of 40 rats. Monsanto assessment was kept in secrecy and released under court order (in Europe). 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.
de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE.
CRIIGEN, Paris, France.
Abstract

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. NK 603 has been modified to be tolerant to the broad spectrum herbicide Roundup and thus contains residues of this formulation. MON 810 and MON 863 are engineered to synthesize two different Bt toxins used as insecticides. Approximately 60 different biochemical parameters were classified per organ and measured in serum and urine after 5 and 14 weeks of feeding. GM maize-fed rats were compared first to their respective isogenic or parental non-GM equivalent control groups. This was followed by comparison to six reference groups, which had consumed various other non-GM maize varieties. We applied nonparametric methods, including multiple pairwise comparisons with a False Discovery Rate approach. Principal Component Analysis allowed the investigation of scattering of different factors (sex, weeks of feeding, diet, dose and group). *Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, *the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. *Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.* We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded.
---------------------------------
Happy GMOs eating! Sergey


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> funny how you make use prions in your example when prions have absolutely nothing to do with any of this,.? ...


 Ian, I was trying to explain why any foreign protein may present an unexpected health risk. Prion is a good example because it is easily transformed from nothing into evil. If you really want to understand, than you need to study... at school... biochemistry. I am not in position to teach you or change your opinion. If you feel that GMOs are good for you - not a problem, eat it. I do not care. Sergey


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

I believe that article got blasted pretty hard for the unique 'statistical model' they used to come to their 'conclusions'. 

The French High Counsel on Biotechnology (HCB) has considered both the de Vendômois (2009)
and Seralini (2007) papers and has found that these papers make no useful contribution to the safety
assessment.
o The Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) have also dismissed this study, stating,
“Séralini and colleagues have distorted the toxicological significance of their results by placing
undue emphasis on the statistical treatment of data, and failing to take other relevant factors into
account.”
o Most recently, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has weighed in on the matter,
concluding that the study “provides no new evidence of toxic effects.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

>>Ian, I was trying to explain why any foreign protein may present an unexpected health risk.

yet its not, and hasnt been for a long time now, 
unless you figure these proteins are changing into prions, because then we would actually have a problem


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



JRG13 said:


> I believe that article got blasted pretty hard for the unique 'statistical model' they used to come to their 'conclusions'.


 Int J Biol Sci. 2010; 6(6): 590–598. Paper discussed all these issues in details. As I stated above (based on paper), apparently the decision that particular GMOs are safe was made based on Monsanto secret "research", which involves 40 rats to test a health impact of the GMO on humans. Read the paper. If you feel that Monsanto unpublished research is more truthful than research published in peer-reviewed scientific journal (I do not care what politicians think about this research), than, I am sorry - I could not help. Sergey


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> yet its not, and hasnt been for a long time now...


 Well, I am giving up - take a biochemistry class in community college. Sorry, nothing personal.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

I may just be a lay person, and probably need to take a bio chemistry course at my local community college, but I understand something you dont Sergey, 

It was not science that took GMO out of production in Europe, that was activism. 

Cheers!


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Ian said:


> ... It was not science that took GMO out of production in Europe, that was activism.


 Well, I am an "activist" and I am from Europe. I think we need more "activism" rather than less. I also think that activism is a part of democracy. But, freedom to eat food with unknown content is a part of democracy also... I apologize for bad communication. I sincerely tried... Sergey


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> Int J Biol Sci. 2009 Dec 10;5(7):706-26.
> A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health.
> de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE.
> CRIIGEN, Paris, France.
> ...


You indicated that GMOs cause disease and allergies. Showing a link to side effects caused by GMOs in rat study does not prove this. After over 30 years of people consuming GMOs, there should be direct links to disease and allergies. That should be easy to prove by now if there was any truth to your statements.


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



Nabber86 said:


> You indicated that GMOs cause disease and allergies. Showing a link to side effects caused by GMOs in rat study does not prove this. After over 30 years of people consuming GMOs, there should be direct links to disease and allergies. That should be easy to prove by now if there was any truth to your statements.


"Side effect" may cause the disease. There is a fine line between all these words and being ESL,sometime I do not recognize the difference. I apologize for that. If GMO caused liver and kidney problem would you call it "disease"... or if heart enlarged by 40% (!) in rats on GMO "diet"? 

As for your major argument that there is no proven evidence that GMO cause a problem in humans for the past 30 years - this is good argument widely used by big monopolies all around the world for their advantage (not people). In case the GMOs the major problem is that products with GMOs are not labeled properly. Thus, it is not possible to collect ANY statistics on GMO effects on humans. Look, you eat cereal. On the package it says, it contains oats, nuts, corn syrup (just example) etc. How you know that you consume GMOs if it is not in the label? How doctor would know that your problem may relate to GMO if you do not know did you eat GMO or not and what kind of GMO? Research paper like I cited above do not solve our political problems. It just pointed to the area of potential risk. In case of GMO, for instance, they find that 3 GMO tested had a different effect. Also, apparently older adult males effected more. Liver, kidney and the heart are affected. But without knowledge who actually consume GMOs, it is not possible to create a link between scientific observation and public health issue. On top of this, apparently the government(s) is on the Monsanto side accepting its secret unpublished "research" and denying research published in peer-reviewed journal(s). It is very disturbing. After reading those papers, I have to admit, I love Europe less in regards to GMOs - they ignored research in favor Monsanto's 40-rats report. People I mentioned above published new paper - they are on the mission! Did you realize, that they obtained Monsanto secret report via the court decision? Do you really like all these secrets? If GMOs is safe, I am sure Monsanto will publish it in the Science Magazine - this is sort of argument you were using... sorry.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> "Side effect" may cause the disease. There is a fine line between all these words and being ESL,sometime I do not recognize the difference. I apologize for that. If GMO caused liver and kidney problem would you call it "disease"... or if heart enlarged by 40% (!) in rats on GMO "diet"?


I dont care if you call it a disease or a condition, you cant show that GMOs cause liver or kidney problems in humans. Bottom line is that 30+ of actual use in the environment is orders of magnitude more data than can be gathered with lab experiments in the same time period. There would be numerous direct links established by now if GMOs were a problem. 

While you are still fretting over conspiracies, another 30 years of non-issue will go by and you will probably still not be convinced. What is it going to take? 60, 90, 120 years?


----------



## TWall (May 19, 2010)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



cerezha said:


> Int J Biol Sci. 2010; 6(6): 590–598.
> Published online 2010 October 5.
> PMCID: PMC2952409
> Debate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests
> ...


It appears that the statistical models used to design and analyze the data can result in increased errors. It also looks to be suited where a large number of variables are being analyzed. I would think that once significant variables are identified another study done, with a more rigorous experimental design could be performed.

It certainly seems like most of the opponents of GMO technology oppose the technology and assume it has to be bad. Most, if not all, of the genes being transferred are already naturally occuring. They are just transferred to new species. This has to be better than the old way mutations were created to try and find beneficial ones.

Tom


----------



## cerezha (Oct 11, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*



TWall said:


> It appears that the statistical models used to design and analyze the data can result in increased errors. It also looks to be suited where a large number of variables are being analyzed. I would think that once significant variables are identified another study done, with a more rigorous experimental design could be performed.


 Unfortunately, no research was done and research, which was published was refused... sad




TWall said:


> It certainly seems like most of the opponents of GMO technology oppose the technology and assume it has to be bad. Most, if not all, of the genes being transferred are already naturally occuring. They are just transferred to new species. This has to be better than the old way mutations were created to try and find beneficial ones...


 Unfortunately, genes normally introduced by using viral "vectors" - this is exact reason why gene therapy is not widely used on humans - viral vectors are unpredictable and acts differently in different environment sometime causing cancer. As a scientist, I would be very careful with gene manipulation. The problem with GMOs is that it is used but it is not present in the labels and we do not know what is actually present in the food. It is not about science.


----------



## irwin harlton (Jan 7, 2005)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

http://www.apisenterprises.com/papers_htm/ABJ/The World of GMOs.htm


----------



## psfred (Jul 16, 2011)

*Re: Bees & genetically modified crops*

Inserting foreign genes using viral vectors is NOT necessarily better or safer or more effective than standard crop breeding, it's much more prone to unexpected results. Unknown unknows as the lingo goes, meaning that one can be very much surprised by a result completely unanticipated by one's prior research and experience.

There are a number of theoretical problems that remain unresolved, although I don't know of any in actual crop plants, but the notion that the inserted genes are going to stay just where they were up isn't rational. Corn in particular has a very fluid genome, and viable corn pollen travels MUCH further than the evidence indicated when things like BT corn were first introduced. BT corn is now found all over the Americas, probably by simple wind transfer of pollen in native crops, most of which are open pollinated outside the USA. There is also some evidence that genes can travel between species via bacterial or viral gene transfer, we really don't know everything about biology yet.

I'm personally more concerned about the reduction in variation growing just a handful of crop varieties causes -- I'm old enough to remember the Texas Cytoplasm disaster in the early 70's when the majority of the hybrid corn in the US was produced using a single type of male sterile corn (to save on de-tasseling the male parent of the cross) and that particular genome included high susceptibility to a blight. Wiped out a huge part of the corn crop for a least one season. What happens when no one has a separate product and this happens again, as it likely will? No food? Not a good plan.

Peter


----------

