Whats up with WA

RupertofOZ

A new independent peer-reviewed study has found clear evidence of health-related risks associated with three different genetically engineered (GE) corn varieties.

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

The study analysed the results of feeding studies on three varieties of GE corn (MON810, MON863 and NK603) and found evidence of liver and kidney toxicity in rats fed the corn. All three varieties have been approved by our food regulator Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) as safe to eat and are allowed in our food.

The GE crop industry has long argued that GE crops reduce pesticide use. A recent report, Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years, discredits such claims.

http://www.organic-center.org/science.p ... ort_id=159

GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds

earthbound

They have such catchy names too.. MON810, MON863 and NK603

Chappo

I think I use those names for my next batch of kids ,, yes very catchy:)

Chatty

Taken from the paper referenced above.

Quote:

There were also two comparative control groups fed diets containing similar quantities of the closest isogenic or parental maize variety. Furthermore, groups of animals were also fed with diets containing one of six other normal (non-GM) reference maize lines; the same lines for the NK 603 and MON 810 tests, but different types for the MON 863 trials. We note that these unrelated, different non-GM maize types were not shown to be substantially equivalent to the GMOs. The quantity of some sugars, ions, salts, and pesticide residues, do in fact differ from line to line, for example in the non-GM reference groups. This not only introduced unnecessary sources of variability but also increased considerably the number of rats fed a normal non-GM diet (320) compared to the GM-fed groups (80) per transformation event, which considerably unbalances the experimental design. A group consisting of the same number of animals fed a mixture of these test diets would have been a better and more appropriate control. In addition, no data is shown to demonstrate that the diets fed to the control and reference groups were indeed free of GM feed.

A full desktop study would mean that you would need to ascertain if the absence or presence of the above differences in feed actually caused the opposite. ie, did the presence of a sugar, ion, salt or pesticide residue cause the reduction in spleen size of the rats fed the 'normal' diet compared to the GM diet? There are some issues with the control diet presented in this study that make the results difficult to interpret.

Chatty

Chatty

I find it interesting that GMO's are somehow condemned for their ability to induce herbicide resistance. The link below identifies all known populations of herbicide resistant weeds in the world.

http://www.weedscience.org/summary/MOASummary.asp

Keep in mind that the chronological accuracy of the populations will be poor. It will often take a number of years for a population to be noticed and brought to the attention of those who will do the screening for resistance. It's interesting to note that the first case of glyphosate resistance recorded in Australia was in Victoria in 1996.

The two links below are to the website of the Western Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, set up to research mechanisms by which plants develop resistance and also to understand how widespread this problem is across WA. Note that this data is from their 2005 survey. They did another survey like this in 2005 or 2006 (can't remember now) and the incidence of resistance has continued to increase unabaited.

http://www.wahri.uwa.edu.au/extension/n ... _survey_mo
http://www.wahri.uwa.edu.au/extension/n ... _survey_mw

Chatty

Chatty

RupertofOZ wrote:

In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties.

There would be a fair few Cotton farmers in NSW who would be pretty please they don't have to spray 12 - 15 times per season with endosulfan. OK, so they spray more Roundup.

I know what i'd rather have being sprayed on my food.

Chatty

Chatty

Just looking through that listing of herbicide resistant populations, it is interesting to note that atrazine resistance first developed in the US in the 1970's. Atrazine would have been one of their major herbicide tools for use in Corn. In 30 years we didn't see the corn industry in the US crash and burn.

Chatty

Dufflight

Chatty wrote:

RupertofOZ wrote:

In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties.

There would be a fair few Cotton farmers in NSW who would be pretty please they don't have to spray 12 - 15 times per season with endosulfan. OK, so they spray more Roundup.

I know what i'd rather have being sprayed on my food.

Chatty

We used to check crops for heliothis and the standard was about 10sq mtrs over the crop, what ever the size of the crop. It was common to be in a padock for a couple of hrs and see an agronomist and the grower walk in a couple of mtrs into the crop look down and then tell us they were going to spray in an hr. Problem was the first 50mtrs of a crop does not give an accurate reading for the crop and we may have been in there for hrs and not found anything but predator insects. If the cotton farmers stoped spraying heliothis it goes from the top of the food chain to the bottom. Sap suckers are the main threat then and they can be sprayed with low level sprays. I say stop giving agronomists kick backs for using chemicals to start with.

Chatty

Dufflight wrote:

I say stop giving agronomists kick backs for using chemicals to start with.

Pretty broad statement. Not all Agronomists sell stuff. There's a reason why the big cotton players employ their own agronomists to advise when they should and shouldn't spray. Spraying costs money.

Chatty

Dufflight

Even the ones that the farmer employs has a deal set up for the amount of chemical they advise to use in a given year. One guy told us he made more from the chemical company than he did from the grower. Like a doctor that gets a bonus for prescribing a particular drug.
Could be a broad statement but I do live in the cotton capital. But I'm sure there could be Agronomists out there that would tear up a cheque from the chemical company on moral grounds. :lol:

Backyard Aquaponics A place to discuss aquaponics

Whats up with WA

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics