Site Meter

Thursday, October 25, 2012

GE "snakes"

It's what he's slithering through that's at issue



















GE 'snakes' here

(In this 'letter to the editor' I drew attention to the use of genetically modified cotton seed feed that is being used throughout the country now, something that surprised me for its lack of coverage in the media, or at least lack of reaction from ordinary people. Consequently, I was keen to open discussion on the importation and use of genetically engineered plant materials here. As well, I am following up on reports I've heard about Fonterra's financial supporting of ge pasture-grass field trials in Australia which again, don't receive any press coverage here, that I've seen anyway. )

No-one would import and release snakes into New Zealand, would they?
Our “snake-free” status would be ruined and our reputation amongst tourists seriously damaged.
And surely no-one would import genetically modified organisms into the country and release them across our farmland. That would spoil our GE-free reputation ruin our market advantage.
But someone has.
Dairy cows throughout New Zealand are now eating genetically-engineered cotton seed, imported from Australia.
Cows turn whatever they eat into milk. Until recently, the milk we've been drinking has been GE-free and we have been very lucky to be able to get it, but those times, it seems, have gone.
There's talk too, of GE-pasture grasses being developed overseas with New Zealand and our dairy farms in mind. We might soon have genetically-engineered grass growing across the country.
It's very unlikely that New Zealand will ever have serpents on the loose – our biosecurity “net” will keep those out, but it looks as though the genetically-engineered “snake in the grass” is already here.

ROBERT GUYTON
Riverton 

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Farmers have to pay for increasing regulation cost some how. GM is one way to achieve this.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Very good, Mr E - a quick answer and a spurious one too!
Increasing regulation protects the environment from rapid and poorly self-managed development.Farmers know it has to be that way and must account for it when setting budgets or investing in expansion or intensification. We should all be very thankful that councils signal loudly and clearly what to expect. The claim that introducing genetically engineered organisms into the environment is somehow necessary because of the cost of regulations, is, as I began, spurious :-)
Nice to see you back again, nevertheless.

Anonymous said...

Your response is interesting for a person of regulatory standing. Pretty quick to judge and discount in my view.
As proof there is more to the debate than might meet your eye, I will explain further.
Simply budgeting for increased regulation cost does not offset regulation cost. Sure you can spend less on variable costs like fertiliser, but that often leads to lower production and lower profit and for many a greater and somewhat scarey loss.
When fixed costs increase and product prices decease, farmers need to find options that will provide good economic gains. Otherwise brokeville is just around the corner. GM could hold such potential and in my opinion should be at least considered. Part of that consideration is risk assessment which I understand to be thorough by those that review such things.

It is worth noting that the sheep, beef and deer industry (as well as others) have invested in this research. I am not sure why you insist on singling out the dairy industry? Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Surely, Mr E, you are not suggesting that ES' regulatory costs are excessive?
My reason for focusing on the dairy industry relates to the subject of my post. The ge cottonseed and ge pasture grasses are for dairy cows and it's Fonterra that's financing the research. Seems logical to me. Considering GM, as you say, is reasonable, however the 'considering' is being done soley by the industry, not by anyone else, hence my keeness to advertise the situation to the wider public. We all live in this environment.

Anonymous said...

I made no reference to the level of regulation cost, simply that has been increasing. Increases need to be met with lifts in production or efficiency. GM grass could possibly provide that. Money for rates doesn't magically appear. It comes from production.
Singling out the dairy industry for GE research is not fair in my eyes. Other animal farming industries are involved too. I for one congratulate them. It is a logical move.

"Considering is being done solely by the industry"? Really? Here I was thinking that there was a government department called ERMA involved in such decisions.

robertguyton said...

Nope. From what I hear it's just Fonterra that's funding ge pasture grass research and trials in Aussie. have you heard different?
Does your enthusiasm for genetic modification mean that you have no faith in conventional breeding methods?

Anonymous said...

If we are talking about the same thing, then the pastoral genomics group is funded by many groups.
Grass breeding is effective but slow. If we can safely get more from grass for less, the benefits help everyone, potentially even the environment.

robertguyton said...

It sounds as though you are correct, Mr E.
I was sent this link by a friend. You might be interested in it, though it's perhaps a little reactionary for your liking.


http://youtu.be/w0TQWqVosn8

robertguyton said...

"Grass breeding is effective but slow.

But is it too slow? What's the rush anyway? Pushing into genetically engineering seems too risky/foolhardy a response to me. I don't see any justification for it, other than to increase production/profit. Those are poor reasons, imo, when there are more reliable, tried and true processes available.
If we can safely get more from grass for less,
Have you reason to believe ge grasses are without risk? I'd like to hear your reasoning.
the benefits help everyone, potentially even the environment.
Every development can be excused by saying 'it will help the environment', when the claim that 'you can't be in the green if you are in the red' is believed. It's easy enough to justify anything, but equally easy to argue the opposite. If you are going to claim that ge grasses, for example, reduce greenhouse gas production, I'd expect you to hold to the idea that greenhouse gas production is a real concern.

Anonymous said...

Last time I looked the best grass variety was growing 12% more than the 1950's variety. That is 0.2% per year. Slow relative to inflation and particularly inflation of council rates.
Why is cisgenic any more dangerous than normal plant breeding? There are a lot more rules and precautions around cisgenics than typical plant breeding. We are already growing herbicide resistant crops in Southland which were formed by typical plant breeding.
Reducing greenhouse gas emission could be a byproduct of cisgenics. Sure a useful marketing tool, but also worth noting when considering risks vs benefits. Also worth noting is the potential for more grass from less nutrient. Something that I would have thought would have been right up your alley?
Please note I am more than happy to concede that some people are really concerned about green house gases. That is obvious.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

"We are already growing herbicide resistant crops in Southland which were formed by typical plant breeding."

Are we?? Which ones? I'm very interested to hear that.

More grass from less nutrient. Mr E, how is that possible? Perhaps you mean swifter and more efficient up-take, but to me that only leads to more pressure for production (if the paddock can support more, give it more!!)

"Why is cisgenic any more dangerous than normal plant breeding?"

Is nromal plant breeding dangerous in any way at all? Can you expand on that?

GE plants are invariable more dangerous than their non-ge brothers, according to a great deal of literature. I don't ever read that conventionally developed crops are dangerous, yet I do read that ge-crops pose risks to human health and the environment, especially insects.
Have you heard different.
Did you watch the video I linked to?

Anonymous said...

Swedes, turnips and rape. NZ wide we are growing chemical resistant varieties. You need to get out more.

More grass from less nutrients. The 12% more I described had the same nutrient inputs but yielded 12% more. Imagine what cisgenics could achieve.

There is every chance that normal plant breeding could pose risks. After all plant breeders are often faced by mutations. I am sure you have come across plant chimaera in your garden? Potentially mutation. And plant breeders regularly select for it. Some plant breeders go to great lengths to find it. One of the most commonly criticised GE achievements is herbicide resistance and it can be achieved by plant breeding and is very common in NZ.

Mr E

robertguyton said...

I didn't know that. If plants can be bred to resist herbicides, then there is no need for genetic engineering, is there.
I will research the herbicide-resistant brassica crops of NZ, to fill in the gap in my education.
I don't suppose you'd provide a link or two?
I have to say, I believed there was no herbicide resistant swede seed.
I am surprised that you feel threatened by naturally-occurring plant mutations, but not by those created in the lab.

Anonymous said...

Oh and I watched the link and am aware of the Pusztai controversy. Most significant was the overwhelming criticism of his research methodology by fellow scientists.
Anti GE lobbyists have lapped it up regardless.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

"Southern farmers who trialled a new brassica seed say it did the job but has to be priced right on the market.

A new range of high-end brassica seed tolerant to a herbicide designed to kill competing weeds, was trialled by Southland and Otago farmers."

Last updated 07:43 13/09/2012

That's quite a recent article - is this brassica very new?

Anonymous said...

Google cleancrop. It has been grown for 2 years I think?
But small scale.
Remember the term slow Robert. I understand herbicide resistance was achieved by accident, or so I am told. Cisgenics speed up genetic change. Otherwise we wait for the odd fluke to happen.

Mr E

robertguyton said...

Herbicide resistance is a two-edged sword, Mr E. I note that chickweed has developed resistance to it's "cides". That's bound to be the way for other presently resistant crops. management regimes that are intelligent and agile are better than applications of biocides, in my view.
You haven't attended to my mentions of the downsides of genetic engineered organisms at all. You seem oblivious to any potential or real threats. let alone the threat to our 'brand'. Even Fonterra are saying they don't want to imperril our ge-free status. Have you no thoughts about that?

Anonymous said...

Ha. Brand, really. When you are drawing attention to GE use in NZ are you really worried about brand NZ? Makes for a good story though.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

" When you are drawing attention to GE use in NZ"

You make it sound like a bad thing. I'm for transparency and freedom of information. Truth will out, that sort of thing. Are you suggesting that discussion about farming practices should be a no-no - Shhhhhh! People will find out!!!
My immediate concern about ge is loss of integrity of the environment. Secondly, the threat to our food chain, Thirdly, the availability of seeds to ordinary people, fourthly, the growing influence of ge companies and corporations in NZ, fifthly etc. Our brand doesn't concern me so much, but it should industry, and it does, so I've heard.

robertguyton said...

Me E@7:40

Have they?
I didn't.
Most climate scientists, I note, criticise the methodology and findings of the denier-scientists.
Just saying.

Anonymous said...

Robert @ 7.11am
I have not seen any big GE secrets. I think industry has been pretty forth coming about GE use. And I think they are pretty sensible not to use it as a leading marketing tool.
A few claim that it could damage our image. Some of those people are more worried about their own image.

robertguyton said...

Anonymous - have you not?
I don't recall seeing Fonterra being forthcoming about their involvement with ge-pasture grass trials.
You are pleased that they are not using it as a "leading marketing tool", but no-one suggested that they might. They would get immediately challenged if they did, and in a very visible way, I imagine.
Those who claim that it would damage the industry's brand or the country's image, are generally people inside of the industry, in my experience. I'm surprised that you are so dismissive of them.

Anonymous said...

And I don't recall fonterra ever being secretive about investing in GE grass. It has been public knowledge for years. Just because a particular political party has only caught up with the story and decided they can get some mileage out of it, doesn't mean it has been a big secret. There's no controversy there Robert, as far as I can see.

I would also say your experience differs from mine. If you google GE and fonterra most of the titles are not by those in the industry.

robertguyton said...

I didn't know that Fonterra has been advertising it's involvement with ge-grass trials. I hadn't heard anything at all until recently. Perhaps I need to read the Straight Furrow more closely. No political party that I know of is making anything of the issue. There certainly is though, controversy around it. People I've spoken to seemed entirely unaware and immediately concerned by the 'news'. We'll see. As for googling Fonterra, I don't believe I ever have. I prefer to get my views through other sources and like to talk to people face to face in order to gauge what the 'man in the street' thinks.