Britain gives go-ahead to GMO potato trials

[Judi Lynn]

Britain gives go-ahead to GMO potato trials



Dec 1, 2006 — LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's farm and environment ministry said on Friday it had given the go-ahead for research trials on disease resistant genetically modified potatoes.

German chemicals group BASF will be allowed to hold trials on two sites in England, starting next year. The GMO potatoes, which have been developed to be resistant to potato blight, will not be used for food or animal feed.

There has been strong opposition among consumers in Britain to the use of GMOs in food crops.
(snip)

Britain's largest organic certification body, the Soil Asssociation, said, however, it was dismayed by the decision, adding there would be no market for GMO potatoes in Britain.
(snip/...)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2692665

[robcon]

1. This is welcome news.

This was 'left out' of your quote, Judi Lynn...

"...Several scientists welcomed the news.

"Potato blight was the cause of the potato famine in Ireland in the 1840s and is still a problem in farming today — one which is prevented by chemical spraying with fungicides," Chris Leaver, plant sciences professor at Oxford University.

"In my opinion using a natural biological method to control blight is better than using chemicals," he added...

[Judi Lynn]

2. Robcon, we are limited to a very few paragraphs.

Don't make an ass of yourself attempting to throw charges around like "left out," as the LINK I posted allows everyone to read for himself.

To imply I am trying to conceal the facts is low, even for you.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Potato blight - Ireland

my understanding of that subject is that the problem could have been partly overcome by simply planting a different type of potato. Tragically that was not known at the time.

One of the issues with GM stuff is that the drug companies may be clever enough to produce strains which produce sterile seeds as they did in India - the first crop is fine but replanting becomes completely impossible.

edit - missed a word out

[Briar]

8. Yes, and suppose the "superior" GM potato

were to become the only type of potato? If a "super" potato blight (and nature finds a way round everything) attacked this strain, even knowing that alternative ones might be resistant would not help us. Monocultures are dangerous, but naturally GM companies would want to make as much profits from their products as possible.

In any case, most Brits don't want this sort of development. The government's ongoing attempts to circumvent our opposition is just another example of its contempt for democratic principles.

[NickB79]

15. A super blight would probably affect all potatoes

Even traditional breeders still have problems with diseases, despite having access to many more varieties of a given crop to work with.

Since there are a number of agribusinesses and countries out there actively pursuing genetically modified crops, why would only one strain be available? There are literally hundreds of strains of non-GM corn, soybeans, oats, wheat, and rice available from these agribusinesses worldwide. No one strain of corn, or any other crop for that matter, has cornered the market. Why would GM crops be any different?

[diamidue]

19. Monsanto New Leaf Superior:

Who could possibly object to a potato that is so toxic it is required to be registered as a pesticide? LOL

I don't believe that any corporation - in conjunction with the govt. or otherwise - has the right to jeopardize a peoples' food supply. I hope the British send BASF packing.

[KansDem]

12. Also, landlord/tenant relationships helped increase the problems...

As a result, the Irish landholding system in the 1840s was already in serious trouble. Many of the big estates, as a result of earlier agricultural crises, were heavily mortgaged and in financial difficulty. (10% were eventually bankrupted by the Great Hunger). Below that level were mass tenancies, lacking long-term leases, rent control and security of tenure, many of them through subdivision so small that the tenants were struggling to survive in good years, and almost wholly dependent on potatoes because they alone could be grown in sufficient quantity and nutritional value on the land left to native ownership, while many tons of cattle and other foodstuffs from estates were exported by absentee British landlords to foreign markets. Furthermore, any desire of tenants to increase the productivity of their land was actively discouraged by the threat that any increase in land value would lead to a disproportionately high increase in rent, possibly leading to their eviction.

From Wikipedia

[SpiralHawk]

29. Mutant Entities worldwide celebrate this turn of events

Mutants uber alles !!!

Meanwhile, the human beings call on scientists to heed the Seven Generations Teaching.

[IntiRaymi]

35. The potato blight was only 1 factor in that famine. Not welcome news.

Death by starvation is caused by political processes, which impede the distribution of food, rather than by the lack of food, or of food producing capabilities in the world.

The only thing that is being attempted here is to produce a source of food that can be copyrighted/patented. See the following links:

Star link corn, genetically engineered, caused cross contamination:
http://www.starlinkcorn.com/starlinkcorn.htm

Canadian farmer, sued by Monsanto for planting patented corn in his farm:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/lawsuit090805.cfm

etc, etc.

[Judi Lynn]

3. GM potato trials given go-ahead

Last Updated: Friday, 1 December 2006, 09:13 GMT

GM potato trials given go-ahead

A plan to grow genetically modified potatoes on two trial sites in England has been approved by the government.

Defra granted permission for BASF Plant Science to grow the vegetables at field sites in Cambridgeshire and Derbyshire.

The crops have been modified to include a gene from a wild species of potato in a bid to make them resistant to blight, a disease costing growers £70m a year.

But the Soil Association said it was "a stupid decision" and warned other crops risked contamination by GM.
(snip/...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6197768.stm

[dipsydoodle]

5. Someone interviewed on the radio,

here in the UK an hour, or so back pointed out that as any GM stuff here would have to be clearly labelled at point of sale they doubted that anyone would actually buy the potatoes.

edit - missed half a word out - doh !

[Judi Lynn]

6. You've got to watch that, you know! Don't even THINK of leaving anything out.

Concerning your law requiring labelling, it's the ONLY decent way of dealing with this stuff.

In this country we are simply stumbling around in the dark going to the market to buy vegetables. We might as well wear blindfolds. We have absolutely no idea whatsoever what it is we're dragging home with us, at least I don't.

There are some vegetables which are so enormous, and perfect looking I can only assume they are GM. They look more like plastic models of the food increased by almost 80%.

You're so lucky that you have caught the problem and can control it at that stage! It treats the consumer with so much more respect to allow honesty into the situation.

Would be wonderful if we could arrange the same thing here someday. It would be worth the effort to contact Congresspeople about it, if we were prepared some of them would laugh in our faces, the ones taking campaign money from Monsanto.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Checkout the Yahoo link to this

There has been strong opposition among consumers in Britain to the use of GMOs in food crops.
>
The largest organic certification body, the Soil Asssociation, said, however, it was dismayed by the decision, adding there would be no market for GMO potatoes in Britain.

"The government is ignoring what consumers want to eat and their health and safety...The chances of anyone in the UK willingly buying GM potato crisps or chips are zero. This trial is a monumental waste of time and money," Soil Association policy director Peter Melchett said.
>
The potatoes would be used in industrial processing, not consumed by humans or animals, but the application is still fiercely opposed by green groups.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/01122006/325/ahead-given-gmo-potato-trials.html

If the activists find them they will destroy them. :)

[Judi Lynn]

9. There's only one acceptable use for them: potato cannons!

Potato Gatling Gun:


other applications:




"Tater Tosser," "Spud Gun," "Carbohydrate Cannon"

Instructions:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/mrion007/potato.htm

[NickB79]

16. These particular potatoes will be used for industrial purposes

So labelling concerns are pointless in this case. They will go to factories, not grocery stores, and I doubt the factories will care if the potatoes are GM or not if it saves them money.

[Nihil]

36. What industrial purposes?

What non-food-related purposes are potatoes used for?

(Not being snarky, just wasn't aware that there were such things :shrug:)

[torrentprime]

10. good

This is welcome news!
Hopefully, some of the crazy, anti-science, anti-GMO fervor will start to die down once these products come to market.

[The2ndWheel]

11. And when there is no crop other than

a GM crop on the market, anyone who opposes it won't be eating, anything, ever. Hooray for killing diversity!

[torrentprime]

13. So GMO=killing diversity

Can you explain or back that up?
Cause I hate to tell you, but GMO and other enhancements to agriculture are the reason all those "impending famine" stories from the 70s didn't come true. The problem was real, but technology found the solution. Breeding better organisms is as old as animal husbandry and farming; why is it somehow evil to do it genetically rather than by breeding?

[Odin2005]

18. The main problem is that technology is often abused by seed companies.

Unfortunately many people then ignorantly blame the technology itself when they should be blaming the lack of regulation.

[The2ndWheel]

26. Dude, seriously, me and you have to go for a drink

Break some bread.

By the way, love the Sagan quote. But, as we both probably know, not for the same reasons.

:toast:

[The2ndWheel]

25. I'm well aware of that

You don't have to hate to tell me anything.

We'll just become more and more dependent on Monsanto or whoever ends up controlling the seed. I can't stop it. Couldn't if I wanted to, because like you said, it's the only reason all those people didn't starve.

Like my good friend Odin2005 says, all we need is regulation. I'm willing to bet Monsanto(or whoever) would love regulation. It would give them even more power as a monopoly. I'm sure they'll write the regulations.

[PaulaFarrell]

28. No one is against advancements in agriculture

Linking GMOs with a solution to world hunger is disingenuous at best. To my knowledge, GMOs did not exist in the 1970s and played no part in the first 'Green Revolution'. Of the existing widely-used GMO varieties, there is no increase in productivity, and resistance to disease and pests seems to be short-lived.

http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2006/07/25/bt_cotton_in_china_fails_to_reap_profit_after_seven_years.html : Although Chinese cotton growers were among the first farmers worldwide to plant genetically modified (GM) cotton to resist bollworms, the substantial profits they have reaped for several years by saving on pesticides have now been eroded.

http://deltafarmpress.com/news/060728-cotton-bollworms/
Bollworms feeding on Bt cotton in Arkansas


GMOs do not arrive in this world through breeding. They are biochemically altered versions of crops containing entirely foreign elements. They are approved under the basis that they are 'substantially the same' - the only GM crop to be tested as thoroughly as a drug was abandoned:

http://www.foodnavigator.com/news/ng.asp?n=64024-gm-peas-protein

GM pea study discontinued after assessment failure


What people object to is being used as guinea pigs in an uncontrolled experiment for the benefit of agro-chemical companies. There is no need for GM food, other than as a way of funnelling more profits to the top seed companies. There is not a shortage of food, only a shortage of money to buy it in some places.

GM foods are an unknown quantity, both in terms of human health and the environment, and there is absolutely no need for them. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle?

[NashVegas]

37. It's the Patents, Darling

Leaving innovation in the hands of open source farmers/gardeners/tinkerers is what has given us bountiful diversity for thousands of thousands of years.

Restricting breeding to the hands of a few approved scientists in order to protect patent "rights," for corporations and their stockholders, kills diversity and removes milenniums of knowledge from the public domain, as unpatented seed gradually becomes less and less available.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. Isn't it the other way around?

Wouldn't GM increase diversity?

[The2ndWheel]

27. Not the way I see it

I know we have different ways of seeing the world from the other thread the other day, but I just don't see how controlling the seed to maximize profit increases diversity. If you can then create one crop as the only crop(what could make more business sense?), you're not only wealthy, you may have more power over life than anyone, anywhere, ever.

[yellowcanine]

40. Actually, GM in and of itself neither increases nor decreases diversity.

At least on a large scale. It may increase diversity within one crop - at least for a while. The problem comes when farmers quit growing traditional cultivars or varieties in favor of the GM varieties - but this is a danger with any improved varieties - not just GM. And it is not a good reason to not use improved varieties. We would have starved a long time ago if varieties of major food crops hadn't been constantly improved. It is one of the ways farmers have kept up with the growing world population. Actually plant breeding programs tend to preserve genetic diversity because breeders collect seed from plant species that may eventually be lost as habitat is lost from increasing development. Then the only way those genes are preserved are in germplasm collections.

[dipsydoodle]

14. They made it perfectly clear

they are not for normal consumption. Over here, generally speaking, most people seem to be anti GM. The subject never gets good press. Your rice remains banned here.

[Miss Chybil]

20. Are Europeans generally in favor of stem cell research?

What's the difference between modifying people and modifying their food? Just curious. I don't know enough about any of this to have formed an opinion. I will be happy if someone would enlighten me.

[wickerwoman]

21. Stem-cell research isn't modifying people...

The way I understand it, stem cells are undifferentiated cells taken from 150 cell blastocysts. They have the potential to become any kind of cell in the human body. If you wind a string of stem-cells around a damaged spinal column, for example, they will become spinal cell tissues allowing people who have snapped their spinal cords to walk again. Theoretically, they could be encouraged to become brain tissue or be used to generate replacement organs. But the key is that they are a naturally occuring substance in humans. All you need to do to get stem cells is fertilize an egg and wait for a week or two. Here, scientists are simply mimicking a natural process- the development of human organs from human stem cells.

GMO means chemically altering the genetic structure of naturally occuring food- for example, adding pesticide to the genetic structure of vegetables to make them more resistant to disease or taking DNA from one animal (like a frog) and mixing it with the DNA of a plant or animal. And because scientists have no real idea what happens when you change the genetic structure of anything, the entire process is fraught with the probability of mishap.

So to me, the distinction is between taking a natural process out of context and engaging in a completely unnatural process (adding poisonous chemicals to the genetic structure of foods that will be ingested.)

It's also a question of scale. Stem-cell research will be used to benefit the sick on a voluntary basis. If you don't want it in your body, you can refuse to be operated on. GMO, especially in the US, will be exposed to everyday Americans often without their knowledge every time they go to the supermarket.

[Miss Chybil]

31. I see where you are coming from, but stem cell research

is also being done to see if scientists can eradicate "faulty" genes from one's body, in order to either rid that person of a propensity for a certain disease, and/or prevent future generations of that gene-line from inheriting that gene. I'm not sure I understand how that is different from doing the same thing to plants, except for the volunteerism angle. I don't see that genetically modifying plants is inducting them with poison. It seems a much safer way to feed our - now much longer living - bodies than to spray our foods with poison. (I'm an organic gardner, by the way, but I'm really trying to look at this from a neutral viewpoint. Besides, aren't hybrid seeds a form of genetic manipulation?)

Now, I do understand things live to die and the very purpose for plants being susceptible to diseases and infestations may very well be to curb overpopulation - not just of the plants but of us and other plant eating creatures, as well. Humans are born to die. Maybe, messing around with "mother nature" is not appropriate for any living species? I guess the question is, is it ever "right" to fool with mother nature? In my view, if we are going to keep ourselves alive longer, via the miracles of modern medicine, we have got to figure out how we are going to eat - safely and at a reasonable price. I guess I see nothing wrong with safely researching our alternatives.

[wickerwoman]

33. I think I'm in basically the same camp...

I used to work on a sheep farm and I don't have a problem with selective breeding of plants or animals or hybridization because those processes can take years or decades and are limited in scale. I think our chances of screwing up are pretty limited and in any case, mistakes can be contained. What I don't trust for a second are companies like Monsanto rushing to throw GMO products on the market with absolutely no idea what the health impact will be.

I see a real difference between spraying and GMO. I can wash my produce, but once the pesticide is inside the genetic structure of the plant, there's no getting it out. And there's no way to know how it's accumulating or how it will react to other chemicals, either in the plant or in my body.

I'm trying really, really hard not to be a flat-earther on this issue. I don't think there's necessarily a problem with "messing with Mother Nature"- I'd be the first to throw a premie baby onto life support or sign up for chemo if I had cancer. But I think we don't know nearly enough about where this kind of research is going to bring it to the market. Research... yes. Use consumers as guinea pigs... no.

[Eurobabe]

22. Let them keep their frankenfoods in the Isles, please

don't foist it on the rest of us in Europe. :mad:

Mr. Potato Head is NOT going to like this!!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. "foist it on the rest of us in Europe"? This is a German company

which is already doing trials with this in Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. It isn't "the Isles" that is foisting it on anyone.

[Eurobabe]

30. My bad, I didn't read the whole clip before firing off my reply

This is a disgrace. So how does one complain loudly to BASF in GERMANY? No to FRANKENFOODS!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. This sounds OK to me - using genes from wild potatoes in cultivated ones

is, after all, what plant breeders have always done. This isn't a radical difference in the potato. And while there's a complaint "consumers don't want this", this might mean a chemical fungicide spray can stop being used - which is something a lot of people want.

[PaulaFarrell]

32. It's the principle really

The fact is that once the gene is spliced in, it's not a potato as we know it any more and it doesn't really matter that much where they get the gene from. ALtough the companies tend to present genes as though they have simple transferrable characteristics it is nowhere near that simple.

The idea that this will allow chemicals not to be used is mainly wisful thinking - it hasn't worked out that way with bt cotton or roundup ready soybeans, in spite of the similar promises by the agro-chem companies. ANy immunity will be likely short-lived due as has proved with other crops.

[NashVegas]

38. But Plant Breeders Have Never Patented the Results or Techniques!

That's where the problem lies.

[Jcrowley]

34. The greed gene kicks in

1. BASF company profile

BASF Plant Science GmbH is an affiliate of the world's largest chemicals & drugs corporation BASF - Badishe Analin und Soda Fabrik, whose net profit jumped by 50% to €3.007 billion on sales of €42.745 billion in 2005.

Based in Germany, BASF is a former member of the notorious IG Farben conglomerate which was the financial core of the Hitler régime. IG Farben owned the patent and was the main supplier of the cyanide-based insecticide Zyklon-B, used by Nazi Germany to murder millions of Jews in concentration camps. IG Farben built a factory at Auschwitz using 83,000 slave labourers. After the war, IG Farben split into its original companies some of which survive today as Agfa, BASF and Bayer, while Hoechst merged with the French Rhône-Poulenc Rorer to form Aventis. After the war, IG Farben co-founded the Chemagrow Corporation to develop and test chemical warfare agents in collaboration with the U.S. Army Chemical Corps. In 1967, the IG Farben Trust entered into a joint venture with Monsanto. BASF, Bayer, Aventis and Monsanto are leading producers of GMO crops. None of the above is meant to denigrate the scientists who work at BASF today, who no doubt believe GM crops are good for humanity. The point is that the agribiotech and weapons industries are historically linked.

Bayer CropScience L.P. is currently being sued in US Federal Court along with Monsanto Co. and Delta & Pine Land Co. by 90 Texas cotton farmers who say they have suffered widespread crop losses because the companies failed to warn them of a defect in their GM cotton. The lawsuit, filed in Federal Court in Texas, seeks an injunction against what it calls a longstanding campaign of deception and asks the court to award both actual and punitive damages. One of the plaintiffs, farmer Alan Stasney, said the crop failure cost him $250,000 in lost sales and forced him to refinance his farm.

<snip>

4. How are these GMO potatoes different from ordinary spuds?

These GMO potatoes have been modified by introducing mixtures of foreign genetic material: genes from a wild Mexican potato variety Solanum bulbocastanum (Ornamental nightshade) that provides some resistance to the late potato blight fungus Phytopthora infestans; marker genes from mouse-ear cress Arabidopsis, a plant related to cabbage and mustard that conveys tolerance to "Imazamox" herbicide (which contains banned Imidazolinones); two vector genes from pathogenic bacteria called Agrobacterium tumefaciens.

http://www.gmfreeireland.org/potato/index.php

[amandabeech]

39. So the new potato will have genes from non-potato plants as well.

It may be that regular hybridization techniques could produce a potato eventually that would contain the blight-resistant properties of the wild potato. I wouldn't have any problems with hybridzation.

Mouse-ears, mustard and Agobacterium tumefaciens, however, are for me a whole different issue.

[yellowcanine]

41. Why? It is more or less an accident of evolution that some genes ended up in

one plant versus another. Most of these plants are not going to survive in the wild. As long as reasonable precautions are taken to keep GM genes from migrating to wild plant relatives, I do not have a great deal of difficulty with wide transplantation of genes.