greenpeace

A Letter To The Logging Company That Is Suing Greenpeace

gregladen — Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:56:45 +0000

A Letter To The Logging Company That Is Suing Greenpeace

This is interesting.

It is a letter from Hachette Livre, a major international publisher, to Resolute Forest Products, the group that is trying to sue a number of environmental groups into submission. (See these posts: Taking The Axe To The Environmental Movement: Resolute v. Greenpeace and Freedom of Speech, Resolute Forestry, Stand.Earth, Greenpeace: New Developments) Hachette Livre uses Resolute, and seems to be a significant customer of the tree cutting pulp giant. And, they are giving Resolute a little what for:

HACHETTE LIVRE’S COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Richard Garneau Produits forestiers Résolu

Vanves, June 8h, 2017

Dear Mr Garneau,

My company, Hachette Livre, is a customer of Resolute, and has been for many years. Our US subsidiary, Hachette Book Group, buys substantial quantities of FSC-certified ground wood paper from your Canadian mills.

We enjoy a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship. As you probably know, Hachette Book Group, as its parent company Hachette Livre, has very high environmental standards that both companies advertise in their corporate brochures and web sites. We have a history of working productively with various environmental NGOs such as Rainforest Action Network, for instance.

Greenpeace has recently attracted our attention to the conflict between it and Resolute that has erupted into a significant legal battle.

I have no intention of getting involved in the dispute, for as publishers, we have neither the expertise nor the resources to forge an educated opinion as to who is right and who is wrong in what seems to be a complex set of highly technical issues.

I would simply like to respectfully make two points.

The first is that our commitment to FSC is the cornerstone of our Social and Environmental Responsibility policy.

As such, it cannot suffer exceptions to suit a particular situation or a specific vendor. I therefore urge you to do everything in your power to retain the FSC certifications you have in Canada and more specifically, those that are necessary to meet our environmental requirements. It is of vital importance to us.

The other point I would like to make, not as a customer but as a publisher and a citizen, is that the vigor of your legal response to Greenpeace under RICO statutes strikes me as excessive. It is a very disturbing turn of events for publishers like us, who cherish public debate as an essential dimension of our activity and include many conservationists and environmentalists in our list of authors. Indeed, an escalation of the legal dispute could cause some authors to decline having their books printed on Resolute’s paper, further complicating the situation.

Needless to say, we cherish just as much the rule of law and respect the right to seek legal remedy, but I wonder whether there might not be other ways to respond to Greenpeace’s claims.

Let me put it this way: At a time when the United States has decided to turn its back on climate change by reneging on its commitment to the Paris Accord, we believe we need more than ever independent NGOs such as Greenpeace. Without them, who will speak up for the environment in the future?

I hope these suggestions will give you pause, if not meet with your approval.

This letter will be posted on our company web site after you have received it.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope you are able to resolve this dispute soon.

Sincerely,

Arnaud Nourry

I do want to go back to this sentence:

I have no intention of getting involved in the dispute, for as publishers, we have neither the expertise nor the resources to forge an educated opinion as to who is right and who is wrong in what seems to be a complex set of highly technical issues.

That is utter bullshit, embarrassingly stupid, and I have no idea why they would say this. I want to know how much this guy pays for his milk. But otherwise, it is a good letter.

gregladen Wed, 06/14/2017 - 03:56

Tags

Freedom of Speech, Resolute Forestry, Stand.Earth, Greenpeace: New Developments

gregladen — Wed, 24 May 2017 15:03:10 +0000

Freedom of Speech, Resolute Forestry, Stand.Earth, Greenpeace: New Developments

A little while back I posted this: Taking The Axe To The Environmental Movement: Resolute v. Greenpeace.

Some of you complained because you don't like Greenpeace. But that is hardly the point. Greenpeace has a history of working towards important goals and sometimes even attaining them, and there are a lot of whales that want you to lay off and give them credit.

Anyway, the point of that post was to let you know about a SLAPP lawsuit Greenpeace had been slapped with by Resolute Forest Products.

The long and the short of it is this: Resolute, if they get legal traction and win, are setting up a situation where environmental advocates can be told to sit down and shut up because their activism opposes businesses doing business the way they want to. That is not something you want to happen.

Anyway, we have this development. This is not from Greenpeace, but from Stand.Earth, another organization being threatened:

THURSDAY MAY 18, 2017 • Posted by Todd Paglia, Executive Director, Stand.earth

You may have never heard of Resolute Forest Products, Canada’s largest logging company, but you’re likely to be hearing more about the wayward company in the coming months. Resolute CEO Richard Garneau has earned a reputation as a thin-skinned executive who bullies and threatens his employees, competitors and critics. The parallels between him and Trump are uncanny -- to the point that when he sued my organization (Stand.earth) and Greenpeace -- he hired the law firm that Trump used to threaten the New York Times for publishing his tax returns and which vigorously defended Bill O’Reilly against multiple charges of sexual harassment.

Garneau’s lawsuit against us is pure bully strategy – come up with an outlandish legal strategy that forces your non-profit critics to spend precious resources defending themselves. Not very elegant or admirable, but it’s a $300 million (Canadian) legal threat nevertheless. Just like Trump is thankfully running into the constraints that our democracy provides, Garneau is crashing into the reality of the justice system. This week he got his first surprise, and likely not his last.

Garneau brought the lawsuit against us in one of the most inconvenient places possible – and an area he presumably believed held plenty of sympathy toward logging companies: the Southern District of Georgia. This week the court ruled that the lawsuit should be heard in the Northern District if California, where many of the key staff for both Stand.earth and Greenpeace live and where we both have offices.

We thought this change in venue was unlikely to be granted given that the judge was a fair-minded but conservative Bush appointee and he seemed unlikely to have a lot of sympathy for advocacy groups. His order this week may be an indication of just how ludicrous this case is.

Resolute may try to appeal having their case removed from Southern Georgia to San Francisco, but their hands are tied - the judge has broad discretion to “transfer” a case and once he does so it is extremely hard to reverse. It gives us a great jury pool, a better chance at a more progressive judge, the amazing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should an appeal occur, and a location that is easy for us to get to.

You might wonder whether the Resolute Board of Directors is paying any attention to the company they bear fiscal and legal responsibility for. Their CEO has presided over a plummeting share price (from over $20 two years ago to under $5 today) and the company has questionable business fundamentals (Resolute made a huge bet on, of all things, the newsprint market among other questionable calls). Despite a faltering business, Garneau appears obsessed with bringing down Stand.earth and Greenpeace. Garneau has spent millions of the company’s funds pursuing what appears to be nothing more than a personal vendetta. Now his already incredibly remote prospects of winning are fading further.

On top of all that, Garneau’s behavior has made many of the big brands that it sells to uncomfortable. Who wants to be known as doing business with a company serially suing non-profits and attacking the First Amendment? As the judge in his ruling stated: the lawsuit claims that we “illegally criticized” Resolute’s clearcut logging practices. Criticism may be illegal in Russia and maybe that’s where Garneau should be pursuing his lawsuit. Dozens of Resolute customers have reduced or eliminated their purchases from the rogue logging company. That seems likely to pick up pace.

Book publishers like Penguin, Random House, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster are still doing business with Resolute despite the company’s destructive logging and anti-First Amendment problems. They and other big brands will be increasingly faced with choosing between being loyal to a company like Resolute or living up to their values. The choice is clear.

Whether the Resolute Board of Directors ever reels in their increasingly unhinged CEO, the company is in trouble. It is a brand risk to do business with Resolute on multiple levels already. And, Garneau has established himself as a Trumpian CEO who is obsessed with spending company time and money threatening critics instead of focusing on the business he is supposed to be running.

Resolute’s future looks turbulent at best. Sound familiar?

Go here to help them out if you like.

And now, an inspiring video for you to watch and share:

gregladen Wed, 05/24/2017 - 11:03

Tags

Taking The Axe To The Environmental Movement: Resolute v. Greenpeace

gregladen — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:34:44 +0000

Taking The Axe To The Environmental Movement: Resolute v. Greenpeace

A major Canadian logger appears to be using a pair of law suits to end the existence of Greenpeace and to stop or curtail pro-environmental activities by other organizations operating in North America, or perhaps, generally.

This activity is being carried out by Resolute Forest Products. This is a rapidly developing story. Aside from the usual sources of information, I had a long conversation with a representative of Greenpeace. I also refer you to this blog post.

Resolute Forest Products is one of North America’s largest converters of forest into pulp, ultimately to be used to make paper. They do other things as well. Back in 2010, Resolute Forest Products joined a group of 30 entities, including other forestry companies as well as environmental organizations such as Greenpeace. The group, called the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, intended to reduce negative impacts on the northern boreal forests caused by companies like Resolute.

Resolute, for its part, is said to have stonewalled movement in any positive direction, and eventually, Greenpeace Canada and others dropped out of the agreement. Greenpeace Canada then produced a report, in May 2013, outlining alleged deception by Resolute about the sustainability of their products. Generally, Greenpeace has been encouraging pulp customers to select producers that log sustainably, and that appears to annoy Resolute. That started a relatively complex back and forth between Resolute and Greenpeace, and other Canadian stakeholders, including a $7 million defamation suite by resolute against Greenpeace Canada as well as two of its staff members.

To get caught up on the environmental arguments concerns at hand, see Endangered Forests in the Balance: The impact of logging reaches new heights in the Montagnes Blanches Endangered Forest.

And now this ongoing battle is heating up again.

At present, there are two new significant suits by Resolute Forest Products, one against Greenpeace Canada, the other against Greenpeace International. The latter is said to have been filed in the US because the limitations on liability are much higher; Indeed, the Canadian suit is for millions, while the US based suit is for hundreds of millions. Along with these legal actions, Resolute is, again, directly attacking individuals and not just the company.

It is generally believed by observers that Resolute intends to use this legal action to end Greenpeace. Other environmental organizations are concerned that this type of suit may end their efforts as well.

Many will consider this a SLAPP suit. This is a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” A SLAPP “… is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.*”

The US based law suit uses RICO statute. RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and was created to allow prosecutors important tools to go after previously nearly untouchable organized crime entities. Apparently, legal experts view the RICO suit against Greenpeace International to be absurd and unwinnable. That is what would make it a SLAPP. All Resolute has to do is pour a few tens of millions into the effort, and Greenpeace will have to give in. Unless, of course, judges throw the suits out early enough.

In addition to going after Greenpeace, Resolute has named Stand.earth as an additional target in their RICO suit. (See this for a list of the many legal documents related to these suits). From Stand.earth:

Can a lumber company sue its grassroots public interest critics? While some courts say no, yesterday Resolute Forest Products filed a civil RICO lawsuit in United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. Incredibly, the suit complains that Greenpeace and Stand (formerly ForestEthics) have acted as a “criminal enterprise” in their public interest advocacy to stop destructive logging and protect waterways, wildlife, and communities in the boreal forest of Canada.

Stand believes this suit is entirely without merit and is a clear attempt to silence its most powerful grassroots critics. In addition, CEO Richard Garneau has overseen multiple free speech lawsuits during his tenure against individuals and organizations, and led the company to five consecutive years of a slumping stock.

Pulp: The coal of the wood industry

Why is this happening? The most obvious reason is that Resolute is tired of having their lack of sustainable practice pointed out to them by organizations like Greenpeace. There may even be a cost to Resolute, in that customers are increasingly demanding that sustainable practices be followed by extractive industries such as logging. Indeed, I expect that one response to the Resolute legal action will be an effort to pressure book publishers to use paper made from sustainably produced pulp.

So there’s that, but there is probably more to it. Resolute is part of a rapidly declining industry: North American pulp. Resolute could scale down its overall expectations and become the sustainable pulp producer. Or, it could barrel into the future full speed ahead, using up whatever expanse of the northern forest it can lay it’s saws on before getting stopped. It seems to be doing the latter.

Over the last fifty years or so, the production of paper has gone up significantly (from tens of millions of tons in 1960 to over 350 millions of tons more recently). People will tell you that the internet killed off paper production, but that seems not quite true. Paper production does not increase each year as much as it formerly did, but it still increases.

But two other things have happened. For one, the amount of paper that is recycled has also gone up, but at a slightly slower rate than overall paper production. So, that shift from 10 to 350 million tons a year of paper, an increase of about 30 times, is actually an increase of about 10 or 15 times for the virgin pulp some paper is made out of. Related is the use of more wood waste to make pulp instead of virgin timber.

The other factor is the shift in pulp and paper production to places other than North America, so from a North American perspective, pulp looks a lot like coal: it is a dying business.

Putting all this together, and you can see that Greenpeace is really Resolute’s smaller problem. The bigger problem is a dramatic and ongoing decline in its own market.

I would have thought this would be the ideal time go go full on rogue sustainable, and be the one company that produces most of the sustainable pulp in a world where North Americans will tolerate nothing else. But apparently I do not work at Resolute, do I?

Stay tuned!

gregladen Sat, 04/29/2017 - 06:34

Tags

Greenpeace names names

gregladen — Tue, 20 Jan 2015 09:48:06 +0000

Greenpeace names names

You'll recall that a while back, Greenpeace activists entered a restricted zone in Peru, where the Nasca Lines are preserved, and messed with that important archaeological site. I wrote about it here.

At the time, the individuals who had carried out this unthinkable act managed to drift off into obscurity, and Greenpeace seemed unwilling to provide Peruvian authorities with their names.

Now, they have done so. Partially.

From Bloomberg Businessweek:

Greenpeace has provided Peruvian authorities with the identities of the four foreign activists principally responsible for vandalizing the Nazca Lines heritage site during last month’s international climate negotiations in Lima, Bloomberg Businessweek has learned. ...

“Lawyers representing Greenpeace are driving from Lima to Nazca now to deliver our report to the Peruvian prosecutor,” Mike Townsley, the chief spokesman for Greenpeace International, said on Monday evening. “We have said from the start that this action was wrong, it was crass, it was insensitive, it shouldn’t have happened, and we would cooperate with Peruvian authorities to set things right.”

The mastermind of the Nazca Lines action was Wolfgang Sadik, a veteran campaigner with Greenpeace Germany, the Greenpeace report reveals. Two of the other three activists named in the report also work for Greenpeace Germany: Martin Kaiser, who was responsible for all of Greenpeace’s actions at the Lima summit, and Isis Wiedemann, Greenpeace’s chief communications officer at the summit. The fourth individual is Mauro Fernandez, a staffer with Greenpeace Argentina who served as an interpreter during the Nazca action. Fernandez told Peruvian television on Sunday night that Sadik had not “fully informed” him regarding the sensitivity of the Nazca site or the illegality of Sadik’s proposed action.

Greenpeace—whose global budget of €300 million and offices in 45 countries have long made it a force that governments and corporations must reckon with—has suffered heavy blows to its reputation, external support, and staff morale. Donors have withdrawn grants, supporters have canceled memberships, and street canvassers have been harassed, Greenpeace USA executive director Annie Leonard wrote in an e-mail earlier this month.

...

Sadik and his team went ahead with the action even as others in Greenpeace strongly advised him against it, Townsley confirmed. “The decisions were taken by those responsible while they were in Peru. At that point, there was no recourse back to Greenpeace International in Amsterdam or Greenpeace Germany in Hamburg. ... Certainly there are many people [within Greenpeace] who think that our internal processes weren’t followed properly and if they had been, this activity would have been caught and stopped.”

Neither Kaiser, Wiedemann nor Fernandez were involved in “the design or the delivery of the Nazca Lines action,” Townsley said, adding that Sadik was “the principal architect and coordinator, and he himself has volunteered that information to the prosecutor.”

...

The report apparently does not name roughly 20 additional activists from seven countries who helped Sadik and his team place their message...

gregladen Tue, 01/20/2015 - 04:48

Tags

Yeah, that's the way to win hearts and minds.

Destroy a global wonder of the world.

Morons.

Politicians & CEOs used to be forced to resign if they publicly embarrassed their own governments or organisations by doing something extraordinarily stupid.

That happens less often these days, and it is a pity to see Greenpeace following the new ways of doing things.

Closing ranks to protect the guilty, while publicly committing to bring wrongdoers to justice ... worked well for the Catholic Church, didn't it?

Greenpeace should be seen to be purging its own organisation.

toby52: Used to be? My impression is that they still are in many cultures, but not this one. I'm willing to have that impression corrected.

I'm not sure how I feel about that strategy. Mixed feelings, anyway.

Thinking Nasca - its prob'ly sickly sentimental (mea culpa) but I love this cartoon (fond childhood memories) and the mini doco on the Nasca plateua at the end (23 minutes mark) :

http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/374047299712/mysterious-cities-of-…

Where'd all the other comments go? Coulda sworn they were there before!

Christopher Columbus was a brutal, evil monster who committed genocide against peaceful people who did him no wrong whatsoever - historical fact. Pizzaro , Courtes and many (almost all?) of the other conquistadores were equally or almost as bad :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasum/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_7427…? fb_action_ids=10153010740889088&fb_action_types=og.likes

D'oh! Take II Make that link :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasum/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_7427…

Or / & google 'Columbus Day? True Legacy: Cruelty and Slavery' Eric Kasum for a horrific yet informative and memorable article online.

What is Greenpeace going to do about Nazca?

gregladen — Sun, 14 Dec 2014 19:55:46 +0000

What is Greenpeace going to do about Nazca?

ADDED NOTE: I changed the name of this post because some chose to shift the focus of the discussion from Greenpeace's horrendous act in Peru to whether or not my reaction is appropriate, as though I had done damage to some historic site or harpooned a whale. I live in Minnesota. I am not affected by arguments that certain reactions to a crime make the crime tolerable. But I want to take the focus off me, and return it to Greenpeace. The rest of this post has also been modified to include a statement that makes very clear why what Greenpeace did was wrong, and why it is alarming and requires very a very explicit and strong response from Greenpeace.

Another excuse that has been given is that Greenpeace is big and complex and contains many parts, only one of those parts involved in the desecration of a heritage site. This is true enough, and does related to parsing what actually happened and deciding which individuals should turn themselves in to the Peruvian authority. But it is also true that Greenpeace as a brand is a powerful thing, and that brand is what is at stake here. Look at the damn picture they made. It says "Greenpeace." It does not say "Some subset of Greenpeace, not all of Greenpeace."

A man who loots a Native American site in an area he needed a permit to access may have his ability to get a permit to enter that area taken away for life. Greenpeace did something similar, but possibly much larger than what any one person in search of some pottery to sell could have done. So, what should happen to make this right? I have also been criticized (privately) for apparently indicating that I know nothing of the great things Greenpeace has done in the past, from a reading of the first paragraph of my original post (below). Sorry, but that is entirely beside the point and also inaccurate. "I'm sure Greenpeace has done a lot of great things" is a bone I'm throwing to Greenpeace for one purpose and one purpose only; I'm not too interested in entertaining right wing slams on a major environmental organization that has done a lot of good. Take it or leave it.

________________________

I'm sure Greenpeace has done a lot of great things, saved some whales, etc. etc., but the organization has recently carried out an abominable act that requires the institutional equivalent of a very very long jail term, or, what the hell, let's make it a death sentence. ~~Greenpeace needs to shut down as an organization. Right now.~~ People's objection to this strong statement has taken the spotlight off of this horrendous act, so I crossed it out. I still think it, but now maybe the focus can go back on Greenpeace.

Greenpeace activists entered a restricted area in Peru, where the Nazca lines are located. They drove into the area, and walked around there, and laid out banners. The banners were then photographed from the air (from a drone, as I understand it) to produce a message supporting renewable something. I'm guessing energy. The message was not clear. Nor was the link between their big yellow banners and the sacred and ancient Nazca lines.

This is an abuse of the cultural patrimony of Peru and the native people's who have lived there.

In this fragile environment, footprints constitute irreparable damage.

One of the Nazca lines was apparently damaged directly, the area around the lines trodden.

As an advocate of renewable energy and supporter of taking action to move in that direction, and an archaeologist, I deeply resent Greenpeace using the Nazca lines as a propaganda tool, and I condemn Greenpeace for thoughtless damaging this important archaeological site.

I can see going after a whaling ship, illegally. But what exactly did the cultural and historical patrimony of Peru, what exactly did the extraordinary unique archaeological site of Nazca, ever do to a whale, or the environment, or to the environmental movement, or to Greenpeace?

All those who love and respect the past and archaeological resources, and who at the same time feel that we need to act on important issues such as climate change (and saving the whales) need to step away from Greenpeace and find a different organization or activity to support.

I call for the appropriate leadership of Greenpeace to resign, the board of directors to resign, the organization to turn all those involved (including in a supervisory capacity, and a planning capacity) over to the Peruvian authorities for prosecution, and for the organization to abrogate itself as the only way to truly express the appropriate level of shame and remorse. Greenpeace needs to cease to exist as a show of deference to a cultural symbol that will likely outlive humanity itself. Again, modified to shift focus. Greenpeace is dead to me. But what will provide redress? At the very least, Greenpeace needs to create, publicize, and implement a policy that prohibits the use of cultural heritage as a tool in its activism.

Added:

Greenpeace has been willing in the past to break the law. That is what they are famous for, and it is probably where they have been most effective. Not only have they broken the law, but they've broken the Law of the Sea, which is one of the oldest and most traditional cultural concepts we have in the west. They have, effectively, committed piracy.

This was done for a greater good, and turns out (as I understand it) to have been pretty effective activism, partly because every act of piracy to save a whale does get a huge amount of attention (and has other whale saving effects). It helps that the bad guys are really bad, and the good guys are innocent whales. This is not just civil disobedience, which at certain times and places people grow inured to. This is spectacular, it is dangerous enough to die doing, it is not something where they book you and a thousand others and let you go later that day.

It is impossible to not respect this, but it is also necessary to recognize what it is at the core. This is an organization deciding to systematically identify and intentionally break a certain category of national (from various countries) and international (as vague as that may be) law for a greater good.

With this act in Peru, Greenpeace has made a clear statement. It is a clear statement because this was an act that required organization, funding, decision making, meetings, an OK from various levels up and down the line, etc. at least within the unit of Greenpeace involved. They've made a clear statement that Greenpeace as an organization is willing to break the law in an entirely new area. They are willing to violate laws that protect heritage sites. That is a new thing as far as I know for them (though I've heard otherwise, see links below). And it is deeply disturbing. It can't be just a few people involved in this and incidentally using the Greenpeace name.

And it isn't just breaking the law. Any operation involving Nazca would involve research and knowing something about what they are up against. You can't plan a project using Nazca and not be aware of the delicacy of the environment, of the fact that numerous people and one or more vehicles on the ground will unavoidably ruin parts of the site. Leaving a footprint at Nazca is like leaving a footprint on the moon (almost). It is nearly as permanent as the lines themselves. Everyone who knows anything about Nazca knows this. These Greenpeace activists must have known this.

So, Greenpeace has made a SECOND statement with this act. Greenpeace has clearly shown that it is willing not only to break Heritage laws in some trivial and non destructive way, but Greenpeace as an organization is willing to physically and permanently damage heritage sites. Imagine for a moment the reverse; harpooning a whale to save a pyramid.

Greenpeace has also made a THIRD statement with this act. Greenpeace has indicated that it is willing to break heritage law, AND damage a heritage site, for the purpose of making a picture. No whales were saved during the partial eternal destruction of a heritage site. No gyre of garbage was cleaned up while the regional indigenous culture was unceremoniously thrown under the bus. If there was a heritage site who's preservation was actually doing the equivalent of killing whales (there are such conflicts though mostly involving plants) this might make sense. But this was a heritage site utterly unrelated to anything in the way of conservation or environment being exploited because it is famous to make a vague and not especially effective message.

Looking at this strictly from the point of view of a Greenpeace supporter, consider the implications. Now, there is a photograph of a major, very well known (one of the most well known non-Egyptian sites) locality with a message superimposed on it that, regardless of the intention, says "Greenpeace is willing to damage a heritage site" written across it in orange.

So, the final point is this: Greenpeace is known as an organization willing to break laws, in a big way, to make a larger point. Now, Greenpeace tell us that it is willing to include Heritage laws in that activism. Apologies, consternations, statements of conciliation are not of any interest to me at this point. The individuals and communities that support indigenous rights and heritage can't afford to extend trust in this sort of situation.

There may be a point where Greenpeace's response to their own atrocity is sufficient. But I'm 99% sure Greenpeace will never be able to pull off that response.

Some related links:

Greenpeace apologises to people of Peru over Nazca lines stunt

By wrecking an iconic archeological site, Greenpeace ruined the UN climate convention for Peru

Peru Is Indignant After Greenpeace Makes Its Mark on Ancient Site

gregladen Sun, 12/14/2014 - 14:55

Tags

Uncategorized

greenpeace

Nazca

This is probably the first time I have ever agreed with you 100%. You would think that at some point someone within the organization would have said this was not a good idea.

We toletared their trespassing for years, I am sure that they thought they were immune. My beef with them started when they fanned the flames of irrationality regardig GMO's. I am with you on this.

Having had dealing with GP over the years i assert that they are just a money making scam - it's all about advertising so that execs can be on big incomes and lead exciting lives jet-setting and boating around - really BIG incomes

it's sort of $cientology for greenies

thoroughly dishonest organisation that uses the idealism of young people to fund their dishonest life style

I'm embarrassed to have been supporting them and an canceling my monthly donation

I gave up on Greenpeace a long time ago largely because of their dependence on dumb stunts like this. It's not just that the stunts are often counter-productive, like this one, but they're also incoherent. They called this a "message of hope." What is that message? Assuming they had pulled this off without harming anything, what message about the environment am I supposed to take away from seeing their logo plastered on an historical site? It reminds me of something I noticed while studying radical groups. They assume that millions of people are almost telepathically in tune with them. Timothy McVey though that millions of fed up white people would understand that his bomb was the signal for them to rise up in revolt. These Greenpeace idiots though that millions of people would get some important message from the juxtaposition their logo on this cryptic monument. I suppose I'm just repeating what you said.

They don't need to close down, they need to change their strategy.

Stunts are a lazy, egotistical way of defending the environment. And when they go wrong, they allow the haters to attack the entire environment movement.

Greenpeace need to focus on the work of educating the public and helping to build a mass movement around climate. 300,000 people peacefully marching in NYC and thousands more around the world in solidarity or the thousands who protested in Lima over the last week will have a much bigger impact than a stunt, even when it goes well, because those protesters keep spreading the message long after the march is over. They are brothers and sisters, mums and dads, friends, teachers and workmates. People patiently spreading the message about the need for action on climate without the need for 15 seconds of fame on the evening news.

Re. the Peak Oil Poet @ 3:

I have a word for that: "nonprofiteering." The self-appointed Beautiful People get to earn big, live big, look big, and sport big egos about how wonderful they are (and did I mention, earn big?).

This is a risk for all nonprofits that "go professional."

What's needed is an ethical code for nonprofits, that's clear and straightforward and easy for Joe and Jane Random to understand. It should hold nonprofit executives up to a standard that requires frugality and moderation in their compensation, "perks," travel arrangements, and so on. And it should provide clear mechanisms for accountability, such as with regard to who votes for Board members, who is on the Board, the relationship between Board and executives, real financial transparency, etc.

Re. Greenpeace specifically:

Even worse, the entire "message" thing could have been done with a public-domain aerial image of the Nazca Lines and fifteen minutes' work on a computer. Juxtaposing the Nazca Lines with an image of a coal-fired powerplant smoke stack, with the words "Which heritage?" would have been interesting.

Clearly the entire set of people from the idiots who did the deed all the way up to the top level, should be unceremoniously fired. Greenpeace should issue an apology and pay for whatever restoration work might be possible.

But also, let's not turn this into an exercise in self-flagellation that only gives our enemies an excuse for making more propaganda at our expense.

In a very real way, we have to keep our focus on the biggest desecration of our times, which is the direct impact of atmospheric carbon on the Earth's ecosystems. Otherwise, according to an increasing number of scientists, there won't be any humans around in a couple of centuries, to see the Nazca lines or anything else.

Greg, rather unexpected. But I agree with you. When I departed GP in '86 I felt our job was done. Since then it has been opportunism. They should go the way of Scientology, maybe rich but no influence on public policy. I appreciate your contribution here.

Regarding the message above from "G".
Are you suggesting that there are scientists who believe that global warming will result in the extinction of our species? Which scientists? And by what reasoning?

I only note the obvious....flying four or five characters into Peru to do this, putting up at hotels for a couple of days, with one rental jeep, and food....figure $25,000 spent on this. I could sit at my computer and do a graphics job with a decent overhead imagery shot in thirty minutes for nothing. This was a demonstration of how to waste contributions....that's all. You are correct....they've outlived their purpose in life....let them go.

Totally agree, a complete sham of an organisation. Did the protesters get there by bike or windmill? Did they sail there and walk? Er... no, they used planes, one of the most destructive climate tools per head of population. As for the deaths from lack of a simple GMO, golden rice, dont get me started!

What a tantrum, Greg!

Consider a death sentence recommended against you based on the judgment of someone that you may (or may not) have committed a crime. Your accuser freely admits they don't understand your motive, justification, or any verifiable harm you may or may not have inflicted - but they vehemently assert their own personal outrage as justification.

Generally, when we are willing to have any standard applied to ourselves we insist be applied to others, we are entitled to participate in adult discussions. Otherwise, we excuse ourselves by demonstrating we are unethical - and unable to discuss normative issues rationally.

There's far better evidence that corporate-capitalist GMO technology poses much greater risk of massive harm to real people, (as opposed to some dust being disturbed) and still, it would be unreasonable to recommend killing the GMO research program.

If more scientists learned philosophy of science, (focused on relevant standards), or simply would take such SMEs' advice, we'll have a lot better, more productive science.

MikeH (6) I basically agree with you except for one thing. As an archaeologist, I have to insist that they not only never do something like this again, but that they be punished for doing so. For an organization, the punishment for risking permanent damage (and apparently producing some to an archaeological resource like this needs to be sever enough that such actions are never, ever, taken into account as part of a formula. It has to be the last act.

Patrick Moore: You are still not a founder of Greenpeace, and their work was not don in 1986. http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/06/27/who-founded-greenpeace-not…

Sean (9): I did not make that suggestion, no.

Roy, not only that, but that is what it LOOKS like they did. Photoshop would have worked better.

KenW Sorry, I don't buy the tu quoque argument. This is not about that.

Buck, I am an archaeologist. That was not a "tantrum." I am simply meeting my responsibilities. Nor have I freely admitted that there is anything here I don't understand. You are not making any sense.

I agree with others that Greenpeace has played fast and loose with the science. I've criticized them but I still appreciate their willingness to throw themselves between a harpoon and a whale.

I'm not going be too mad at Greenpeace over GMO's because I have not met very many people who are smart on GMO's. But yes, MIke.

I reject the tu quoque arguments, and arguments lie Moore's (that nuclear power is great, so greenpeace is wrong).

But this is not about any of this. This is about Greenpeace throwing an ancient archaeological site, metaphorically, between the metaphorical harpoon and the metaphorical whale.

This is roughly equivalent to the politician hoplding up the baby he was kissing a shield when a rope line event turns into an assassination attempt.

Greenpeace threw our cultural heritage under the bus to make a nice post card.

The whales still need saving, It just has to be somebody else from now on.

Hi Greg,
It is true your admission of ignorance was my inference of the claim: "I’m sure Greenpeace has done a lot of great things, saved some whales, etc. etc." This first suggested some vagueness.

However, when followed by interpretations of "renewable something" that you admit are "guessing" and you state that to you, their "message was not clear", it seems fair to infer you're publicly admitting pretty big gaps.

If we are willing to have someone recommend death with such caveats while simultaneously denying there is anything they don't understand, we're far more generous than most; Certainly more than I would normally be. :)

There’s far better evidence that corporate-capitalist GMO technology poses much greater risk of massive harm to real people

Well no, not at all - but thanks for fanning the flames of irrational hyperbole.

Hi Dean,

Excluding the argument from ignorance of course, if you have a cornflake of support that no such evidence exists, please share.

If the vandalism had served some noble purpose, perhaps it could be justified: vandalizing the petroleum industry's drilling in an ecologically sensitive or culturally sensitive area. This vandalism, attributed to Greenpeace, was and is an abomination--- it was done for no legitimate reason at all. It was the wrong target at the wrong time, accomplishing noting positive, causing great damage to their own allies.

What the bloody hell could the perpetrators have been thinking, if it really was Greenpeace?

Greenpeace is always been a terroristic group and not a green association.

I have always respected and will continue to respect Greenpeace's defense of cetaceans, who count as people in my book. But it would seem that Greenpeace doesn't have similar respect for the rights and interests of human people from non-Western cultures. This was an act of gross cultural imperialism. For shame.

"I can see going after a whaling ship, illegally"

And I can see breaking into your house, beating you, tying you up and stealing your stuff. For a good cause.

MarkB, what cause would that be? Greenpeace's efforts to save the whales is a clear and well defined cause. Your (silly) threat to beat me up and take my stuff remains undefined. But maybe your cause is good enough! What is it?

What the bloody hell could the perpetrators have been thinking, if it really was Greenpeace?

Good query, Desertphile. It sickens me to see CO2 so maligned (a healthy biome goes with a healthy overturning of CO2) while giving a pass on GMO and all that entails -- The 'authorities' looking the other way so "farmers" can backhoe up every tree lining a stream so they can spray their poision right up into it in the fight against amaranth, for one thing.

It *looks* like a Monsanto false-flag, to me. Monsanto's buisness model has always been We contaminate it; We own it.

Hey Greg,

Pretty clear that this activity was a major mistake. I'm saying that as someone who works for Greenpeace International. My boss (Kumi) has also said it, and means it.

I was not personally involved, but am sure that if anyone involved thought there would be damage, they would not have participated.

There was a valid goal, bringing attention to the climate summit in Lima - drawing a connection with history and the fragility of civilizations. Obviously, entering a fragile archeological site was a bad way to achieve that goal.

There are some mistakes you can't fix. I'm glad to see an official investigation, and Greenpeace is ready to be accountable to the results of that.

all the members of Greenpeace that were at Nazca should go to jail an Greenpeace should be expelled from peru. these people are the worst

This act pales into insignificance next to Greenpeace's genocide through spreading fear of the life-saving Golden Rice.

David, I'm certainly not going to support, or even discuss, Greenpeace's position on GMOs, but that is not even close to the topic at hand.

Tim: Seriously, man. Jeesh.

Andrew, thanks for your thoughts!

Greg: Simply put, heads gotta roll. Specifically the top tier of the Greenpeace administration must resign or be ousted.

However, that's not enough. The new administration must have the equivalent of a Constitutional Convention. They must disavow themselves of the pseudoscience that Greenpeace has embraced (anti-GMO, anti-chlorine, etc.).

This is an organization that has lost its moral compass and is in desperate need of a soul-searching. Greenpeace should develop a completely new strategy on how they will achieve their goals in the 21st century.

Greenpeace is to the environment and businesses what ISIS is to Muslims and everyone else. They are obnoxious, trespassers, a cancer on the planet and in the latter case murderers who chop people's heads off.

Seriously, Greg. I don't know anything about Greenpeace that I'd not picked up in the last couple hours. But I do know that someone advocating against chlorination while ignoring fluoridation is more than just a little bit confused out the gate; Or just infiltrated.

Who authorized such an action?? It seems anybody could say 'we did it' -- Heck, even alCIAduhh says 'we did it' when they clearly did no such thing in many instances.

What I do know is that Peru has banned their GMO and Monsanto litigation is like this:

Someone comes into your house, craps on your kauphy table and you call the cops -- The cops then arrest you because that is obviously their crap on your kauphy table.

I'd not put it past Monsanto to plow the Nazca lines three feet below the bedrock and rinse the tillings away with F*ckUp™ just to spite them.

Anyways, bringing attention to a global governence policy gathering would garner more attention if it defiled this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cerne-abbas-giant-2001-cropped.jpg

To be honest, I've had a fairly dim view of Greenpeace for a while; they have noble goals, but apart from a few specifics, I don't think they've been very effective. This stunt, however, moves them in my mind to PETA territory -- stunts with a nebulous message (yeah, you can deduce what they probably mean by this if you're familiar with them, but you'd think that for this much effort they'd want it the message to be able to stand on its own) which do considerably more harm than good. And it plays into a narrative of environmentalists caring more about animals than people, since they damaged an immensely famous human artifact in order to make a statement about the environment. That's a huge mistake -- never make it about man versus the environment, because at least 90% of people will happily then side against the environment. Make it about us seeking a better future together. *sigh*

Greenpeace needs to swiftly expunge those responsible for this stunt or they will have lost all of their remaining credibility. You don't widdle all over indigenous peoples to make a lofty statement about renewable energy. Especially since the most charitable interpretation I can come up with is that they decided to pick the Nazca Lines due to the theory that their makers died out due to climate change. That's like building your podium on someone's gravestone.

Nice update - still ignorant and biased.

No evidence has been presented here to support the accusations of damage - and certainly nothing of any significance relative to the actions of la Empresa de Agregados Calcáreos Gálvez.

This mining company didn't didn't walk person-sized weight on rubber-soled running shoes, they drove heavy in heavy mining machinery and stripped away hundreds or thousands of square meters prospecting.

The outrage expressed here so far over GreenPeace seems to have far more to do with the critic's biases than any claimed objectivity, appeals to justice, or protecting an archeological treasure.

As always: evidence supporting this interpretation is mistaken is welcome.

It's not the first time this area has been damaged:
http://www.peruthisweek.com/news-3743-peru-heavy-machinery-destroys-naz…
A group of ancient lines in the archaeological zone of Buenos Aires, in Nazca, have been destroyed by heavy machinery, El Comercio reported.

According to the daily, the machinery belongs to a firm that is removing limestone from the area.
…
“The limestone firm responsible has not been sanctioned or supervised by the authorities of the Regional Directorate of Culture of Ica, despite being in this great archaeological reserve.”

@Andrew Davies #24

Wait, you have a boss?? So there is a chain of command? I'd guess, such an organization, out of necessity, needs to remain 'compartmentalized' -- That sounds like some other questionable organizations around here as I'm quite convinced both Obama and Bush could say "derrr??" with a clear, polygraph-passing conscience when it hits the fan.

Of 'golden rice' vs pigweed --

Hindi name/ Content (microgram/100g):
(Amaranth leaves) Chauli saag=266-1,166 -
Golden rice -- 33.

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/goldenricehoax.html
--------------------------------

Eating all that rice with the phytic acid load will stop zinc uptake so the kiddies still go blind.

Excluding the argument from ignorance of course, if you have a cornflake of support that no such evidence exists, please share.
I take your comment about the danger of GM food as indicative of your lack of understanding of statistics. The only difference between the GM food you mention and the food we've been altering for decades is the method, not the result. Just as studies haven't found a link between vaccines and autism, there is no link between GM foods and any threat to us. It really is your assertion that is lacking justification.

> I take your comment about the danger of GM food as indicative of your lack of understanding of statistics.
You may take it as such, but even if I were dead, buried, and completely unable to process any input, it would have no bearing on your assertion that no evidence exists. Existence of objective evidence in favor of any assertion (including yours) does not depend on me, you, or anyone. That's pretty close to hinting at what objective means.

>The only difference between the GM food you mention and the food we’ve been altering for decades is the method, not the result

Before dealing with whether I understand your claim to mean: there is no qualitative difference in results of traditional versus modern DNA alteration, perhaps we should stick to the epistemological issue above, first.

Do we agree that the existence of evidence does not depend on any particular person's existence, much less awareness?

Buck, I assure you, all the ignorance is yours.

Entering the site was a vilation of law. That should not have happened. How many times do I have to say the level of damage is simply not the point? Damage is important, potential damage is important, but simply entering the restricted area was illegal and served no purpose. It was not civil disobedience. It was foreigners showing up and using the local cultural site, form which they were restricted, illegally.

This has nothing to do with any mining companies. Also, there are many lines, many areas, where these lines exist and some are protected differently than others.

And, yes, there was damage. The New York Times reported it. The Peruvian Government claims it. Greenpeace acknowledges it. The only people who think there was no damage are you and some other guy over on facebook who will also never be satisfied.

This is also not about GM foods, by the way.

And Patrick Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace!

>Entering the site was a vilation of law.
What law would that be, exactly? AFAICT, the law is uncertain, but the mining operation def seems destructive.

You are a zealot Greg, and you will drop this thread as you have before regarding why best practices and evidence of risk from xgen GMO's are rational to ignore.

In this case, I ask for a clear description of the alleged crime, and evidence it was committed. My admittedly limited research suggests that SME's on Nazca warn against hard boots that can crack the natural varnish formed over many centuries on the rocks, while the GP photos show running shoes of people not on the lines. Who says something is irrelevant, unless they have some bona fides re such laws or forensics in this situation.

Your evidence is "people say".

AFAICT (after having searched - not before), I don't see that going to UNESCO/WHS's is inherently criminal, at all. There's a road built for this purpose, and GP appears to have used it.

Regrettably I have a conf call...wish it were a Skype with you...

Greg and I have butted heads in the past on other stuff--but on this I completely agree. And I appreciated that the climate scientists stood with the plant scientists on Greenpeace's other misbehaviors. It's time for all of us to stand with archaeologists now.

And I know you aren't focusing on the other issues. But Greenpeace also recently helped get the EU science advisor canned. They definitely think they are the law and the final word on their issues; I don't think you can isolate this one event. It's a pattern of arrogance and entitlement. And scientists have to stand together against their destruction of research work and research sites.

Greg Laden have you seen this item about this yet? :

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/peru-rejects-greenpeace-apology-for-…

Greenpeace released an apology late last week, while its international executive director Kumi Naidoo, has flown into Peru to speak with officials.

“I apologize personally to the people of Peru, and all those around the world who were offended by our actions,” Naidoo told NewsHour. “This is not who we are.”

But the country’s deputy minister of culture, Luis Jaime Castillo, dismissed Greenpeace’s apology, calling the protest “irresponsible [and] childish.”

“I care for basically one point: these things [that] were damaged, they had basically have to be returned to their original status,” Castillo said. “Some people will have to face criminal charges because that is unavoidable, and the process has already started.”

The best footage I've seen of the damage so far was this PBS Newshour coverage this evening: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/activist-stunt-disturbs-perus-treasured-…

And it's not just the lines that are considered the "site". The negative space is important as well. The people who are doing contortions to pretend this isn't damage are just astonishing.

But the most hilarious thing I've seen is the foil-wad theory of a Monsanto false-flag. That's truly the dumbest thing I've heard as an explanation. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Thanks Mary,

You present the first plausible evidence, and I'm happy to endorse it as prima facie, real evidence of damage to this site.

It's appreciated!

Tim, please, no references to crackpot Vandana Shiva!

She is the one who spread the hoax of Indian farmers committing suicide due to GMOs. Facts of the matter are that since the introduction of GMOs in India the suicide rate has gone done. Note, whether there is any causal correlation between the two is completely unknown.

Shiva also has suggested autism is caused by GMOs and glyphosate. Of course, not only autism, but also kdiney failure and diabetes and Alzheimer's. It's complete and utter nonsense, an outright lie even, but she doesn't care.

Greenpeace also recently helped get the EU science advisor canned.

Good for them, Mary M. Those government 'science advisor' positions sometimes *seem* tainted; Sometimes, governments get leaned on so, perhaps, the 'advisor' gets advised on which side of an issue to advocate. Sometimes it seems they're really just another hollow mouthpiece like a US 'drug czar'--

The US embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any Euroxpean[sp??] Union country which opposed genetically modified (GM) crops, newly released WikiLeaks cables show.

In response to moves by France to ban a Monsanto GM corn variety in late 2007, the ambassador, Craig Stapleton, a friend and business partner of former US president George Bush, asked Washington to penalise the EU and particularly countries which did not support the use of GM crops. ...

In other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/03/wikileaks-us-eu-gm-crops
----------------------------

As an on-topic aside, I remember seeing the Nazca lines on television as a youngster; It was the first time I perked up at something on television and thought "There really are grand mysteries out there that won't turn out to be a weather ballon." It is the first time I waited and scanned for a rerun; I'm pretty sure it was Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World. It is a shame to think of them getting messed up; I remember thinking even then "I hope that plane doesn't crash or try to land on them".

Greenpeace has lost credibility with me. That they
carelessly damaged an important archeological site
in Peru has turned the tide. They are a bunch of
terrorists.

I don't like the use of the term terrorism in this context at all.

They're not terrorists. They're just souls whose "intentions are good" as the song goes - and we all know there's that whole road paved with those, and where it leads....

Not "terror", but "pathos".

What's a handy word for "a group that inspires pathos in others"?

Pathogens??

...except that, "Hey, let's desecrate a cultural/archaeological site in a childish attempt to draw attention to our agenda" is NOT an "intention that's good". It's an intention that's BAD. (Not 'bad as in evil', but 'bad as in harmful'. But still, bad.)

Intentions are not goals are not actions. About all one could say with this mess they've created is that at least their goals have some merit... And like the saying implies, "one out of three IS bad".

An initial intuition, Marco #46, might be considerably less cotton farmers??

They're toast. Assuming they weren't (as some above suggest) that they weren't totally moldy already. The only question is how long it takes for the decomposition.

In that direction, I would suggest that we adopt a new verb: "to greenpeace." Meaning, approximately, to commit senseless vandalism for some narcissistic pretext supposedly supporting a worthwhile cause.

Abominable... atrocity... why not terrorism? Anyway, you haven't left yourself much rhetorical running room here, Greg. And right after saying GP is dead to you, you respond to a staffer? You're being a little incoherent.

Yes, Greenpeace went way out of line here, but you way over-reacted. The US government has done far worse, including very recently, but have you called for its immediate dismantling?

Anyway, generally I respect your views, Greg, but this leaves me just shaking my head.

Re the evidence in the PBS piece, I'm not quite convinced. We need to see actual evidence. Note e.g. that the claimed "C" impression relates to the same letter shown being laid down in the early part of the piece. I don't see it happening there, but in any case why would it only happen there and make such a distinct impression, including under (not just around) the fabric? Those horizontal lines don't quite make sense either. So let's see some verifiable before-and-after photos for starters.

Steve, the "but they did it too, and worse!" argument is a really bad excuse.

Your last paragraph is even worse. Regardless of how bad the damage is, the mere action itself, desecrating this region and thereby risking damage, is stupid. Why can't you just admit that?

Marco, you're correct but missing the point of Steve's objection.

Criticism of minor infractions of others while being silent on much greater infractions on one's own side does not excuse the minor infraction, it indicts the criticism as biased.

Greenpeace staff member here. Absolutely agree that two wrongs don't make a right, and that it is fair my organization is being held accountable for our mistake.

I do also appreciate Greg changing the blog title. I think it is the right question, "Ok, Greenepace screwed up - what should they do now?"

Of course we have apologized...
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152686627798300

And there will be an internal review, which I'm sure will have consequences. I'm confident we'll learn from this and avoid doing any similar stupid thing in the future.

Since there seem to be people knowledgeable in archeology in this discussion, I would personally welcome any thoughts/ideas about how to make amends. Is restoration possible? (I have not heard any good news on that front.) Other things Greenpeace can do?

too bad, now "the people" controlling what a writer thinks to write and the question: Does democracy only belong to The People's objection and the uneffective creature called Greenpeace?

Abkar: Wut?

Marco, we are all humans, and humans makes mistakes. We may hold organizations like Greenpeace to a somewhat higher ethical standard, but can we really expect them to be totally free from the idiocy that can be found everywhere? Should we judge them to an entirely different standard than anyone else, or is it relevant to compare?

Calling for disbanding tobacco companies aft all the millions of people dead from their perversion of science would make sense, as does disbanding the American banks that through criminal activity crashed the American and to a lesser degree the world economy. Or, as Steve brought up, the US government for torture, wars of aggressions, indiscriminate assassination programs. We have oil disasters polluting large areas, through corruption or negligence. And that's intentional malice, mistakes by well meaning organizations are also common, like WHO relief work spreading Cholera into Haiti. The list could go on forever with organizations that do far, far worse than Greenpeace, so why a call to disband it? It seems somewhat out of proportion.

Thomas and Buck,
First, in my view this is not the first time Greenpeace has stepped over the line (for exampl, its GMO vandalism is exactly that: vandalism).
Second, if you want to be on the side of moral righteousness, you should have no problem whatsoever harshly criticizing those organizations that claim to be on your side of the argument. In this case Greenpeace. Steve Bloom tried a different approach, minimizing the incident and even trying to cast doubt on whether it was even true.
While disbanding Greenpeace may be an overreaction, this is not a minor mistake and as I said, not the first time Greenpeace did something this stupid (the GMO vandalism is worse, in my opinion, but I can understand why an archeologist would likely react stronger to this case).

A small nitpick about your list of examples: the WHO relief work did not spread cholera into Haiti, Nepalese peacekeepers may have been the source.

Being on "the side of moral righteousness" indicates a perspective I don't share and fight against holding as much as possible.

A sense of righteousness gives some the sense that an immediate death sentence is appropriate in light of the mere accusation of vandalism. Why?

If one believes one's cause is in service of a sacred good, almost any material harm can be justified. The sense of righteousness gives one a sense of entitlement they would not otherwise possess to do wrong.

A wise person realizes the world is complicated, and if the poor choice of footwear by GP results in future protection of an archeological treasure, I'm willing to take it as a wash.

Marco, note "Greenpeace went way out of line here" from me. That is in no way excusing them. Questioning the consistency of Greg's call for dismantling them is also not excusing them. Pointing to the evidence provided so far as being insufficient for a conviction of actual damage is similarly not excusing them. Even a refusal to engage in or condone an disproportionate frenzy of hippie-punching in response to what they did is not excusing them. To underline my point, although I think it was quite clear in my initial comment, what they did would still be a problem even if the damage is shown to have been nil. Please work on your reading comprehension.

Hippy punching is a problem here. I'm trying to keep the conversation about this one event.

The other problems people have raised about Greenpeace straying from the good science are not necessarily hippie punching, but often, valid critique. However, it is worth nothing that internally Greenpeace has responded to those critiques in the past by improving their attention to the science.

Marco #46,

but also kdiney failure and diabetes and Alzheimer’s

Alzheimer's is probably more attributed to ubiquitous, synthetic folic acid -- They were introduced together such that some signals may be occulted, some declines hidden.

Steve, yes, you said Greenpeace went way over the line...and then you attempted a squirrel hunt by trying to shift the focus onto others AND by casting doubt that anything bad actually happened.

Tim, references please about the folic acid.

One additional question: How should I understand your use of the word "synthetic"? Did you use it because you think 'synthetic' folic acid is different from 'natural' folic acid, or did you mean something else?

Marco, the subject has become very conflated and confusing indeed. One may read that 'folic acid' is given in great quantities for depression/anxiety and then go out and purchase inexpensive, high RDI folic acid -- This may be quite harmful:

The nutritional ingredient at issue in this litigation is a dietary ingredient called Folate, which is a B vitamin that helps the body make new cells. Folate is considered a critical supplement for prenatal health, and low folate intake is associated with various vascular, ocular, neurological and skeletal disorders, and may pose a serious risk to individuals with diabetes. While folate does not occur naturally in large quantities it can be found in leafy green vegetables, whole grains, citrus fruits, and organ meats. Tetrahydrofolates are the predominant naturally occurring forms of folate, and in particular, the tetrahydrofolate 5–methyltetrahydrofolic acid (abbreviated as “5–MTHF”) is one of the predominant naturally occurring folate forms

Merck was the first company to manufacture a pure and stable diastereoisomer of L–5–MTHF, a 6S Isomer Product, as a commercial source. Merck’s development of Metafolin was the culmination of decades of research and the investment of tens of millions of dollars. Metafolin is one of Merck’s most important products.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1673961.html
——————-

Also, concerns have been raised about the potentially untoward effects of unmetabolized synthetic folic acid with regard to cancer, depression, and cognitive impairment. With all these concerns, early data suggest supplementation with l-methylfolate rather than folic acid may mitigate these risks.

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3218540/
---------------------------------

If enough folic acid is given orally, unaltered folic acid appears in the circulation, is taken up by cells, and is reduced by dihydrofolate reductase to tetrahydrofolate

The bio-availability of natural folates is affected by the removal of the polyglutamate chain by the intestinal conjugase. This process is apparently not complete, thereby reducing the bio-availability of natural folates by as much as 25-50 percent. In contrast, synthetic folic acid appears to have a bio-availability of close to 100 percent. The low bio-availability and – more importantly – the poor chemical stability of the natural folates has a profound influence on the development of nutrient recommendations. This is particularly true if some of the dietary intake is in the synthetic form, folic acid, which is much more stable and bio-available. Food fortification of breakfast cereals, flour, etc. can add significant amounts of folic acid to the diet.

Consumption of large amounts of folic acid might also pose other less well-defined risks. Certainly, consumption of milligram amounts of folic acid would be undesirable.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y2809e/y2809e0a.htm
===================================

In this case, at least, it would *appear* that the RDI on the box is a value not to be exceeded -- like too much sodium.

Like a Kurt Vonnegut Harrison Bergeron 'Handicapper General' is synthetic folic acid (not known to the human body until 1943) perhaps the life expectancy and quality equalizer. That is to say, that people with poor nutrition will no doubt have benifits (except for the 10% of the population that can't process it correctly and the elderly), those with better diets will be detrimented/decremented.
-----------------------------

Please take special note that folic/folate is very conflated on wikipedia as well as just about everywhere else -- One must therefore know to enter the query as 'levomefolic acid'.

There is this though:

The UL for folate refers to only synthetic folate, as no health risks have been associated with high intake of folate from food sources

On Vegemite and US confiscation thereof --

In October 2006, the Australian press claimed that U.S. regulations requiring fortification of grain products were being interpreted as disallowing fortification in non-grain products, specifically Vegemite (an Australian yeast extract containing folate). The FDA later said the report was inaccurate, and no ban or other action was being taken against Vegemite

^^ Somewhat misleading as there is no reason to 'fortify' Vegemite as it is already the highest in natural folate.

(the quotes are from wikipedia folate/folic acid)

Tim, your answer should have been a lot shorter. Simply saying "no, I do not have any references to support my claim folic acid may be responsible for Alzheimer's" would have sufficed.

(and (low salt) Vegemite *is* fortified...with Vitamins B6 and 12).

Let's be clear what you did here, Marco, which is race to a conviction for damage based on evidence that is clearly insufficient (so far). Try to distract by calling a squirrel hunt all you like, but why should I respect any of your views when you do something like that? Notice your failure to engage with the specific points I raised about the evidence. Yes, at this point they're just questions, but that's rather the point, isn't it? Be serious.

Fortunately Greg has moved on from this post, IMO a good call on his part and AFAICT with a little something learned along the way, so now I'm happy to do the same.

Steve, they went *onto the actual archeological site*!
The video Greenpeace made itself showed they made no effort to prevent any damage - those who are allowed on the site have special footwear to distribute their weight over a much larger surface area. The Greenpeace activists didn't.

The specific points you raised about the evidence are not specific points, but just expressions of your doubt. My take on the shown evidence is different, so that brings us to an impasse: you don't see it, I do.

Marco: please explain what part of the video "showed they made no effort to prevent any damage", at any time in their preparation, planning, or conduct. Please give a time when this appears in the video.

Is the ability of people who are upset and suing were able to produce footpads compelling evidence of a crime in your view?

If the most damning footage they got was a shoe tread imprint in sand, does that matter in your view?

Buck, they are wearing regular footwear. They are numerous. Normally one would minimize the number of people that go on the site. The covered and dragged large pieces of cloth across the surface, holding them down with some kind of weight. You would never do that on this site without a purpose related to the site. Etc. Yes, a foo imprint (in this case, thousands of foot imprints) on the surface is damage to the site.

The problem here is that you are not considering the conservation plan for this site and similar sites. You have an incorrect view of what is suppose to happen and not happen here. You are simply and clearly wrong about that. Your post hoc analysis of what should have and should not have happened is simply incorrect, and apparently, your opinion about what did happen is some sort of wishful thinking.

Greg,

I doubt you've ever, in you entire life, objected to anyone covering rocks. Don't you think that mentioning it now indicates there's any possibility of bias? If it were me, I'd consider such a thing.

Plus you accuse me of "not considering the conservation plan for this site". On what basis, telepathy?

Referring to "the conservation plan" you indicate a fundamentalist view of a single bottom line unwilling to consider that reality may be more complex than a black and white, good vs. evil. Surely you know this to be a bad practice.

Can you honestly not see how far beyond good scientific skepticism your passion are pushing you? I know you are aware this sort of emotional bias leads others astray.

You actually resort to name calling an opinion you don't understand as "post hoc", "simply incorrect", "wishful thinking" while providing evidence not only that you don't understand it, but that you have no interest in understanding.

I'm sympathetic to both sides, but loyal to clear reasoning overall as my first duty.

Our difference is that I'm happy to have you, or a GP supporter change my opinion in any direction, WITH GOOD EVIDENCE. That's key to the advantage of science, and why we give it the status we do.

I concur with your opinion. This is a serious incident that points to poor leadership and there should be real consequences.
I sailed on Greenpeace boat for a campaign during the late 80's. We, the crew, did not have a deep understanding of the issues. Our focus was almost entirely on logistics- how to sneak into restricted waters, where to hang banners, etc. It was fun, but shallow.
The main reason that I did not stay with the organization was its insulated, fault-finding attitude. There was very little effort to put forward real, positive proposals, very little interest in working with communities to effect change.
There is a place for a group that shines a light on the bad things that are done when people aren't looking, and the high seas campaigns are the best example of this. But the constant negativity is a hard way to live.

Buck, no, you are entirely wrong. I've been involved at various levels, from working on sites, to writing proposals to work in areas, to evaluating work and proposals for conservation and preservation, for delicate arid-land sites. More broadly I've probably written over 500 National Register nominations for historic or cultural sites.

I'm suggesting that you are not clued into the conservation plan because you have demonstrated that you are not clued into the basics for conservation and preservation for this sort of arid land site.

You are not engaged in scientific skepticism. You are making statements that are baseless and demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the topic at hand.

Name calling?

I'm glad your first duty is clear reasoning. But you need to know that clear reasoning has to be done on the basis of facts, standard methods and approaches, etc. This is a real live professional and academic field (conservation and preservation of archaeological sites) and you are doing all of your "clear reasoning" pretty much in absence of any knowledge of any of that.

Science. You keep using that word. I don' t think it means what you think it means.

Buck, Greg has already provided you with an answer of essentially all the instances where the activists clearly did not attempt to prevent damage to the site. This will not have been out of malice, but it doesn't change they damaged the site. To *you* it may be no or minor damage, but not to the experts (see Greg's response).

Marco, I read through the citations that Tim provided. He either does not know how to interpret scholarly writing or is being deliberately disingenuous, i.e. a liar. I suspect the later; of the three citations provided, one details a court case involving improper labeling of a pharmaceutical and the other two document the extensive health benefits of folate supplements.

Greg, you are asserting that I'm "entirely wrong", and in support, discuss positions on which I either don't and never held a position, or on which I agree. This suggests to me emotions are involved. What's the evidence?

I've never claimed (or thought) anything like you haven't "been involved" in archeology or "written about sites", etc., but your wording (the plan) suggests one single plan for the site (archeological preservation) and ignores others like mineral extraction, homesteading, business development.

You seem to equate some imagined opinions regarding your experience my actual belief that your criticisms in this forum reflect thinking more driven by negative emotions than is normally considered helpful. Citing imaginary positions of opponents is what ID'ers do, not us.

> Name calling?
Yes...by which I mean labeling a position “post hoc”, “simply incorrect”, “wishful thinking” without providing evidence. Unfortunately, without even understanding "the" opinion of a critic, we cannot provide evidence, and are falling pretty far below the bar of what can be considered good scientific thinking.

There are large error bars in what I know about the site and GP, and on some things I'm guessing. I'm happy to admit them, change any of them based on evidence, and “post hoc”, “simply incorrect”, “wishful thinking” don't give me the slightest clue as to specifically where we disagree.

Marco,
Question A:
Do all the times that Allen did not kill Bob provide evidence Allen never killed Bob?

Question B:
Do all the times GP did not try to prevent damage provide evidence they never tried to prevent damage?

Please consider these questions while reading about the Raven Paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

It was requested of me to distinguish between 'natural' folate and synthetic 'folic acid' (which I honestly believe is a cumulative poison for many), Raucous Indignation. I did so by defering to a working definition from a washed-up, backwater bunch of pharma-shills -- my bad.

I'd never ever deny that *the science is in* as 'no studies to show' is such a large part of that base of knowledge, these days... I'm glad there is 'no studies to show' that cannabis works because then it would be called 'medicine' by the approved scientist and locked away behind a prescription wall.

I didn't mean to imply that there is a deep-running global conspiracy to confuse/conflate a nutritional supplement to keep The People sickly and stupid, or anything.

Buck, I'm not reading your comments on this any more. Just wanted you to know that.

Buck,

In addition to the other areas Greg maintains that you are unfamiliar with let me add one more. If you think "post hoc" and "wishful thinking" are name calling, you don't know name calling. Let me give you an example, "Buck, you're a dick."

Buck, special footware is *standard* at those Nazca sites. The fact that the GP activists did not have that footware shows they did not prepare properly. Call it willful ignorance.

Marco: Overlooking the absence of evidence for such a "standard" being generally accepted, I'll agree "They did not prepare properly." based on the need for special footware.

It is only "willful" ignorance however, if they were informed.

For example, Greg was informed that he had invented positions for me which I did not hold, and that this indicated emotional bias. When asked to accept this, he chose to stop reading my posts. That's willful ignorance.

If / when GP does something like that, I'll consider Greg's criticisms of similar credibility relative to theirs, and feel entitled to judge their decision as "willful ignorance" based on that evidence.

I don't like it when I'm wrong, Greg or GP or Mal demonstrate poor thinking skills, but it is evidence, which I believe is our duty whether we like the particular fact or hate it.

I am sure Greenpeace cleaned up the site after they left? say what? They didn't?

Clearly a major blunder but if it calls for closing GP down, death, etc., what penalties would you propose for the next major oil spill, sponsoring climate change denial, etc.? Death for the management team and exile from the planet?

Philip: It certainly would cause a prompt swing from self-serving & destructive behavior to responsible & sustainable behavior! Good luck with that...

Phillip, no one has called for death. But I have to ask if your question is serious (and if you actually read through the post). Because your comment indicates not.

At the least, Peru should ban Greenpeace from the country, and encourage other countries to follow suit. Let them go around on the Rainbow Warrior.

Buck,
"It is only “willful” ignorance however, if they were informed."

No. Not informing yourself is wilful ignorance, too. Especially when only a little bit of thinking is required to realize you might need to educate yourself. They went to an archeological site on the UNESCO world heritage list!

It's like going to the UK, cause a crash on a roundabout, and then say "oh, but no one told me I should go around the left!".

Marco,

I not only was aware UK traffic was left-drive, but like many had heard of the dangers. Nevertheless, had it not been for a very strong, quick man in a crowd grabbing me from behind, I surely would have killed myself in London by looking the wrong way.

Did I willfully fail to protect my life?

Buck, if you can't see the difference in your own behavior (you were *aware* and then made a mistake, thus you were not ignorant) and that of the Greenpeace activists (who were *not* aware), I can't help you.

Marco, in a way, that difference is part of my point.

Putting oneself and others in danger when one can reasonably said they should be conscious of a real danger (my situation) seems much more worthy of condemnation, especially since I was not engaged in what I considered socially important. This would take LESS thought than that used to condemn GP.

When someone is protesting for attention to climate change and apparently has not put anyone in danger, and apparently did avoid disturbing the Nazca lines themselves, it seems reasonable to ask what standard, when evenly applied, would excuse me but convict GP of *not* making a mistake.

Buck, as I said, if you can't see the difference (and you clearly can't), I cannot help you.

Marco,

I see many differences, but I will grant that you cannot help.

Hi all. First post. Interesting discussion.

Buck, you made a mistake in London but it was done without any intention of breaking the law.

The GP action almost from the beginning was intended to break the law. The debacle would have started with "Let's put a sign on Nazca" and there is nothing wrong with that.

As soon as research began however basic questions like "How do we get there?" would have provided the answer "You don't. It's a Heritage site and entry is forbidden and illegal." It was at that point the action became willfully criminal. Further basic research would have shown how the lines are formed, by removing the dark surface layer to expose the white sand beneath and it would follow from that that any disturbance to the dark surface rocks would permanently damage the site. They simply didn't care.

I see that the enormity of what they've done hasn't sunk in to some people, including some from GP. Understand this. There are no apologies that will make it right and no remedial action that can be taken. 10,000 years from now as people fly above the Nazca lines they will be seeing the results of your work. What on Earth makes you think that "I'm sorry. I was a bit silly and promise not to do it again." will cut it?

People also need to consider that when you back an organisation willing to break laws, then don't be surprised if they break more than just the laws you don't care about.. What laws can be broken to "Save the Planet"? Think about it. ;)

This makes my blood boil. The activities of Greenpeace in Peru remind me of the muslim brotherhood in Egypt. The brotherhood want to destroy the pyramids, the sphinx, and all other artifacts of ancient Egypt. Those are national treasures of the people of Egypt.

Likewise, the Nazca lines are national treasures of the Peruvian people. That the terrorists of Greenpeace are willing to destroy the lines shows they are determined to promote the global warming mythology, no matter what the consequences.

Buck:

The Greenpeace team entered a restricted site without permission and without the required preparation (footwear). I don't know whether they disturbed any of the Nazca lines, but I do know they went in at night. If they intended to avoid stepping on the lines, that is the time when such damage would be hardest to avoid.

It was a poorly conceived plan from the git-go. If they were able to project a message onto Huayna Picchu, they could have done the same at the Plain of Nazca — without any possibility of damage (barring accident.) For that matter, they might have stopped after the Huayna Picchu message, which got a lot of local coverage.

One report (Spanish) with photos

What's next Greenpeace, burning books?

sciencepunk — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 06:27:30 +0000

What's next Greenpeace, burning books?

In the early hours of a Wednesday morning two weeks ago, three Greenpeace activists made their way past the perimeter fence at Ginninderra Experiment Station in Canberra, Australia, and destroyed a crop of GM wheat using weed strimmers. A spokeswoman for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), the national science agency which runs the station, said the damage was estimated to run A$300,000. In a statement released by Greenpeace Australia Pacific, activist Laura Kelly stated that "We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment".

Both scientists and the public have been quick to criticise the action, labelling Greenpeace as dogmatic and anti-science. Professor Mark Tester, a plant scientist at the University of Adelaide, told reporters:

"I am deeply disappointed at the news that Greenpeace has stooped so far in their desperate attempt to gain publicity for their campaign against genetically modified wheat. GM technology is not a magic bullet but it does offer new opportunities to improve the quality and quantity of wheat. Scientists are trying to reduce the environmental impacts of farming and so help farmers in the developing world and Australia"

The experiment crop in question had been selectively modified to boost its nutritional content, offering a lower Glycemic Index and higher fibre content. It was scheduled to be tested on animals and a small cohort of human volunteers, but was not intended to be released into the wild or processed in commercial foodstuffs.

Image CC CIAT International Centre for Tropical Agriculture

Michael Jones, Director of the WA State Agricultural Biotechnology Centre at Murdoch University in Perth, was more forthright in his criticisms: "Australia is destined to become the 'stupid country' if it condones acts such as Greenpeace's destruction of the CSIRO wheat trials," he wrote. "Greenpeace's Luddite destruction of GM field tests does nothing to address global agronomic and food security, and simply wastes taxpayers and farmers' funds."

Initially jubilant about the action, the Australian Greenpeace Twitter account fell conspicuously silent as the seriousness of how badly they had misjudged public opinion became apparent. Supporters were thanked while critics ignored or invited to direct their questions to a live chat scheduled for the following Monday. The absence of rebuttal allowed criticism of Greenpeace's latest stunt to rapidly snowball. What precautions, for example, did Greenpeace take to ensure that no GM-material was transported off site? Whereas the CSIRO lab was controlled under the strict mandates of the Office of Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), what guarantee was there that the Greenpeace activists were competent enough to follow similar protocols?

Wilson Da Silva, editor of Australia's COSMOS magazine, lamented an organisation that "was once a friend of science", but has become "a sad, dogmatic, reactionary phalanx of anti-science zealots who care not for evidence, but for publicity." I could not agree with him more. Greenpeace's Luddite decline has been in progress for decades. In 1986, Patrick Moore parted ways with the organisation he cofounded, infuriated by their rejection of science. (according to Moore, the tipping point was Greenpeace's campaign against the chlorination of drinking water, a public health intervention that has probably saved more lives than any other in the history of medicine).

Like their ever-present biohazard suits, Greenpeace activists wear science like a fashion - something to be shed as soon as it grows uncomfortable. Greenpeace has become, at its core, a faith-based organisation, with all the attendant dogmas. By visiting the Greenpeace website you begin to understand how the organisation has become so badly out of step with prevailing public attitudes. Arguments that are superficially plausible fall apart under closer scrutiny. The organisation justifies the attack on CSIRO by highlighting their ties with "foreign GM companies", a move that speaks volumes about the mindset of those within. Science is never carried out in isolation, and scientists understand better than anyone the care required to remove undue influence from a result. They have built an entire system dedicated to doing just that - it's called science. But to Greenpeace, such corporations are solidly, irrevocably evil entities who taint by association. Fraternising with such an enemy is strictly off limits. At the heart of this fundamentalist green movement is an almost Catholic-like obsession with sin, and the need to be kept pure by rejecting any compromise. It's a mentality that has insulated swathes of the green movement against the rest of the world, so that they exist in a solipsistic bubble that explodes - sometimes literally - when it comes into contact with the real world.

The greatest tragedy is not that Greenpeace has lost its way, but that it is now actively preventing the discussion from moving beyond childlike arguments of good vs bad, toward deciding how we want to use technologies like GM. The power of agribusiness, the needs of farmers, protection of the environment and the safety of our food are all important issues that we need to address, but this cannot and will not be achieved through the mindless destruction of scientist's work.

This article was commissioned two weeks ago for a news outlet but didn't get published in the end, so I'm throwing it up here.

sciencepunk Thu, 07/28/2011 - 02:27

Tags

Unfortunately that is how they make their money. Greenpeace are as much a part of the market as any Madison Avenus firm, it just that their opriduct is fear and it is very lucrative.

If they told the truth or even allowed it to be told they would be out of business.

Since experimental science is the way to find out the truth or otherwise of scare stories, they hate science.

The eco-fascists also hate science for the rather purer reason that they are afraid of any priogress, which is bound to weaken the position of stupid or ignorant people who ghappen tom be at the top in society.

By definition then they will never compromise with science and any attempt to do so by scientists simply harms us.

The number of people killed by these eco-Nazis (eg the DDT scare, the anti-nuclear lies, lies about pollution, global coolingm global warming, peak oil, peak everything else, etc etc) has unnecessarily killed hundreds of millions - far more than Hitler and Stalin combined.

Hmmmm... a few thoughts here as I feel this article extrapolates rather wildly from one event, whatever your view on it:

1. Greenpeace campaigns on many issues - whether or not you agree with this action does not devalue the rest of their work. Have a look at recent campaigns on over-fishing, illegal logging etc etc.
2. There are variations between offices/campaigns. Even if the GM campaign in Greenpeace Australia makes a mistake (if that is the case), there's no reason other campaigns wouldn't remain valid.
3. Can't comment worldwide on Greenpeace's use of science, but I've witnessed it being applied perfectly well - it certainly isn't 'worn like a fashion'. Go and read some of the recent reports that have been published, or why not get in touch with the Greenpeace lab in Exeter, UK.
4. Re the 'companies are irrevocably evil' bit, that's simply incorrect - a Greenpeace core principle (and these are stuck to) is having no permanent allies or enemies. There are many instances of campaigns where Greenpeace has ended up working with what was originally a campaign target to help solve an environmental problem.
@ Neil:
5. Greenpeace doesn't make any money - everything that comes in is spent on campaigning - no money is accepted from companies or political groups (nope, not even the Green Party).
6. I'm a scientist and a Greenpeace volunteer - certainly not an 'eco-fascist' or 'eco-Nazi' (please grow up) - I'd love to see the data to support your last paragraph :) Equally interesting that you consider climate change and the environmental impacts of DDT etc to be 'scare stories' when they are supported strongly by science - doesn't match your other comments matey boy!

For the other side of the crazy coin, see Neil Craig.

Pro-starvation terrorists.

Burning books? More like burning corporate manuals.
"GM science" is an oxymoron when referring to the development of patented commercial crops. Just corporate invention and interest. Regulation requirements are set at lowest common denominator that serves clearance for trade, as recommended by the economic body the OECD.

If you haven't already done so google "Emily Waltz Under Wraps" for a Nature Biotechnology article on the patent holder restrictions on independent research on their products.

Good thing the Climate isn't patented.

@2 DaveH
Well, vitamin A deficiency has killed somewhere in the range of 21 million people since the first varieties of Golden Rice, the vitamin A fortified GMO rice, were developed. Assuming that, upon being implemented, Golden Rice is only able to save half of those people, that's still somewhere in the range of the estimated number of people murdered in the Holocaust that anti-GMO activists are directly or indirectly responsible for. Most scientists tend to avoid those sorts of emotional arguments, but the fact is, it really isn't an unfair statement to make, and given that the emotion and rhetoric filled cries of 'Frankenfood' and other such nonsense tend to get the most public attention I sometimes wonder if scientists should be a little less Spock-like in their rhetoric.

I question the point about their money too. Yeah, I get that they're a non-profit, and I'm not doubting that. However, were I a professional activist making a living off the so-called GMO controversy (and I had no qualms about using dishonesty for my own benefit), it would clearly be in my best interest to continue to drum up controversy to keep that donation money flowing. And granted they say the same thing about scientists (claiming 'they only support GMOs because they'd lose their job if they were bad'), however, I would put forward that there is a distinct difference between doing research and reporting findings and professional activism. Many scientists get paid either way, in fact, they'd probably get more funding and grants for finding something bad than finding something expected. The same is not true of Greenpeace activists.

And it is also true that Greenpeace may well be right about a good many things, but this does throw the whole organization into doubt. If I'm going to listen to someone on, say, overfishing, rainforest destruction, or global warming, all of which Greenpeace occasionally makes good points on, I want to listen to and support someone who is using science as their basis whether it fits their overall message or not, not simply whatever happens to fit the anti-capitalism anti-corporate agenda.

@5 Madeleine Love

You do realize this was publicly funded government research that was destroyed? I'm always baffled at how many people can see government research destroyed and say 'Yeah, destroying publicly funded alternatives to corporate products, taking out the competition will teach those companies!' What you are saying is akin to saying that because McDonald's cooks a lot of food, any restaurant that cooks food must therefore be a McDonald's, and every local dive and eatery in the world should be held accountable for McDonald's actions. That does not make sense. What corporations do with the GMOs they develop is largely irrelevant to the merits of genetic engineering itself. You also neglect to consider Golden Rice, Rainbow Papaya, HoneySweet Plum, BioCassava, Super Sorghum, and all the other GMOs developed by universities and governments around the world (most of which don't have clever names yet so I won't list every single one I can think of). So, it's pretty disingenuous to say all GMOs are corporate in nature.

Hi. I'm not sure if this will add anything useful to the debate (probably not), but this post prompted me to make a little image expressing my feeling on the matter.

http://dreamfoundry.co.za/7127

Personally I have no fear of GM in and of itself - it's simply a technology (e.g. that created a bacterial source of insulin in its early days) - my concerns are more to do with corporate control over the food chain. I know this sounds like rhetoric, but it isn't - simply witness the bizarre-ness of Monsanto trying to patent conventionally-reared melon seeds, the fact that seeds outside trade agreements become illegal to trade despite being well established varieties etc etc etc.

@GH - very few Greenpeace activists are paid - the only ones that are, are those who work in the national offices (which isn't many) - even then, they do direct action as volunteers. Professional campaigners/NGO workers within Greenpeace don't lose their jobs if their campaign ends - they get transferred to a different role - so, where's the motive for 'scare-mongering'?

My feeling here is that this one action is being used as an excuse for a bit of Greenpeace-bashing by those already opposed :) However, I was mildly amused by one comment - I'm pretty certain I've never heard anyone say (or paraphrase) 'Yeah, destroying publicly funded alternatives to corporate products, taking out the competition will teach those companies!' 'til now anyway.

BTW, Neil Craig seems to have gone strangely quiet - had a look at his blog - weird - but unsurprised to find he's a climate change sceptic. *bless*

@9 DaveH

Absolutely there are legitimate concerns about food security and the questionable practices of agribusiness, but destroying publicly-funded research projects does nothing to address this, as Michael Jones pointed out.

Greenpeace seem incapable of having a grown up debate about GM or a host of other environmental issues, they simply divide the world into good and bad technologies and bang their drums as loud as possible.

DeveH on #4 I point you to Madeleine's post which starts by blaming everything on wicked capitalists - or iondeed to DeveH #9 (presumably an entirely different person from DeveH #2 "who said they weren't anti-capitalist) saying " I have no fear of GM in and of itself ... my concerns are more to do with corporate control over the food chain" - another "environmentalist" who really doesn't care for the environment but merely uses it to promote anti-capitalist Luddism.

#5 Gtreenpeance most definitely makes money. They may not have sharegolders to pay but the corporate lawyers on their board expect to be paid. One of the reasons their founder, Patrick Moore quit was because they introduced a pension plan, presumably not paid in fairy dust, which showed that Greenpeacing was no longer a crusade against particular practices but a regular careerwhich would need an endless parade of "problems" to keep going.

#6 Before DDT banning world malaria deaths were down to 50,000 annually. They are now between 1 1/2 & 3 million. Over 50 years that one alone has killed more people than Hitler & Stalin combined.

Another good example DH and not one I had been thinking of at the time.

The reason the "environmentalists" can't have a grown up debate on GM is the same one for why they destroy scientific experiments - they know they spinning a false scare story that would fall before facts.

Those who have followed other recent "scienceblogs" discussions on warming (except on those sites that censor) will have seen this inability to do grown up in all its glory.

Neil @ #11 - Sure GP are luddites, but let's be grown up about it and avoid fighting GP bullshit with anti-environment bullshit.

DDT is not, and never has been, banned for use in combating malaria. It is still widely used for controlling malaria in the third world, not because it's more effective than alternative insecticides, but because it's dirt cheap.

So if your 50k number is correct (which I highly doubt) then the explanation is NOT the banning of DDT for agricultural use in the western world.

Re Greenpeace staff having pension plans - well, duh - does anyone really expect them to work for nothing??? Thta implies no-one who has a career can do so ethically... Oh, and there are no corporate lawyers on the board.

GP = Luddites... had a look at any of the decentralised energy generation technologies it supports lately? Nope - well, they are some of the most advanced about (have a look at some of the co-generation etc in Germany, Scandinavia and others).

DDT = ongoing debate we're not involved in, so not sure how it popped up here. Neil, I don't suppose you're paid by AFM - you seem to love DDT so. There are all sorts of arguments pro/con DDT regarding human health, but tangled up in mosquito resistance, effects of DDT residues on humans etc etc. As for environmentalists being responsible for a ban on DDT, it's a perennial myth - it's not you that keeps resurrecting it is it? Anyhow, Greenpeace's page on it is here http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/greenpeace-ddt-and-malaria

BTW, I never mentioned whether or not I was anti-capitalist (or indeed whether I feel that's such a broad term as to be largely meaningless), so yup, must be two DaveH's. Probably there are even more.

Having had numerous grown-up debates on various environmental topics over quite a few years, both with and without a Greenpeace 'hat' on, I have to chuckle wrily when told that Greenpeace (and thus by extension I as a volunteer) am incapable of doing so. Weird. So I respond in kind and poke the silly self-promoting anti-greens with an organic leek.

Well Dave in post #2 your point 4 was that they specifically weren't anti-capitalist while in you post #9 you said that your opposition to GM was entirely anticapitalist - that you had "no fear" whatsoever that the scare stories would turn out to be true but supported them out of opposition to corporations.

On DDT it has since be3come unambiguously proven that DDT has never harned a single human being and indeed that even the claim that it thinned eggshells is extremely dubiuos. Nonetheless, as I showed, the anti-DDT campaign has killed on the or5der of 100 million people.

For that reason many Greems have tried to distance themselves from it. Despite one eco-Nazi (the term is clearly justified) saying, when told of the genocide "We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any." There was not a formal worldwide bann because there is no organisation, not even the UN, with the authority to do so, but there was massive pressure to maintain a ban, including western legal bans of aid to any country that would not go along with it. This was al, obviously, done because of pressure from the "environmentalist" movement. So yes, in fact there was a ban and in fact it did kill that many.

"GP = Luddites... had a look at any of the decentralised energy generation technologies it supports lately?"

No I haven't but unless any of them involve working cold fusion, this does indeed sound like going backwards technologically, albeit with an antiseptic paint job. Perhaps you coould point out some which are not Luddite and really cutting edge. Perhaps you could even name some Green supported power generating system that is better at generatring commercial power than at generating subsidies .

Could you also state which of the 2 DaveH's, exprerssing wholly incompatible views, is answering.

Sorry, crazy Neil, but the use (indeed re-use) of the eco-Nazi tag renders you not worth talking to further. Grow up and get a life.

As i said the term is clearly justified when discussing a movement that has deliberately killed far more than Hitler and Stalin put together.

If anyone can suggest another term which would be equally applicable in the circumstances I would be interested in seeing it.

DaveH #1 (anti-capitalist) I note your inability to debate. Does that apply to DaveH #2 (pro-capitalist)too?

Greenpeace has been denied its 'charity status' in NZ ergo it is a business.

"natural cynic
July 28, 2011

For the other side of the crazy coin, see Neil Craig."

Uh, except Neil was 100% spot on. If you want crazy, look to DaveH and Madeleine Love.

"and the questionable practices of agribusiness"

There needs to be a Godwin's Law for this, whereby anybody who needs to fall back on baseless, scaremongering buzzwords like "AgriBusiness" and "Factory farms" automatically lose the debate. I'm looking at you, DaveH.

The narrow mind of Greenpeace

hrynyshyn — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 10:21:08 +0000

The narrow mind of Greenpeace

Way back when I was just a novice environmentalist, Greenpeace seemed like a good idea. It published a decent newsletter, was drawing attention to otherwise neglected issues, and, while understandably suspicious of technology, seemed to have more than a grudging respect for science as a tool to preserve those things worse preserving. It was one of the few NGOs that received what little I could afford to donate to charitable causes. I don't regret supporting them in the 80s, and not just because I shared the group's desire to save the whales.

I still want to save the whales. I no longer support Greenpeace.

It's one thing to present a reactionary response to anything that smacks of corporatism or lends itself to the centralization of power, seeing as any technology or plan so characterized tends to be bad for the health of ecosystems. But civilization long since passed the point of no return on the path to the Anthropocene. It's no longer about choosing between good and bad options. It's about minimizing the damage. This is something Greenpeace doesn't grok any more, if it ever did.

Take nuclear power. Greenpeace was built on an anti-nuke platform, although it was largely in response to nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific. Members quickly embraced an anti-nuclear power position, though, and today they're about as resolute on that one as anything else.

Greenpeace has always fought and will continue to fight vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants.

I, too, have problems with the nuclear power industry, mostly because its just too damn expensive and time-consuming to build, but also because of the political (as opposed to practical) challenges posed by waste disposal. But it's the height of folly to demand the dismantling of nuclear plants with years or decades of useful life left in them until there's enough renewable capacity to take up the slack, and/or we've made commensurate reductions in our consumption patterns. It's also foolish to oppose any efforts to look into safer, potentially cheaper variations on the nuclear theme, like liquid fluoride thorium reactors, that could offer acceptable options in decades to come.

The fact is, we're going to need every arrow in our quiver to address climate change, and there's little doubt that existing nuclear power reactors will have to play a role. We can debate the economics and regulatory burdens of expanding that role, but blanket opposition to any and all forms of nuclear fission is irresponsible given the threat posed by a warming planet.

Similarly, there's a long list of reasons why we shouldn't trust Monsanto and the rest of the agri-chemical transnationals who are responsible for pushing genetically modified crops on the world's farmers. So far, they have proven useful for the seed companies' bottom lines and precious little else. But given the fact we are headed for somewhere close to 10 billion humans by the end of the century, it is now abundantly clear that the first wave of the Green Revolution is maxed out and will not be up to the task of supplying enough food. Not without some help from GM crops tailored to grow in places that used to be unsuitable or are loaded with essential nutrients that evolution didn't manage to pack in on its own.

On this subject Greenpeace does not agree and has even gone to so far as to destroy research that might help get us closer to genuinely useful, as opposed to merely profitable, GM varieties of wheat. [UPDATE: In t his case, the variety being tested contained no foreign genes and offered a lower glycemic index and higher fiber content, both good ideas from a nutritional point of view and hardly worrisome from a health perspective.] Why? Because we don't know enough about the technology yet?

"GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread."

Just because history hasn't painted a rosy picture of GMOs or nuclear power thus far is no reason to reject it wholesale. Yes, we should be vigilant and skeptical very skeptical in many cases. But we just might need one or both of them in some form to survive the rest of the 21st century.

These sort of things are not self-evident. One needs to have done more than cursory research into the subject matter to get a grip on them. But we're not talking quantum chromodynamics. An organization such as Greenpeace has the resources to study them and figure out that the most responsible and reasonable approach is not binary. It's complicated. Sometimes the best response is "yes, but only if..." or "no, unless..." I know it's tough to launch a public relations campaign with sophisticated or complex messages. But opposing science and research is not the sort of strategy that will be useful in the coming years. And it's time more of us called them on it, publicly. It would nice if Greenpeace could be a force for good again. Saving the whales was great. But as they say: What have you done for me lately?

hrynyshyn Fri, 07/15/2011 - 06:21

Tags

I used to give about 5 dollars a month to them. I cancelled for the GMO reason.

Got any alternatives I can give my little contribution to?

great post I agree with most of what you say! I have but one minor quibble, you say:

"But given the fact we are headed for somewhere close to 10 billion humans by the end of the century,"

There is no such given, as a matter of fact it is becoming ever more likely that due to the simple fact that we are encountering real physical resource limits such numbers will probably not be attained.

To be clear, I am strongly in favor of finding ways to curtail and reverse population growth.

I'm currently taking part in a private discussion group about human population dynamics and the consensus, based on rather hard to refute science and data is that our planet can in no way sustainably support more than about a billion or so humans in a resource limited and ecologically impoverished future.

It appears there are a number of factors converging to create an almost perfect storm for a population crash in the not so distant future.

Granted that in no way invalidates any of your other points.

It seems that the times, though they may be a changing, we still haven't found a way around the second law of thermodynamics. We have only temporarily managed to stay some of natures regulatory mechanisms by harvesting fossil fuel energy to fuel our civilization.

As for nuclear energy it too depends on the existence of a highly complex industrial civilization for it to be built and maintained, it's looking more and more as if that will no longer be possible either... And I won't even get into the details of the EROEI of all the links in its entire supply chain.

Cheers!

Greenpeace is a bunch of clueless idiotic treehuggers. They do far more harm to the environment than help it.

For example, recent Germany ban on future nuclear was a reaction to Greenpeace demonstrations. They staged 'die-ins': http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/8472706/Anti-n… to show people that would die from radiation as a reaction to Fuchushima. Never mind, that so far Fuchushima has not caused any radiation-related deaths so far.

And as a result they got the ban on nuclear reactors in Germany. Only... There's nothing clean to replace them! New COAL and gas power plants are going to be built by 2020.

But that's OK. Germany will meet its obligation to lower CO2 emissions. Right? Yeah, sure.

Or another joke - Greenpeace plan to replace nuclear energy. It not only assumes 'pie-in-the-sky' scenarios with radically cheaper alternative energy technologies, but also requires us to actually _lower_ global electricity consumption. Yeah, that's gonna happen.

Don't sell yourself short douche boy. You're still a novice.

[Duplicate post with links removed as I've had other comments not get past moderation here when they contain links - Google the 'link redacted' text for source]

Disappointing to see you join the knee-jerk anti-Greenpeace hysteria. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of actions taken by one small group in one country, it is nonsense to now rubbish a global organisation that probably does more than any in providing protection to the environment that we so desperately need.

> ...it's the height of folly to demand the dismantling of nuclear plants with years or decades of useful life left in them ...

It's the height of folly to continue running nukes that are located in highly vulnerable locations or that are vulnerable to catastrophic failure. Also, dismantling nukes - regardless of if there is serviceable life left in them - can and should stimulate massive investment in renewables. That is now happening in Germany (even more than they already were).

* Germany says auf wiedersehen to nuclear power. Critics argue that Germany will hurt its economy by raising energy costs, replacing nuclear power with imports from France, and building more coal plants, thus increasing carbon emissions. The facts do not bear this out. [link redacted]

> Not without some help from GM crops tailored to grow in places that used to be unsuitable...

That's what the GMO lobby keeps telling us. Where's the *evidence*?

* Failure to yield. The promise of higher yields from GM crops has proven to be empty. [link redacted]

* Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes. [link redacted]

Fact is, there is no shortage of food to feed all 7 billion of us. The only problem is that the top 1 billion scrape a lot of it in the trash because they have more than they need.

Disappointing response, James.

Neither this article nor the one linked to says what the damned genetic modification in question was.
Searching about, it seems to be "Round-up" resistance.

"Failure to yield": Heard about cotton with the Bt gene? I thought it was working out for the farmers. Whether the yield is higher depends on what I compare to. Comparing to folks flying planes to spray real Bt, perhaps little is gained. But if I compare to what the same field produced previously (there were no planes), perhaps a huge difference.

For example, recent Germany ban on future nuclear was a reaction to Greenpeace demonstrations.

Um, no, it was a reaction to the nuclear charlie-foxtrot at Fukushima. When a reactor threatens to melt down and is releasing radiation and they can't bring in enough water to keep it under control after being completely "shut down," that kinda looks bad regardless of what Greenpeace does. Also, the folks at TEPCO started acting just as incomptent and dishonest as any good ol' American nuclear bigwig, which only reinforced us "lefty treehuggers'" concerns about governments' and corporations' willingness to manage nuclear power the way it needs to be managed.

Greenpeace may be stupid, but blaming them for the obvious, sometimes tragi-farcical, problems of nuke-biz, is even stupider.

OK this is *Science*Blogs - yes? - so let's get evidence-based here!
I don't know what you've got over in the US of A where SB seems to be based but on this side of the pond we have a physicist - David MacKay - who has published[1] an analysis of UK energy consumption broken into categories: Cars, Planes, Heating and cooling, Light, Gadgets, Food and farming, Stuff and Public services, and non-fossil energy sources: Wind, Solar, Hydro, Offshore wind, Wave, Tide and Geothermal, and addresses the question "Can we live on renewables?". MacKay considers possible changes to transport, smarter heating, efficient electricity use, sustainable fossil fuels, nuclear, and living on other countries' renewables, and produces a handful of sample plans - including some with and some without nuclear.

MacKay states clearly that he is not proposing any particular plan, except the meta-plan that any plan one proposes should add up!

So rather than criticising Greenpeace (or anyone else) for flatly opposing all nuclear power, let us challenge them to show us their quantified plan for a nuclear-free and fossil-free energy system.

With bonus points for being remotely practicable. : - )

[1] http://www.withouthotair.com/

PS George Monbiot has also written quite outspokenly (for a renowned environmentalist) about nuclear power, e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-f… and recently debated the topic with Greenpeace.

PPS with regard to GM and world food supplies I suspect that the world's poorest people who need better food supplies most are too poor to afford GM even if it would help them, and actually the problems include:

* poor agricultural practices, improvements to which would vastly improve production without any GM-type high-tech

* economic pressures: many third-world countries are saddled with huge international debts (often incurred by corrupt dictatorships) resulting in tax burdens on poor citizens who are obliged to grow cash-crops for export at the expense of food crops for themselves and their families and communities.

From the little I know the GM industry is targetting wealthier industrial agriculture which already spends huge amounts on fertilisers, weedkillers and pesticides.

Yeah, I have to say that the opposition to GM crops and nuclear isn't just knee-jerk stuff. There are (as you concede) very real concerns. But let me lay out a few:

-- Safety. In the US all I have to prove is that a given crop is equivalent to a current one. There is no precautionary principle here. I don't think that you're too likely to have a real issue myself, but given also that Monsanto et al are in this for the money, I wouldn't doubt that corners will be cut. If there were independent testing of foods (or at least double blinds) a la drugs that would go a long way.

-- Intellectual property. Farmers have saved seeds since there was farming. Now they aren't allowed to do it. Now, as it is, I can't patent a breed of dog and I can't patent genes (this was just decided in the courts here in the US) that I didn't invent. (This has more to do with testing for genetic disease in humans, however). In any case, the problem is that you have GM rapeseed/canola "volunteering" in various places and possibly getting all over the place. And given what we know now about gene transfer, and how it can be very hard to control in the wild, I am not sure that the current system of intellectual property law lends itself terribly well to agriculture. There are a couple of issues here around control of food supply and the like.

-- Supply. No modern (i.e. industrial age) famine has ever been caused by supply issues. (See: Amartya Sen). The problem is distribution and affordability. Even as far back as the Irish famine the problem was not that there was not enough food, the problem was that the Irish didn't have any money and you need money to buy food. (You can't instantly change crops and if you aren't paid enough for labor to buy food you starve). In Bangladesh something similar happened -- the food was there but it was much more profitable to sell it to people who had money. The Bangladeshis (a lot of them) had no money. To put it another way, if I can sell rice for $1 per bushel in the U.S. and make $1 billion I have zero incentive to sell it in Bangladesh for 50 cents per bushel and make only, say, $300 million. It is not clear to me that GM foods have anything to do with this.

-- Energy. The idea that we're stuck with using nuclear is, as they say, not necessarily so. We changed our whole consumption patterns in the US in short order after WW II, and we changed them in even shorter order leading up to the war. It is possible to have radical changes, if you can get people to sign on. It was patriotic duty in 1943 to recycle. It was your patriotic duty to save on gas by not driving, saving, and re-using stuff for several years. Now you're a freaky tree-hugger. The only difference is in the framing. (If anything the technological advances have made doing these things easier).

Getting functional nuclear power took the Manhattan project. (While the program was for bombs, the efficient reactor technologies emerged from there, partly so we could build more bombs). As a percentage of the economy that was actually larger than a similarly-sized project would be now, by an order of magnitude at least. For about the price of a current nuclear plant (say $10 billion+) I can launch, with current technology, a solar plant to freaking orbit and even with the power losses beam the energy via microwaves to earth and supply a small town. But there is no research funded at that scale to doing something like that, to increase it's efficiency. The Manhattan Project is why a goodly chunk of New Mexico has anyone living there at all. A similar project for solar -- or anything else-- could do wonders. Heck, the Iraq war has sunk enough money to build a megawatt-scale solar plant in space with current technology.

I don't think space-based solar is the answer, (it will be part of it I hope) but I also think it's important to remember just how far behind we are -- and it is manifestly not because of Greenpeace. Greenpeace didn't say we should protect fossil fuel supplies (including coal) and develop nothing else. Greenpeace didn't say that digging up coal was ever and always the answer. Greenpeace didn't ask Congress to cut funding for alternative transportation methods (some of which were relatively new technologies, some not). I think Greenpeace would be thrilled to death if someone said "I want to build an electric maglev from New York to Chicago."

I have my differences with Greenpeace on occasion. (I think they really have to re-think a lot of issues surrounding class and race, for instance). But I think there is a tendency to assume that a lot of them are anti-technology. I found that to not be the case-- they just aren't technophiles. Quite the contrary. Their technological optimism is just placed in things that don't have lobbying firms on the scale that exists for current players. But it isn't any more irrational than the "peaceful atom" movies I saw as a child.

John Stumbles:

> David MacKay ... www. withouthotair . com/

Despite his claims of impartiality, MacKay produced a very biased and unreliable screed that is strongly pro-nuke and anti-renewable. See http://thisbluerock.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/david-mackays-sustainable-…

> George Monbiot has also written quite outspokenly (for a renowned environmentalist) about nuclear power,

His output since Fukushima has been little more than a propaganda campaign for the nuke industry. There's a reason for that. He's being tutored on energy by his old school chemistry teacher, Malcolm Grimston, who subsequently moved on to become a booster for the British nuclear industry. The web is littered with articles that absolutely shred Monbiot's nonsense on nukes and radiation. He is not a credible commentator.

I was a supporter of GP during the 70's when they were fighting atmospheric testing and rainforest plunder. They lost my support 20yrs ago when they started campaigning against chlorine in the water, a public health mesure that has saved more lives than anything else I can think of.

GP have not been an environmental organisation for decades, they are a neo-luddite organisation. This doensn't mean that they are wrong about everything but I cannot support an organistion that threw out science and logic in favour of zealotry and dogma.

My two cents...

You know, nuclear radiation is bad. Clearly. I don't think anyone will dispute that (except Ann Coulter, but I don't consider her human for issues of personal sanity). However, it is a very reliable and powerful source of energy which, if harnessed correctly, can be very clean and safe. It's a lot like flying in an airplane: crunch the numbers and it's one of the best ways to travel... but if something goes wrong, you're screwed.

So, should we tear down all nuclear power plants? No. To do so would require replacements. And, there are alternatives, but each one has their downside: wind and solar take up a lot of space, are weather-dependent, and aren't as efficient when considering land area per output. Hydroelectric is crazy awesome, but it can't be applied everywhere, and usually demands restructuring the local environment (guess who doesn't like that? Greenpeace.) I think we can agree that coal and oil need to go away. So what are we left with? Precious few options, I'm afraid. Nuclear power really is the best. And if we spent real money trying to perfect the process, we could make it better. It'll last long enough to keep humanity going after our fossil fuels run out, until we can come up with something better (fusion? Oh, what a lovely day that would be...). And yes, I am all for something better.

As for the crops, I have nothing against those. Genetic engineering has such a stigma nowadays, but humanity has been artificially selecting plants and animals for thousands of years!! Genetic engineering is just a more precise way of doing it; fiddling with the genetic code rather than trying to select from phenotypes. And yes, the science and technology of genetics is still relatively young, but we are advancing rapidly. Does that mean I think all genetically modified foods are A-OK? Hell no! But I know that they -are- required to pass the same tests as any other foods, and I know that they can produce higher yields at a lower cost and still contain higher nutritional values. This technology will be vital as the population grows; there can be no argument otherwise.

I'd like to see alternatives to nuclear power and genetically modified foods.. but they are, far and above, the best options available until new science and technology appears. And if we accept them without stigma or bias, we can approach them boldly and fix the problems that they have. I respect the concept of defending the environment, but doing so without considering the consequences is, in my opinion, foolish. If Greenpeace wants to save the planet, they should put those donations toward scientific investigation and try to fix the problems that they find, not hinder the attempts of real scientists attempting to do just that.

Hi there,

Greenpeace webbie here. Just passing though. My own personal thoughts...

The case for shutting down nuclear power plants boils down to:

1. Every nuclear plant poses an unnecessary risk.

2. While operational, the plants continue to produce radioactive waste, which there is still no practical way of disposing of.

As for new reactor technology - better to invest in areas with more promise (renewable energy, efficiency).

The main point I'm making here is that Greenpeace is not against "technology".

We're against specific technologies and in favor of others. So while you're free to agree/disagree with any of the above, I hope we can agree that any difference of opinion is about what the best technology choices (and thus policy choices, investment choices, etc).

I think any real, substantial disagreement will be around the word "necessary". As you point out, the world population is growing, and in many countries (China, India, Brazil, etc) the standard of living is fast improving (that's a good thing).

Working with European Renewable Energy Council we've created a detailed practical blueprint for cutting carbon emissions while achieving economic growth by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

This blueprint shows we can get cut our CO2 emissions and get rid of nuclear power while continuing economic growth.

You can find this plan here...
http://www.energyblueprint.info

@rork: That's not correct on the modification--you can read up on the story here: http://www.biofortified.org/2011/07/greenpeace-destroy-gm-wheat-trial/

@Andrew Davies: Funny how this "The main point I'm making here is that Greenpeace is not against "technology". We're against specific technologies and in favor of others." sounds just like: "We're not anti-vaccine. We're pro-safe vaccine...."

And in general the lack of understanding of the plant science and all the academic and government projects around GMOs is disappointing. You all need to realize that the fog the word "Monsanto" creates in this arena clouds out your view of the field as a whole. And that's exactly what Greenpeace wants. Their product is doubt.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs)are hundreds of times safer than Fukishima and TMI Light Water Reactors (LWRs).

On '38 Degrees', the Campaigning Website, you can vote for UK Manufacture of LFTRs. Do this and we'll save Â£50 billion of the Â£110 billion of our hard-earned taxes that Chris Huhne is chucking away on inconsequential renewables and CC&S. Have a look at the arguments on '38 Degrees' and vote for LFTRs - nothing is more important to the future of the UK.

"1. Every nuclear plant poses an unnecessary risk.
2. While operational, the plants continue to produce radioactive waste, which there is still no practical way of disposing of.
As for new reactor technology - better to invest in areas with more promise (renewable energy, efficiency)."

What fucking promise? Barring breakthroughs in solar PV the current crop of alternative energy is many times more expensive than nuclear for baseload capacity.

And about "facts not bearing out". Germany is already planning to build more fossil fuel plants: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gnJH-sZ9D1lD39l-ekmB…

Let me quote: "The Bundesrat also approved measures to fill the gap left by nuclear power, on which Germany relies for about 22 percent of its energy needs.
These include building new coal and gas power plants, although Berlin is sticking to its target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, and by 80-95 percent by 2050."

So how are they going to cut emissions by 40% by 2020? By using unicorn farts?

What is Greenpeace going to do when the clock chimes 00:00 Jan 1 2020? Are they going to stage die-ins near the coal plants that they themselves helped to build? No, I don't think so - that'd be a political suicide for them.

"This blueprint shows we can get cut our CO2 emissions and get rid of nuclear power while continuing economic growth.
You can find this plan here...
http://www.energyblueprint.info"

This is not a plan, this is a typical load of bullshit from Greanpeace. There's a good joke in Russian about this, it goes like this:

Hares come to a wise owl and ask: "Oh wise owl! Help us! Our lives are miserable, we are always on the run, we are hunted by wolves and foxes. Help us, please!". Wise owl thinks a bit and says: "Well, you can turn into hedgehogs, that should solve your problems". Hares walk away awed. Few days after they come back and ask owl again: "Oh wise owl! But how do we turn into hedgehogs?" and wise owl answers: "Stop bothering me with your stupid questions, I'm a strategist, not a tactician".

Greenpeace is like that. Their plan is formulate like: "Assume that we have replaced fossil-fuels with pie-in-the sky alternative generation. In this case we'll have low CO2 emissions! Yay, let's all hug trees!"

@BlueRock

Despite his claims of impartiality, MacKay produced a very biased and unreliable screed that is strongly pro-nuke and anti-renewable. See http://thisbluerock.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/david-mackays-sustainable-…

I came to MacKay with the opinion that nuclear power was unnecessary and undesirable, and I did not get the impression that he had a pro-nuke or anti-renewable bias, and I don't think any reasonable person reading his work would form that impression. If you think his figures are wrong have you written to him about it? And what was his response? If he refuses to engage in reasonable scientific discussion *then* you can call him out as 'biased'. If you refuse to engage in discussion then the shoe is on the other foot. That's how science works. And this is ScienceBlogs :-)

> George Monbiot has also written quite outspokenly (for a renowned environmentalist) about nuclear power,

His output since Fukushima has been little more than a propaganda campaign for the nuke industry. There's a reason for that. He's being tutored on energy by his old school chemistry teacher,...

Monbiot strikes me as a man who is quite capable of making up his own mind rather than a puppet for his former teachers. But in any case it is what he says that I am responding to, not who he is, and what he says makes sense. In a nutshell: the current state of the nuclear power industry is shoddy, penny-pinching and corner-cutting and quite inappropriate for handling a dangerous technology. And the particular current variants of the technology itself are poor choices for civil nuclear power. But to dismiss any and all nuclear power on the basis of flawed examples is irrational.

@Andrew Davies

Greenpeace webbie here. Just passing though. My own personal thoughts...

Hi Andrew - Greenpeace supporter here! :-)

Working with European Renewable Energy Council we've created a detailed practical blueprint for cutting carbon emissions while achieving economic growth by replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

This blueprint shows we can get cut our CO2 emissions and get rid of nuclear power while continuing economic growth.

You can find this plan here...
http://www.energyblueprint.info

Wow that's a *BIG* document!

Now I'm reasonably familiar with MacKay's analysis: I'm sure the energy experts at Greenpeace must be too, and anybody who's put in as much effort as the "energy [r]evolution" document must have taken must be able to trivially easily tell me how Greenpeace's plan fits in with MacKay's analysis - in other words, how much energy does GP see being generated from the various renewable sources MacKay identifies, how much could be saved by what specific energy conservation measures, etc? From my (admittedly cursory) scan of the "energy [r]evolution" PDF I can't find that information.

Also, can you point me to Greenpeace's analysis of the various fourth-generation nuclear power technologies currently being proposed (MSRs, various breeders, Thorium, pebble-bed etc) and of course Fusion?

Population seems to be the elephant in the room. Why is parenthood sacrosanct?

One nitpick: it isn't quite true that the modern crop of GM crops have done nothing but pad Monsanto's coffers. It is pretty well accepted that the insect resistant ones have cut pesticide usage, and they've also increased yields, particularly in developing countries where they doesn't always have access to pesticides (in developed countries yields were already high because we use pesticides). The herbicide tolerant ones, for all the ill will directed toward them, have enabled a wider use of no-till agriculture, which has cut carbon emissions and reduced fertilizer runoff (and of course both make farmer's lives easier and their farms more profitable). Also, the GMO Rainbow Papaya in Hawaii, the only non-corporate GMO on the market (unfortunately) saved the Hawaiian papaya industry from the papaya ringspot virus.

By all means, but wary of Monsanto, but their products really have made the world a better place. I think of Monsanto the same why I do of pharma companies. Sure, they're occasionally untrustworthy jerks, and they've had more than their share issues, but many of their drugs and vaccines make people's lives better. Same thing here. I'm not saying Monsanto is your best friend (not saying they're the great evil they're made out to be either), but the GM seed they sell really does do more than make them money.

Apart from this thread having turned into the normal Alex B. 'nuclear is lovely...raditaion is magic moonbeams' stuff, I frankly found the original article to be pretty poor.

Nuclear doesn't make any money, and after Fukishima, you can see exactly why the German government thought twice about it. Remember, the average liablity cap on nuclear accident throughout the Western world in terms of the operator (private or otherwise) is usually about 1.5% (thats the cost TEPCO has to bear, the rest is the Japanese taxpayer). Considering decommissioning costs as well, and the problem of waste (anyone found the perfect dump for most of these countries yet? No), going for efficiency, improving the grid, better generation and renewables make good economic sense.
The coal stations are stupid, but are a feature for German politics (German miners like their jobs mining dirty coal, and politicians know it). Greenpeace basically had nothing to do with it.

Bluerock also points out Mackay's bias in his analysis of renewables v nuclear. He really does like nuclear, but his figures have been questioned. You have to wonder how unbiased a person is when they write that Britains nuclear waste problem is 'âa âbeautifully smallâ problem. It really isn't. Its held in decaying structures, increasing all the time, and the UK government has been trying to find a staorage site for at least 20 years. The people who want it (or have been bribed to have it) are geologically in the wrong place, and the geologically right places don't want it anywhere near them. Basically, he's ignoring political and financial reality.

And considering the cost curve for wind/PV, basically he seems to write them off, or worse assumes outdated or false figure to base his calculations on (which are bit back of the envelope anyway). Mckay does seem to be the Freaknomics of the energy world, in that he's loved by people who think he's on the money, so don't do any analysis. He might be right, but I'm not sure about his workings.

Can we power the UK/Germany without nuclear or fossil fuels - possibly,. and there are some pretty good studies. They are certainly more robust than some of the pro-nuke arguements. As for Monbiot, we see an honourable man tying himself in knots trying to defend his latest love (which is a blind madness, as we all know). If you want to see how Monbiot argues, look at his strawmen and appeals to 'Very Serious People' - his arguement is 'There is NO alternative', even when there patently are.
For him (and others like Stewart Brand), the one subject we will never bring up is money. becuase nuclear doesnt make any.

As for GM - GM is not a perfect technology, and even if you think it is fine to release such an organism into the natural world(which I'm still not sure about), the social and economic effects are likely to be huge,and may simply concentrate more power in the hands of Monsanto, Gargill, AMD, etc - who really wants that? Greenpeace actually are supported by mnay, if not most, people in Europe is this kind of action. and in retrospect, may have done the right thing.

If you think GM stories such as the golden rice are so good, think about how much rice someone would have to consume to make up for the Vitamin A deficiency caused by growing mono cultural crops instead of growing a few vegetables amoungst other crops. GM has often failed in the market, not least for its backers, and you have to wonder if, without its high level lobbying and PR, it would not have simply been written off as an expensive techno fix some time ago.

John Stumbles

> ...have you written to him about it?

MacKay is aware of my criticisms. He acknowledged some, ignored many others. But why don't you read what I've written and respond to any fact that I have asserted?

You've set up challenges that I'm unlikely to have considered taking. It's almost as if you want to avoid the facts.

> Monbiot strikes me as a man who...

Who was almost the only climate 'realist' who fell for the CRU stolen email scam. Monbiot was calling for resignation of scientists. The fool believed the propaganda.

He's done it again with nuclear.

@MikeB:
"Nuclear doesn't make any money[...] better generation and renewables make good economic sense."

Direct question: Can you compare the cost of electrical power generation from nuclear to generation from renewables? Conservation is an important thing, but it is separate from generation.

Nuclear may be expensive, but carbon emissions are a serious problem, and paying for a more expensive energy source to reduce CO2 seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.

"Greenpeace basically had nothing to do with it."

Do you believe that Greenpeace had anything to do with the decision to decommission Germany's nuclear plants? Do you believe that, if Germany had not opted for decommissioning, they would still be building these coal plants?

#26
'Direct question: Can you compare the cost of electrical power generation from nuclear to generation from renewables? Conservation is an important thing, but it is separate from generation.'

Answer - getting a drect comparison between different generation systems isn't easy (and since I'm supposed to be clearing up the house before my wife gets back and looking after the kids at the same time, I can't spend all day looking..). However, a report from last year from Duke reports that PV is being offered in North Carolina at 16 cents per KWH, which is the point at which it comes in below the cost of nuclear. PV seems to be falling even further in unit cost this year, and the trend is very positive. Wind also has dropped in price, and even in 2009, there was little difference between onshore wind and coal (Onshore wind $0.096/kWh (higher in marginal wind areas with greater capital and O&M costs, such as on ridge lines in New England), Conventional coal (base-loaded) $0.095/kWh). Coal might be cheap, but if carbon is taxed/capped (such as in the UK and possibly Australia) and carbon capture is used, then the added cost will make it much more expensive. CCGT is cheaper and can suply base load, but of course the cost of gas has gone up (I'm now paying close to 20% more for gas/electric from my supplier than a year ago).

And of course the estimated costs of future nuclear build per KWH seem to be climbing constantly. Two proposed Florida plants were estimated to have an overnight cost of $3,800 per kilowatt. But if you look at the general overuns and costs increases of nuclear construction (you may argue its going to be better this time, but its not looking good at the moment), its closer to $6,800 per kilowatt. Progress Energys as yet uncompleted plants are trending about 25-55% above estimated KW cost. And of course there will almost certainly be larger costs due to extra safety precautions after Fukishima. And this takes into account the very large direct and indirect subsidies nuclear gets. Remember that the german reactors have had 200 billion euros from the state in the last 40 years. Renewables had 4.8 billion in 2010, but its unlikely that that level of subsidy will stay for the next 40 years, and even if it did, they still have no decommissioning or storage costs.

'Nuclear may be expensive, but carbon emissions are a serious problem, and paying for a more expensive energy source to reduce CO2 seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.'

How about you change nuclear for 'other sources'? The same arguement applies (in fact the 'renewables are too expensive' is a hardy perential), yet these other sources have none of the downsides of nuclear, and are in many cases cheaper right now. PV alone is steaming along.

Nuclear loses in economic terms, which is why so few are being built. If Greepeace are 'luddites' for campaigning against them, then so is the City of London and Wall Street - they don't want to invest in them either. Its not that their deluded fools, its just that they can read a spreadsheet. Given the choice between coal and nuclear, I'd go with nuclear. But its between two evils, and who needs evil when there are so many good options?

'Conservation is an important thing, but it is separate from generation.'
Conservation is the flipside of production - the less you need, the less you need to produce. Efficency is a relatively cheap and quick way to decarbonise much of the energy mix. New grids in Europe are being built not only to replace ageing infrastructure, but also to reduce spinning capacity (and thus cost) and allow more effecient demad management. If you devolve the grid in the way the germans have been with local PV, you also increase security of supply.

Amory Lovins has long pointed out that the projections for energy demand in the early 1970's were massively overblown. We used more energy, but not nearly as much as we thought we would. During the past 34 years, US demand actually fell for 11 of them. California is the poster child of what you can do to restrict expensive increases in generating capacity, yet increase economic activity. Your fridge uses a lot less energy than it did 30 years ago, as does your new TV. You now have an Ipod, HDD recorder, mobile phones, etc, but even they are now more efficent than they were. The new electric/hybrid cars will use more, but they replace fossil fuels with other possible sources.

'Do you believe that Greenpeace had anything to do with the decision to decommission Germany's nuclear plants? Do you believe that, if Germany had not opted for decommissioning, they would still be building these coal plants?'

I'm not an expert on german politics, but the Green party and a long tradition of anti nuclear probably had more to do with it than one organisation. And when the average German saw the footage of Fukishima going bang, closing them down suddenly made a lot more sense. If you add to that the need to keep 22000 miners vaguely happy and the natural fear that without nuclear, then the lights would go out, building the coal plants makes some sort of sense, no matter how dumb it might actually be.

But again, your seeing this as a false choice between frying the planet with coal, or saving it with nukes. Nukes wont save it, but will hold up the technologies which might.

Right, I'm now going to do the things I should have done an hour ago.....

My final straw with Greenpeace is when they asked their member base to do what they could to get rid of any Chemical Plant in their hometown. While I agree that there are dangers(having worked at a few), it was the shortsightedness of "Just get it out of the US, it's not like China or India would make these problems worse." As a avid hater of NIMBY, it made me cringe.

@MikeB:
"However, a report from last year from Duke reports that PV is being offered in North Carolina at 16 cents per KWH,"

This statement makes me suspicious - why North Carolina specifically? Makes me suspect it relates to subsidies in some manner.

I'm interested in the total cost, including all subsidies, rather than the cost to consumers after tax breaks, etc. We're looking at global problems for resources that everybody uses. When everybody gets a subsidy paid for by taxes, nobody gets anything in the end. Zero sum game and all.

"If Greepeace are 'luddites' for campaigning against them, then so is the City of London and Wall Street - they don't want to invest in them either."

Over the last 5 years, Monsanto has outperformed the S&P and Dow Jones. I presume this makes Greenpeace neo-luddites regarding GMOs? :)

My concern here is that you seem to be using many unreliable markers and heuristics to try to guess which one is cheaper. Of course, if I were less lazy I would attempt to research this myself instead of asking you here.

My fundamental complaint re: Greenpeace et al's position: It seems like nuclear is the only time I see cost brought up. Many of the things that Greenpeace support require spending more money. Yet somehow only nuclear is brought up as costly.

I also gave up on greenpeace years ago and sierra club for similar reasons so largely agree with your article. one mistake though:

"So far, they have proven useful for the seed companies' bottom lines and precious little else."

In fact Ge cotton has dramatically reduced use of synthetic insecticides in every country that has planted in. In Arizona, farmers of GE cotton use half the amount of insecticide compared to their conventional neighbors and achieve the same yield with enhanced biodiversity.

In hawaii, farmers of GE papaya, see 20-fold increases in yield compared to nonGE papaya. This is well established in peer-reviewed literature over many, many years. Union of Concerned scientists knows this too but fails to yield this information in their "failure to yield" opinion piece. UCS also knows that yields of cotton have increased dramatically in India and china after planting of GE cotton. So sadly, the quality of UCS pronouncements about GE crops now approaches that of Greenpeace's non-science based rants.

http://deemable.com/world/2011/03/nuclear-insanity-is-the-world-were-li…

(I agree with Greenpeace on this one.)

Thanks for the pointer Mary, and to some other commenters too.

Thanks to those who reminded me that there has been some reduction in pesticide use thanks to GM technology. Indeed, the refusal of so many supporters of organic agriculture to embrace the possible benefits of GM on this specific issue drives me nuts.

I regret the oversight.

"But civilization long since passed the point of no return on the path to the Anthropocene."

Wow. I never knew that genetic modification by insertion of new genes into another organism was tens of thousands of years old!

On Organic farming:

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

Short version: highly intensive farming is damaging the ecosystem and reducing the ability of the ecosystem to produce the same output.

On GM crops working as advertised:
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn44/pn44p6.htm

Part 2:

On it being great for farmers:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php

On the debate for GO safety:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/futurefoods/debate/debateGM_CIP…

Thanks to those who reminded me that there has been some reduction in pesticide use thanks to GM technology. Indeed, the refusal of so many supporters of organic agriculture to embrace the possible benefits of GM on this specific issue drives me nuts.

There has been no 'reduction' in pesticide use thanks to GM. Rather the opposite: mutant GM crops kill pests by secreting their own pesticide in their leaves and fruits. The industrialists who call themselves 'farmers' don't have to pay as much up front, but the crops are soaked in toxin to an unprecedented degree.

(And name one natural plant that poisons the soil and air around it. Natural things grow in harmony with their surroundings. Creating plants that enforce their own monoculture is a sick perversion of nature.)

In a nutshell: the current state of the nuclear power industry is shoddy, penny-pinching and corner-cutting and quite inappropriate for handling a dangerous technology. And the particular current variants of the technology itself are poor choices for civil nuclear power. But to dismiss any and all nuclear power on the basis of flawed examples is irrational.

You remind me of the Marxist reading group on my local campus. "Communism works in theory! Just because every attempt at a communist government has failed doesn't mean we shouldn't try again!" You cannot have a nuclear power industry that is not "shoddy, penny-pinching and corner-cutting". That's how industry works. That's how human beings work. Technocratic fever dreams aside, there has never been any mechanism, built and operated by human beings, that was capable of running forever without breaking down. And the consequences of a breakdown when dealing with nuclear power are so great that the innate fallibility of human nature should militate against its utilization. We, as a species, cannot be trusted with the technology, period.

@mad the swine

You cannot have a nuclear power industry that is not "shoddy, penny-pinching and corner-cutting". That's how industry works.

We had steam engines that exploded, cars that were death traps, mines that exploded, slag heaps that engulfed schools, factories, construction sites, docks etc where people died needlessly. Public outcry and labour organisation lead to regulation, and regulation and improvements in technology (often largely driven by regulation) improved safety enormously. You could have a nuclear power industry that was a lot less shoddy (etc), and was based on inherently safer versions of the technology (reactors incapable of melting down, systems that don't produce large amounts of high-level waste. It'll never be perfectly safe but even with today's crap technology more people are killed in the wind power industry per unit power generated than in nuclear (including Chernobyl and likely worst-case Fukushima).

I think it'll come anyway: it's just a case of whether we in the West develop safer nuclear technologies ourselves or buy them from China in a few years' time.

James Hrynyshyn

> ...there has been some reduction in pesticide use thanks to GM technology.

* The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AG0QY20091117

* More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops. http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2009/1221/More-herbicide-use-repor…

> Indeed, the refusal of so many supporters of organic agriculture to embrace the possible benefits of GM on this specific issue drives me nuts.

Imagine how frustrating it is for those of us who have seen past the lies and propaganda but still see that same propaganda being parroted by people who should know better....

"You could have a nuclear power industry that was a lot less shoddy (etc)"

However, that would ruin the profits, so won't be done.

Tell me, if we COULD have that, why haven't we got it despite 60 years of effort and government aid? Incompetence or malice?

"more people are killed in the wind power industry per unit power generated than in nuclear"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ah me.

So wind power deaths are counted as "people who fell off the building while constructing".

I guess that we should remove all buildings, since not only do a non-zero number of people die on construction, they actually produce NEGATIVE energy!

@Wow

"You could have a nuclear power industry that was a lot less shoddy (etc)"
However, that would ruin the profits, so won't be done.

Depends how the market is subsidised. Without FITs rooftop PV wouldn't be taking off the way it is now.

"more people are killed in the wind power industry per unit power generated than in nuclear"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ah me.

So wind power deaths are counted as "people who fell off the building while constructing".

You can place the goalposts so that you don't count the people killed and injured building wind generators so that wind appears almost 100% safe, but that seems dishonest to me.

Douche boy rides continues to ride on into the sunset of irrelevance.

Looks like someone is starting to realize how douche his life premise actually is. (aka when dumbass liberals "wake up")

Sucks when when your hard ground turns out to be quicksand.

Ain't it. douche boy?

... the political (as opposed to practical) challenges posed by waste disposal.

Oh? You've got some "practical" solutions to nuclear waste disposal?

Please share...

"You can place the goalposts so that you don't count the people killed and injured building wind generators so that wind appears almost 100% safe, but that seems dishonest to me."

People die and are injured in mines. Uranium mines, coal mines, whatever.

We don't mine the wind.

People die and are injured building nuclear power stations.

You're not counting them.

People died from Chernobyl, but not for years and for things that people die of anyway: cancers and the like. So you aren't counting them.

But all we need to do to make wind 100% safe is better security on the building stage. A building stage nuclear has to do too.

Yet once built, the deaths no longer happen, unlike nuclear.

And YOU think that I was being dishonest??!?!?

@wow

"You can place the goalposts so that you don't count the people killed and injured building wind generators so that wind appears almost 100% safe, but that seems dishonest to me."
People die and are injured in mines. Uranium mines, coal mines, whatever.
We don't mine the wind.
People die and are injured building nuclear power stations.
You're not counting them.

Of course one must count the people killed in mining uranium, and in building nuclear power stations as well as building wind turbines. And I guess we should count people killed in mining the materials used for building wind turbines too.

People died from Chernobyl, but not for years and for things that people die of anyway: cancers and the like. So you aren't counting them.

Deaths from Chernobyl *are* counted in estimates of deaths due to nuclear power. As you say, it can be impossible to attribute a cause to any individual death from a cancer which could be caused by Chernobyl or could equally well be caused by radiation from some other 'natural' source, or occur for some other reason, but one can estimate the number of extra deaths likely to occur worldwide due to radiation from Chernobyl (and Fukushima, and TMI; and for that matter from burning coal).

But all we need to do to make wind 100% safe is better security on the building stage. A building stage nuclear has to do too.

One can make construction safer but never 100% safe, and the closer we approach 100% the more expensive it gets, making the construction less economic.

The same argument applies to nuclear of course: one can make plants safer but never 100% safe. That's why it's not just the risk of something bad happening that's important but the consequences when it does. Which is why plants such as the early Fukushima reactors which (as we have seen) can and did melt down when the tiny risk of everything going wrong actually happened, are such a bad idea, and why the push in the so-called 4th generation is towards designs which are inherently safe even when the remote probability does occur.

Yet once built, the deaths no longer happen, unlike nuclear.

Wind turbines need no maintenance? Last forever? Never go wrong?

And YOU think that I was being dishonest??!?!?

I wasn't accusing you, personally, of being dishonest. I assume you are engaging in this discussion in good faith and are open to rational discussion of the pros and cons of the issues being considered here. Which is how I try to be, myself.

"Of course one must count the people killed in mining uranium"

Then the claim that Fukishama hasn't killed anyone is a lie.

And you've not included them in your count.

"Deaths from Chernobyl *are* counted in estimates of deaths due to nuclear power."

They aren't when the same thing happens at Fukijama. And there's a new lie popping round the 'tubes that those deaths were from chemicals released, not the nuclear fallout.

How's that for a laugh!

"One can make construction safer but never 100% safe"

You can make it as safe to build 100GW in wind turbines as building 100GW of nuclear.

"I wasn't accusing you, personally, of being dishonest."

OK, so it was dishonest of you to say:

"You can place the goalposts so that you don't count the people killed and injured building wind generators so that wind appears almost 100% safe, but that seems dishonest to me."

then, since you didn't mean to say I was being dishonest doing so.

@wow
I take back what I said.
You seem to to be more interested in scoring debating points than rational discussion.
I think that is intellectually dishonest.

And you seem to want to cast yourself as always the victim.

Rational discussion? You wouldn't know it if you found it sleeping with your wife in bed singing "Rational discussions are coming round the mountain when it comes" accompanied by a full brass brand and chorus line.

Your arrogant nonsense about wind power being more dangerous than nuclear is laughable. So you paint "I'm Being Oppressed" on yourself and run off.

Well piss of, then.

The problem with wind isn't that once in a while a turbine might throw a blade and kill someone, or even that a gigawatt of wind would cover half a state and use more steel and concrete than the Hoover Dam. It's not even that a 100 megawatt farm might average 30. The problem is that seventy percent of the time when you want power, you won't get it. If you could turn on your hydro plant, no worries, but most places will use gas, which means fossil fuel emissions continue.Only hydro, geothermal and nuclear give reliable full time power with minimal emissions. If Co2 has to be cut 100% to solve climate change, a solution which mandates 70% fossil fuel is no solution

"It's not even that a 100 megawatt farm might average 30."

It's just as well: a nuke gets around 60% of baseplate.

"The problem is that seventy percent of the time when you want power, you won't get it"

1) Nope, that 30% you came up with was pulled from your anus

2) That's only true in cases where demand is even

The same problem exists for all power production. Ask France. Nuclear goes offline and you're short. Nuclear CANNOT change quick enough to cover demand, so you get enough to run your fridge but when you want to put the kettle on, nuclear power isn't supplying it.

Guess what you do to solve this.

You use other forms of power.

Just like you can use other forms of power with wind.

Idiot.

"It's just as well: a nuke gets around 60% of baseplate."
Wrong. The real capacity factor is around 90%. It's lower than 100% because of refueling. Reactors routinely run at full power for months.

"Nuclear CANNOT change quick enough to cover demand"
It can. It's just not used. It's most profitable to run nuclear at 100% and provide peaking with sources that have more expensive fuel, such as natural gas. The EPR reactor can change output by 5% (80MW) per minute. A nuclear submarine can go from minimal power to full power in seconds.

"that 30% you came up with was pulled from your anus"
Search "wind capacity factor". 30% is in fact rather generous.

"Wrong. The real capacity factor is around 90%."

Mope, wrong yourself. It's 60%. The UK Energy industry DAWES report and your "capacity factor" is actually the load: how much power out was actually used. Not how much power output compared to nameplate, idiot.

For example, what has been the power output of Fukijama recently? Sellafield has been out for over 8 months, and so on.

""Nuclear CANNOT change quick enough to cover demand"
It can"

No, it can't.

""that 30% you came up with was pulled from your anus"
Search "wind capacity factor"."

Just did. It is more than 40% in every link I found, and the older reports were lower.

You know, all that "technological innovation" stuff producing a better product and all.

From the link you probably used (Wikipedia):

As of April 2011, the Danish wind farm Horns Rev 2[3](the world's largest when it was inaugurated in September 2009[4] comprising 91 Siemens SWT-2.3-93 wind turbines each of 2.3 MW) with a nominal total capacity of 209 MW, has the best capacity factor of any offshore wind farm at 46.7% having produced over 1.5 years 1,278 GWÂ·h.[5] The record for an onshore wind farm is held by Burradale, which reached an annual capacity factor of 57.9% for 2005.[6]

DUKES:

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/duk…

See Chapt 10.

Well this is The narrow mind of Greenpeace – Class M very useful . air jordan http://www.jordanssneakersmall.com/

Greenpeace destroy genetically modified wheat experiment

tlambert — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 03:25:07 +0000

Greenpeace destroy genetically modified wheat experiment

The Conversation reports:

Scientists today said they were appalled and disappointed by Greenpeace protesters who whippersnippered a genetically modified wheat crop being grown as part of a CSIRO trial.

The trial crop was part of an investigation into altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic response and improve metabolic health. Planting began in 2009.

Greenpeace's justification?

"GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread."

How are scientists supposed to discover whether it is safe to eat if you destroy experiments that would address that question?

Update: John Quiggin "It will be a long time before Greenpeace can regain my support, if they ever do."

Update 2: Christopher Preston:

There is no evidence to support the claims of hazard about this trial made by Greenpeace.

I am left with the view that the destruction of this trial was unnecessary and wanton. That's why the destruction of this trial has left me completely appalled.

tlambert Wed, 07/13/2011 - 23:25

Tags

Uncategorized

greenpeace

Has anyone explained to Greenpeace that whipper-snippering plants is not guaranteed to prevent "contamination"? In some cases it could actually have the opposite effect.

Here's an excellent article from COSMOS discussing the sad fall of Greenpeace to an anti-science organisation little different from Heartland and the like:

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/4523/the-sad-sad-demise-greenpeace

I suspect that's part of the motivation. Prevent the data being generated, whether that is positive or negative, and they prevent the registration/licensing of the GMO.

Greenpeace will achieve their aims without actually proving whether the GMO was dangerous or not. That proof thing can be a little inconvenient, you know. Why bother having to do all that science, when you can just use guerrilla tactics instead.

> Greenpeace will achieve their aims without actually proving whether the GMO was dangerous or not.

I thought it was required that the agribusiness to prove GMOs are safe, not for Greenpeace to prove it unsafe.

Note too how the cries for complete and open access to data, papers and anything even vaguely pertinent to the research is absent when it's commercial businesses.

As to:

> How are scientists supposed to discover whether it is safe to eat if you destroy experiments that would address that question?

They aren't destroying all experiments that address the question: they're destroying SOME experiments that aren't controlled enough. You don't need an open field to grow GM foods to test this and an open field that seeds on a neighbors' land means their crop is now owned (because of patents on the discovery of pre-existing facts...).

What bollocks Wow. All GMO experiments and trials are extraordinarily highly regulated by the OGTR. Greenpeace would have certainly broke many of those regulations with the stunt this morning.

Here's the risk assessment and management plan for the wheat trial if you want to read for yourself:

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir093-3/$F…

Unfortunately Greenpeace have proven their real worth with this exercise - none.
attacking the work of scientist of one of the best science organisations in the world whose motto is to provided a better future for mankind with thorough and detailed research with all of the appropriate safety measures - versus a publicity stunt from an organisation trying create attention and emotion to keep their fund flow into their coffers.

@Wow(#4):
Check the cosmos article. Has a nice still from the film that Greenpeace shot while doing this. The entire place is covered in netting to prevent exactly your scenario from happening.

They aren't destroying all experiments that address the question: they're destroying SOME experiments that aren't controlled enough. You don't need an open field to grow GM foods to test this and an open field that seeds on a neighbors' land means their crop is now owned (because of patents on the discovery of pre-existing facts...).

What scientific expertise do they bring to bear on the question of whether an experiment is "controlled enough"? Did they not think to communicate their concerns to the investigating scientists prior to acting like a bunch of thugs?

They apparently have so little respect for scientists, and the scientific process, that it never occurred to them that the scientists might actually pay attention to risks and ethical issues, and actually welcomed any well-founded advice on these.

Note too how the cries for complete and open access to data, papers and anything even vaguely pertinent to the research is absent when it's commercial businesses.

For goodness sake, this is CSIRO, not some monstrous multinational. (I do note that Greenpeace has a big scary block diagram of all the commercial links between CSIRO and big scary corporations, but without something more substantive this is just silly innuendo.)

I've typically argued that we need Greenpeace to counterbalance corporate rapacity. Doesn't mean I have to like it, and I certainly don't like this anti-science stunt from them which reminds me of their hysteria-based campaigning against nuclear power ... campaigning that helps the cause of the worst environmental threat to the planet - fossil fuel burning. Greenpeace is a cult like (Pfizer, Monsanto and other of) their corporate foes. It's a mad, mad world.

>and an open field that seeds on a neighbors' land means their crop is now owned (because of patents on the discovery of pre-existing facts...).

Crap. The farmer was convicted of selecting for the genetically modified trait appearing in his crop through contamination. He selected for this trait through several generations until he was effectively growing the GM crop without paying for it.

Firstly, please provide evidence of a successful prosecution or a seizure of a whole crop when there was only seeding in a neighbour's land. Just saying it happens doesn't make it happen.

Secondly, please show me how wheat (the crop destroyed in this case), which is not a wind-dispersed crop, can travel the distance to seed on a neighbour's land in any profusion.

Greenpeace is opposed to GM crops because it takes empowerment away from the farmer (a worthwhile reason IMO), but mostly because they don't understand biology and the concept of 'playing god' is convenient to scare people (who also don't understand it) with. We've been genetically modifying crops for millennia through hybridisation and natural selection, only doing so the slow way. Wheat itself is a hexaploid hybrid of at least four different grasses, including einkhorn, emmer, and two different Aegilops spp. If that is not genetic modification and a frankenfood then I don't know what is.

Is it okay to state that I have a semi-fanatical hatred of fanatics?

The idiots who carried out this attack on reason and science are fanatics. And, in this area, are as dangerous as the Taliban are in Afganistan. They both have the same basic approach to life; "We KNOW what is right, and we do NOT want any inconvenient facts to get in the way. So we will tell you what is right, and you will NOT question our holy writ. Because it is right! Because we said so!"

They are both strong in the purity of their belief, and they are both very sincere about it.

> And, in this area, are as dangerous as the Taliban are in Afganistan.

Really? Hyperbole should be kept for when it's warranted. You see, I don't think that Greenpeace have killed people, mutilated some and are teaching people to hate other humans.

> Greenpeace is opposed to GM crops because it takes empowerment away from the farmer

Snrk. Yeah. Have you talked to an impoverished (I.e. non-government-supported USian or EUian) farmer? Please, let me know how terminator gene GM crops that are patented to a corporation whose overwhelming aim is to improve shareholder value empowers the farmer? After all, the patent means that you have to LICENSE your crop. This means you give up rights to get the crop.

Just to pile on Wow a bit more: CSIRO stands for Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation - the Australian government's publicly-owned and -funded scientific body. While they do have a somewhat commercial focus, to accuse them of cover-ups the way Wow is doing is nothing short of paranoid conspiracy-mongering.

> What scientific expertise do they bring to bear on the question of whether an experiment is "controlled enough"?

They DO have brains, you know. They DO have people with degrees and so forth on such disciples as make them knowledgeable on the subject. Greenpeace don't refuse to accept anyone with science training to join, you know.

> Did they not think to communicate their concerns to the investigating scientists

Yes.

> prior to acting like a bunch of thugs?

Well, the corporations act like thugs. As ye sow, so shall ye reap and all that jazz.

> They apparently have so little respect for scientists, and the scientific process, that it never occurred to them that the scientists might actually pay attention to risks and ethical issues

Just like scientists such as Fred Singer and so forth actually pay attention to risks and ethical issues?

And do you think that if one of Monsato's scientists said "I don't think this is safe", do you think they'll be listened to, or shut up? Do you think that the scientists here:

[The Cigarette Papers](http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft8489p25j&chunk.i…)

are so very different from the ones working in Agribusiness?

> There's a name for his kind of theory.

Oooohhh, I just stepped in it!

I don't agree with the damage BUT. My parents have a farm in southern Ontario. The last few years we have had Roundup resistant weeds in the crops, like giant ragweed and pigweed. 8 ft tall and the only way is to get rid of them is by hand.

The Monsanto RoundUp GM crops have been planted continuously in the southern states for the last 15 yrs. Even though we don't use GM seeds, we now have to deal with the fallout.

Will Monsanto pay for our crop loses due to their product being misused? Don't think so.

> to accuse them of cover-ups the way Wow is doing is nothing short of paranoid conspiracy-mongering.

[Oh really?](http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service229.htm)

[And the farmers are so empowered](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php)

[Whilst the genes are jumping ship](http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/futurefoods/debate/debateGM_CIP…)

[And Cotton isn't doing as well as they said](http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn44/pn44p6.htm)

[Whilst old-style farming is cheaper but doesn't have a lock-in](http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html)

*Greenpeace is opposed to GM crops because it takes empowerment away from the farmer*

Whereas I do not condone the actions of Greenpeace, this statement is absolute nonsense. Take genetically modified herbicide resistant soybean - in this case farmers must effectively 'rent' seeds that are the intellectual property of the company that owns the patent. The farmers become more like assembly workers in an automobile manufacturing plant, and can hardly free themselves of this constraint. At the same time, thanks to the widespread use of GMOs, we are losing genetic diversity that is a pre-requisite for species to adapt to multiple stressors. In much of the south farmers have collected their own seeds for generations and thus many farmers each possessed seeds of certain crops that exhibited resistance to quite variable threats. The replacement of local seed collection for one genotype of genetically modified seed adapted to resist one threat is a frightening development in my opinion. And from a recent conference I attended in South Africa it is becoming clear that insects are fast becoming resistant to genetically modified plants containing insectidical toxins.

The CSIRO scientists concerned in this research were right to be appalled by Greenpeace's action. But at the same time, in complete contrast with what MFS said above, many genetically modified crops contain genetic combinations that could never occur in nature. For example, inserting the genes of insectidical bacteria into plants crosses phylogenetic barriers - and this is what many scientists (myself included) are very critical of. Moreover, the technology is hardly refined - muchy of it is based on the firing of genetic material from a 'donor' organism into the genome of the 'recipient' organism where it may end up anywhere and be expressed or not. There may be alos pleitrophic effects, if the function of some genes is linked with other genes. Finally, I consider putting the power of food production into the hads of a small coterie of powerful multinational corporations to be of profound concern.

Ultimately, GMOs require immense public relations propaganda fort their successful marketing. This is usually found by raising the specter of global hunger in advertising campaigns, when it should be obviouys that the technology is primarily profit-driven. In the end, it is high time that we realized our species will not be able to escape the bottleneck we are in through bioengineered grains and the like. Techno-fixes may temporarily delay the effects of human destruction of natural ecosystems, but in the end there must be economic and political solutions to the vast number of environmental and social problems (both are linked) that plague us.

> to accuse them of cover-ups the way Wow is doing is nothing short of paranoid conspiracy-mongering.

[Oh really?](http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service229.htm)

[Whilst the genes are jumping ship](http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/futurefoods/debate/debateGM_CIP…)

This is the CSIRO WOW, not Monsanto. It is possible to do agricultural science that has nothing to do with Monsanto you know. Look at what the Gates Foundation is currently pouring massive funding into.

Funny how these Greenpeace people with brains never duke it out in the peer-reviewed literature, just like their climate denialist brethren. Just selectively quote, misrepresent and generally make shit up. Sound familiar.

[And the farmers are so empowered](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php)

[And Cotton isn't doing as well as they said](http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn44/pn44p6.htm)

[Whilst old-style farming is cheaper but doesn't have a lock-in](http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html)

If Agri-business were REALLY interested in feeding the world, they'd release the patents and set them free.

That, however, wouldn't be profitable.

> This is the CSIRO WOW, not Monsanto.

Yup. And? They'll work off work the owner of the patents gave out. They'll work within the constraints of what they consider.

> Look at what the Gates Foundation is currently pouring massive funding into.

Yah, the same foundation that gave millions to the third world for education to be spent on Microsoft products. The same foundation that killed off the OLPC because it wouldn't run Windows. The same foundation that is a huge tax break for Bill Gates (who is still richer than he was when he said he'd give all his money away by the time he dies).

> Funny how these Greenpeace people with brains never duke it out in the peer-reviewed literature,

Funny. They do. Remember the Greenpeace literature in the IPCC 4AR? Funny how the peer-reviewed literature includes only those papers that passed corporate PR.

Talk about making shit up...
[And the farmers are so empowered](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php)

[And Cotton isn't doing as well as they said](http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Issue/pn44/pn44p6.htm)

[Whilst old-style farming is cheaper but doesn't have a lock-in](http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html)

I have always been opposed to GM on environmental grounds (the risk of genes for, say, herbicide resistance or self-produced pesticide escaping into related native species) but it seems there are very good reasons for being concerned about (a) the effects of eating at least some GM foods and of using the "Round Up ready" strains and massively spraying Round Up (http://davidhortonsblog.com/2011/07/07/food-and-not-fine-words/).

I have always been a Greenpeace supporter, I think they have done good things.

This wasn't a good thing, it was grotesquely misguided, anti-science, and will ruin their own image and set back rational resistance to GM foods by years. Some idiot in the organisation should resign.

> "GM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate."

It's already been fount to contaminate:[cross polination 31% up to 1km away](http://webs.chasque.net/~rapaluy1/transgenicos/Papa/GM_potatoes.html)

Because government guidelines require inadequate protection against contamination of neighboring plants and animals, the test is unsafe but government considers safe. [Or they used to](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/apr/14/gm-bees). I guess some places haven't yet decided if safe is safe enough.

There is GM and then there is GM.... In this case the gene manipulation involved no insertion of outside material,but a manipulation of wheat sequences to create starches that are less rapidly digested. Rapidly digested starches are implicated in the rise of type 2 diabetes,increasing obesity and poorer bowel health. This manipulation would increase the amount of the starch fermented in the bowel with positive implications for bowel health.

Greenpeace have been needlessly,and ignorantly, destructive.

I think that settles it, Wow has gone off the deep end.

Like any conspiracy nut/denialist, all they do is try to fit any form of rationalization, reasonable or not, to their conspiracy. They then ignore information which might contradict them.

So far, all they have done is complain that corporations are evil and then try to claim that the government funded scientists are either working for them, or just as bad as them.

>that gave millions to the third world for education to be spent on Microsoft products

Your complaint is about the foundation is that the donations which helped third world countries went back to Microsoft, all the while ignoring the fact that it still helped increase education in third world countries.

Not to mention that it seems Wow's grasp on genetically modified agriculture is so narrow that they confuse the entirety of it with weed killer/pesticide resistant foods (which, as far as I can tell, this particular crop were not).

"Two directors of the biotech giant Nufarm â the distributor of Monsantoâs products in Australia â also sat on the CSIRO board at the time of the wheat experimentâs approval."

Greenpeace does nail a conflict at CSIRO, one wonders what commotion 2 oil execs would inspire.

I think GreenPeace should be 'wipper snippering' Petrol Stations, when one takes into account the melting Arctic and the Methane e.l.e below.

Ah, so you don't ACTUALLY have anything substantive other than maligning, Jasso.

Fair enough.

I guess that means we're at stage 2. Shall we cut to the chase: I win.

> So far, all they have done is complain that corporations are evil

I hope that isn't GM straw you're using.

I'm saying that corporations are run for the profit of the shareholders.

> and then try to claim that the government funded scientists are either working for them

Nope, the guidelines are written by politicians with input from lobbyists. Just like the green policies, you know, where Deep Sea Drilling is OK'd on the basis of....?

> all the while ignoring the fact that it still helped increase education in third world countries.

While you're trying to make out they're doing it because it;s right, rather than [profitable](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robber_baron_%28industrialist%29)

It would have bought MORE aid to those countries if the OLPC were purchased by that foundation. However, it wouldn't have locked them in to Western World corporation updates and service contracts.

> so narrow that they confuse the entirety of it with weed killer/pesticide resistant foods

Ah, I am Legion.

What's this "they" when you're talking about ME?

Do you have MPD and just assume it's widespread?

Why is it that the roundup ready products have been on sale for a decade and more, when a product that reduces the onset of type2 diabetes (though not being a lardass would do better, along with dropping HFCS, but you don't see that happening, do you... I wonder why?) took so long to bring out?

Would it be because the RR crop is highly profitable?

PS is this GMO also terminator gene? Have you checked? Is the answer "no"?

Wow sounds an awful lot like a conspiracy theorist of any other type. No credible science or rational analysis just 'corporations do bad things' Therefore 'Everything anyone ever associated with a corporation does is bad'.

Reminds me of a 9-11 denier.

I read of a GM modification which moved resistance to the herbicide Roundup into some wheat variety. Needless to say, Nature is wanton and soon spread the change into the environment at large. Funny? Not funny?

The thing about patents is they do expire and many of the ones on GM crops are due to expire in the near future, including the ones on Roundup Ready soybeans (expires the end of 2014). So the GM crops do eventually wind up empowering the farmers.

The actions of Greenpeace benefited no one and in the long run hurt us all.

>I'm saying that corporations are run for the profit of the shareholders.

And the method with which you say it has entirely been about how much harm that "for profit" policy has done, ie how being "for profit" (like a corporation) is evil.

>Nope, the guidelines are written by politicians with input from lobbyists.

Which the scientists conducting the experiment were neither. Do you accuse them of of "looking the other way" as well?

>It would have bought MORE aid to those countries if the OLPC were purchased by that foundation.

Possibly, but that still doesn't discount the fact that it was still helping. And since the money used essentially came from Microsoft in the first place, it could be seen as the foundation donating Microsoft products through a voucher system.

>What's this "they" when you're talking about ME?

I am using "they" as a gender neural singular pronoun. Look it up.

>Would it be because the RR crop is highly profitable?

Again, you seem to lump then entirety of the field into Roundup Ready. And again, this crop does not have.

>PS is this GMO also terminator gene? Have you checked? Is the answer "no"?

Have YOU checked? Is the answer "yes"? Do you know what effects would occur if it was?

> Have YOU checked? Is the answer "yes"?

Sorry, you're the one who says it's safe.

Or, rather, the one doing something dangerous without checking.

Nexus 6:
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/blog/4523/the-sad-sad-demise-greenpeace

Thats why I stopped supporting Greenpeace years ago when i noticed, that they started to just make up stuff about various issues, just to make their points... a sincery and respectable organisation should resist such urges. A sign that they got more and more purely ideology-driven....sad but true.

>Sorry, you're the one who says it's safe.

I haven't said anything for or against it's safety. However, this experiment was designed to determine the safety of the food; which, conveniently enough, it was destroyed before it could give a yeah or nay.

In fact you have been given plenty of reasons why this crop was not a risky experiment, both in the literature and from the other commenters, yet you have ignored them.

And do you even know what a terminator gene is and what it does?

>Or, rather, the one doing something dangerous without checking.

And that dangerous thing I am doing is...responding to blog comments?

You really seem hell-bent on trying to convince everyone that Greenpeace can "do no evil" and on making people scared of anything related to genetically modified agriculture on mere assertion.

> I haven't said anything for or against it's safety.

No? What's the meaning of this then:

> Like any conspiracy nut/denialist,

When it's responding to my posts that include:

> I thought it was required that the agribusiness to prove GMOs are safe, not for Greenpeace to prove it unsafe.

So if you don't know it's safe, you are wrong to characterize it as a conspiracy.

"Oh, I didn't SAY that, I just MEAN that..." hmm?

If it's a conspiracy nut theory, then it's safe but I don't believe it because there's a conspiracy. But if it ISN'T safe, then it's not a conspiracy to say that the experiment is unsafe, is it.

> And that dangerous thing I am doing is...responding to blog comments?

Nope, testing GMOs.

You know, the CEO of Monsato isn't actually going out sowing seeds himself, you know. Yet he supports it, as do you.

And that support is dangerous unless you know what it is you're supporting.

Which you've just said you don't.

So is this because you're a flaming idiot, a knee-jerk corporatist or just a twat on the internet?

>No? What's the meaning of this then:

The meaning is exactly what it says. You are accusing the people behind this experiment of lies and distortions by comparing it to the cigarette industry and baseless assertions as well as employing the same tactics as 9-11 truthers, moon hoax believers, creationists, etc.

Nothing about calling you a conspiracy nut says anything about the safety of the experiment. It only says something about your actions.

>Nope, testing GMOs.

And I'm "testing GMOs" by ..... responding to blog comments?

>Yet he supports it, as do you.

I support scientific research, I couldn't care less who agrees with me. In particular, this experiment, if successful, was intended to help reduce type II diabetes, and I am all for that.

>And that support is dangerous unless you know what it is you're supporting.

Likewise, actions like what Greenpeace did are dangerous if they don't know what it is they are acting against.

>Which you've just said you don't.

Not knowing everything is not the same as not knowing anything. I said that the research was to test the effects of consumption. I do know that steps were taken to address risks of the wheat escaping to the wild. I also know that the actions of Greenpeace were possibly more likely to cause escape than leaving the experiment alone. I also know that you are taking an extreme stance without justification. You seem to automatically think that everyone behind this obfuscated and mislead to make an unsafe experiment.

>So is this because you're a flaming idiot, a knee-jerk corporatist or just a twat on the internet?

Take your pick, I don't really care what names you call me, since that does nothing to either contradict my position nor support yours.

> The meaning is exactly what it says.

Ah, English comprehension is NOT your forte. Meaning is what drove you to say what you said.

Apparently "a complete arsehole" is the reason why you're posting.

>Ah, English comprehension is NOT your forte

I don't think you quite understand the difference between me calling you a conspiracy nut and me saying that modified foods are absolutely safe.

When I call you a conspiracy nut, it means that I think you are a conspiracy nut, ie someone that thinks one or more people are conspiring to hide information from the public without reasonable justification or consideration. It does not mean anything beyond that.

I even emphasised this repeatedly, which you seem to ignore.

To imply that calling you a conspiracy nut says anything about the safety of the crop is just bad logic.

>Apparently "a complete arsehole" is the reason why you're posting.

Again, these insults do nothing to contradict me nor support you.

*The thing about patents is they do expire and many of the ones on GM crops are due to expire in the near future, including the ones on Roundup Ready soybeans (expires the end of 2014). So the GM crops do eventually wind up empowering the farmers*.

As I said above, nonsense. Many of these patents will be renewed. I agree with a lot of what WOW is saying. Corporations do not invest billions in R & D for GMOs and expect to get back a few rupees or dinars. They want hard cash - dollars - for their patents, and this is their prime directive. Those writing superficial sarcastic comments about 'evil corporations' here ought to read Joel Bakan's quitre excellent book, "Corporation", which is quite a shocking read. And besides, there are plenty of other reasons to be very concerned about this technology that I alluded to above. Farmers are never empowered by relying on bioengineered grains - this is pure poppycock.

The Nexus throws in this rather vacuous comment: *Funny how these Greenpeace people with brains never duke it out in the peer-reviewed literature, just like their climate denialist brethren. Just selectively quote, misrepresent and generally make shit up. Sound familiar*.

Again, not to defend environmental NGOs, but how much is the 'scientific data' provided by corporations to regulatory bodies to be trusted? My guess would be in many cases not at all. Given that most of these agencies in the US have been gutted by successive administrations or else government and corporate doors are revolving and intermixed, since when has 'corporate science' been a reliable source?

Still, I fully agree with Nick when he writes, *In this case the gene manipulation involved no insertion of outside material,but a manipulation of wheat sequences to create starches that are less rapidly digested. Rapidly digested starches are implicated in the rise of type 2 diabetes,increasing obesity and poorer bowel health. This manipulation would increase the amount of the starch fermented in the bowel with positive implications for bowel health*.

This is why Greenpeace screwed up big time in this instance. As Nick says there is cross-phylogeny GM (which rightfully concerns me) and there is within-species gene - 'tweaking' GM (in this case) which I support. Its important to separate the two.

I'll admit that Monsato are in a bit of a heads-I-win/tails-you-lose with me but they've been banging on about how they'll put carotene in maize to make people healthier but the only thing they've pushed in that time are sales of RoundupReady seeds.

And I'm not worried about rapid digestion of starches when HFCS is pushed and, frankly, is still only a problem when you have plenty of food (see above "we want to feed the world" schtick.).

Agribusiness could be doing something right, but they have an honesty problem as big as the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. It's a big barrier to climb.

I didn't put it there, though.

And this is why I can't rail against the act done here by Greenpeace. Nobody was harmed (unlike some ALF protests).

Plus if the wheat is terminator-gene-d, this is a terrible thing to put into the wild, even in a test.

I'm not sure if Greenpeace was doing the right thing here (am not a big Greenpeace-fan anyhow), but is it wrong to be against research for commercial use of GMO?

I'm with Wow on this one. People, watch some documentaires, do some research.

@Wow #41:

Plus if the wheat is terminator-gene-d, this is a terrible thing to put into the wild, even in a test.

Why?

What do plants do, Robin? They have baby plants. But they're done by the process of fertilisation.

However, fertilisation is NOT the only way of transferring genes.

Therefore terminator genes that stop plants being fertile can end up in plants that were not intended to be infertile.

You can google up on all this sort of stuff if you want to know.

@Wow #44:

However, fertilisation is NOT the only way of transferring genes.

Therefore terminator genes that stop plants being fertile can end up in plants that were not intended to be infertile.

How common is lateral gene transfer in grasses? My impression (admittedly without deep study - I'm a lawyer not a scientist dammit) is that it is far more significant among bacteria and between organisms in a parasitic relationship than among multicellular organisms generally.

Unless the rate of LGT is pretty high, even if the terminator gene got into the wild, it would be pretty self-limiting, wouldn't you say? The only method of further propagation would be LGT; and for LGT to create infertility, the gene would have to be spliced into the right place in the genome to cause infertility. So we've got one pretty small number - the chances of LGT happening at all; multiplied by another pretty small number - the chance of the transferred gene hitting the right spot on the genome; representing the chance of LGT causing infertility.

Where it is expressed, of course, evolution would take its course to eliminate what is a pretty significant evolutionary disadvantage.

So how realistic is the fear? Do you have any scientific literature to cite?

> How common is lateral gene transfer in grasses?

Not very.

But then again, that isn't what you asked for. You asked:

> > Plus if the wheat is terminator-gene-d, this is a terrible thing to put into the wild, even in a test.

> Why?

The answer to that is that running around with terminator genes means that the wheat isn't just "cross-phylogeny" or just about combating Type 2 Diabetes.

Disclaimer - I'm a Monsanto employee, employed in R&D, comments herein are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the company (etc etc)

Wow - on "terminator" technology - why exactly do you have a bug up your ass about this? The technology has never been used in a commercialized product and is merely a patent which Monsanto holds due to the acquisition of Delta&Pine - a technology they have said they won't use (due to perception issues) despite the fact that it would frankly put an end to many of the perceived issues with GMOs (gene flow, accidental presence etc) as a plant which is infertile leaves no progeny to cause these issues in the first place.

@Wow #46:

If (and I stress if) there is essentially no chance of any consequences of putting terminator genes into the wild, then why is it "a terrible thing" to put into the wild?

Ewan R: as someone with admitted experience in agribiz, would you care to respond to Jeff Harvey's first comment on this thread? I'm kinda leery of GM foods (the monoculture/lack-of-diversity issue concerns me); but I'm not really decided one way or the other. Your response would be appreciated.

Raging Bee - sure, I'll give my take.

Take genetically modified herbicide resistant soybean - in this case farmers must effectively 'rent' seeds that are the intellectual property of the company that owns the patent.

Not really - farmers purchase the seed, not rent it, they sign an agreement that they will not save seed for use the next season etc which is really the only rent like aspect here - the trait in the seed is the intellectual property of the company, although PvP type intellectual proerty may also apply.

The farmers become more like assembly workers in an automobile manufacturing plant, and can hardly free themselves of this constraint.

This is pretty nonsensical and I'm not entirely sure how to approach it - the farmer can do whatever he wishes in terms of cultivation of the crop - if they're using RR they'll likely spray roundup for weed control, and if they're using Bt crops ten they may hold back on insecticidal sprays... but everything else they'll do exactly as they wish.

At the same time, thanks to the widespread use of GMOs, we are losing genetic diversity that is a pre-requisite for species to adapt to multiple stressors.

This assertion relies on the fallacy that a given GMO type is genetically homogenous as compared to varieties used previously - GM traits are not only used within wide germplasm within the companies who originated them, but licensed widely between seed companies both small and large - corn and soy variety numbers have seen a steady increase over the past decade if I remember the figures correctly. Introgression of traits into varieties suited to various conditions is a key part of the success of GMOs.

The replacement of local seed collection for one genotype of genetically modified seed adapted to resist one threat is a frightening development in my opinion.

See above. Also note that the utilization of hybrid seed and non-farmer saved seed is pretty much ubiquitous at least in North America, and that if farmers wish there is utterly nothing preventing them from saving seed (they jsut can't, at present, use GMOs - although when RR soy goes off patent in the next few years the capacity to save GM seed will arise (and then face the spectre of going off regulatory approval some time around 2020 or so, which is as far out as Monsanto has promised to provide regulatory approval support for this trait - hopefully the ag industry in general and governments globally can work together to make the transition to off-patent traits smooth as the current structure is set up such that they'll become all but unusable as soon as there isn't a vast amount of money supporting global regulatory approval maintainance)

many genetically modified crops contain genetic combinations that could never occur in nature.

For a given value of could. (logically with sequencing one could select for jsut about anything in a genome given a large enough population and relying entirely on random mutation to provide the variation - might take a while though) Although indeed most agricultural crops contain genetic combinations that could not survive in nature anyway (could occur, would be selected against) And why something being able to occur in nature is a good call on whether to use it or not is beyond me - I'm thinking insulin produced by bacteria isn't something that could occur in nature, but it certainly isn't something I'd argue is a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.

For example, inserting the genes of insectidical bacteria into plants crosses phylogenetic barriers

Mustn't cross arbitrarily assigned barriers right? One wonders why not exactly, but it sounds scary if you don't think about it too deeply.

muchy of it is based on the firing of genetic material from a 'donor' organism into the genome of the 'recipient' organism where it may end up anywhere and be expressed or not. There may be alos pleitrophic effects, if the function of some genes is linked with other genes.

This rather makes out that the whole process is done willy nilly and nobody checks anything.

For a GMO to be a commercial success it has to be pretty much as good as the best hybrids available (there was some intrinsic yield drag for the first generation of RR soy - but here there seems to be a modicom of confusion as to whether this had a real on farm impact - soy yields as reported by the USDA didn't appear to take a hit, and the tests which demonstrate the difference are generally in agronomically ideal situations which are rarely the case on production farms (the average yields were awesome compared to national averages)) so you can't have awful pleitropic effects etc, or non expression - this is one of the things which makes developing a commercially viable GMO so expensive - you have to generate a ton of events (individual insertions of the gene cassette of interest) screen through these to find those which are efficacious (in terms of RR and Bt this is as simple as spraying on roundup or making sure bugs die when they eat 'em) and then take your efficacious events to the field to make sure they yield in the same sort of ballpark as the non-GM version. You also have to, to get regulatory approval, demonstrate that what you inserted is actually what you think you inserted, show that it's in the genome, show you haven't inserted stuff you didn't want to, show you haven't interrupted other gene function etc etc - all of these things can happen when genetically modifying an organism using current techniques - but they are all checked for - events which fail any of these stages are tossed out until you are left with the result of a single insertion which went right, does what you want it to, and passes regulatory muster.

Ultimately, GMOs require immense public relations propaganda fort their successful marketing.

Not really - pro GM propaganda actually appears to be spectacularly underfunded, particularly to the general public, where opinions like your Jeff's and Wow's are probably more likely to be heard (although generally the feel I get is that people don't give a damn) - what GMOs require for success is to work. If they don't work farmers don't buy 'em - the reason for the massive adoption of GMO crops lies not in the crafty dealings of Monsanto PR, but in the fact that farmers like to have simplified weed management, they enjoy the extra time they get, they like not having to spray insecticides as much, they prefer higher profits - take away these boons and the whole GMO arguement goes away because nobody would use them - to think otherwise is to assume that all farmers are dirt stupid with the business savvy of igneous rock.

"ation into altering wheat carbohydrate content to reduce glycaemic response and improve metabolic health. Planting began in 2009."

what a bizarre justification. How about just eating less wheat? As in not putting it in every single food, eating wheat at every single meal? And eating only whoe wheat? How high is whole wheat's glycemic index? This whole story stinks to high heaven.

Altering the carbohydrate content? Sounds like that fat that you can't absorb so you can eat all the potato chips you want.

This is a stupid use of science - to increase some industry's profits.

Exactly what is going to substitute for the carbohydrates in this popular source of, uh, carbohydrates? What next, meat with less protein for people with kidney problems?

Go, Greenpeace.

Ewan, I'm genuinely interested and don't mean to be aggressive.

Given Monsanto's reputation, and the reputation of agribusiness in general (or at least that's the impression I received after watching many, many documentaries and doing research): how do you deal with that? Do you really feel that the development of GMO for profit is without risk?

Neven:-

Ewan, I'm genuinely interested and don't mean to be aggressive.

You don't come off as agressive at all, so no worries on that front (I'm relatively immune to agression anyway as I get wrapped up in teh sound of the clicky clack of my keyboard while I write spit flecked responses)

Given Monsanto's reputation, and the reputation of agribusiness in general (or at least that's the impression I received after watching many, many documentaries and doing research): how do you deal with that?

I honestly don't feel that I have anything to deal with on this front - I chose the bachelors degree I chose (molecular genetics - which frankly I'd have been better off doing crop science or something, but that's what happens when you let 17 year olds choose degrees) precisely because of the GMO work Monsanto was doing in the late 80's and early 90's - I was pretty unfamiliar with all the hoo-ha accompanying Monsanto at the time, and totally unaware of agriculture in general - working at the company now I don't see the same Monsanto that is portrayed in various documentaries etc - I could perhaps respond on a point by point basis rather than attempting to deal with anything - historical wossnames I tend to view as more indicative of the time in which they occured, and I guess I also compartmentalize a little with the justification that the Monsanto of the 50's through late 70's isn't the same company as that of the 2000's+ - I generally view the reputation of agribusiness in general (at least on the seeds side - I can't say quite the same for the downstream processors) as unwarranted, again if you require specifics you'd have to probe and I'll do as best I can as to provide an answer.

On documentaries etc I try to keep in mind that a documentary showing that something a global corporation did wasn't actually nefarious and evil at all likely wouldn't cover its costs (Food Inc is about the only one I have watched, and amusingly it was my wife (culinary trained, no real passion for GMOs either way) who spent more time shouting at the TV than I did)

Do I feel that the development of GMO for profit is without risk? Unfettered I have no doubt there are risks - the risks as I see them in the current regulatory and legislative environment however are miniscule enough to be discounted - the pre checks on everything we put in the field are laborious and at times stupid but all geared towards minimizing risk - any hint of risk is enough to have a project slated - management are incredibly risk averse when it comes to the impacts a product may have - the global regulatory environment is such that I simply cannot see how anything harmful would get through - GM crops require clearance not jsut in the US, but in all export markets - and that is no mean feat (at present Japan essentially is the gold standard as their requirements exceed everyone elses, down to having to actually perform the trials in Japan (I guess for oversight issues) despite the chance of crops being grown in Japan being negligible - they are however one of the world's most important import markets, so without approval you don't have a product generally)

What is kinda sad in terms of the research that Greenpeace jsut destroyed however is that it doesn't appear to have been driven by the awful corporate spectre which overshadows much of GM research - indeed it wouldn't would it, as we have our stealth helicopter gunships and the like to keep them off our plots - this approach, combined with the massive regulatory burden on any GM crop, essentially plays right into the hands of big corporations (if you're taking a conspiratorial viewpoint you may even suggest this is all on purpose - I don't think so personally) - you can't really complain that only big corps are involved in this work when you go out and destroy the work of anyone too small to smoosh you (in court) and work to ensure that the regulatory burden on GM crops is in the $100M range - big corps are, under these circumstances, the only ones with the wherewithall to get a product to market.

Apologies for tangential rambling here... thats what you get for lack of aggression

It's politics. Greenpeace are useful in some cases, but no one should be surprised when enthusiastic activists do something you weren't expecting or agree with.
In order to achieve a goal, you often have to get into bed with people you don't agree with 100%.
Personally I am not sure about GM, it depends on the motives of the people developing the product. Some seem to want to develop GM plants or crops to mask the polluting actions of other human activities, that seems pretty dumb when we should be tackling our bad habits rather than masking them.

In some respects, supporting GM is a sort of climate denialist thing. eg. as long as there are positive outcomes of employing science they are all for it. But if the science points to the fact that we have to stop doing something (climate science) then it is bad.

GM is probably always go to be a sticky subject. We'll have to get used to it. My preference is organic where possible even when I'm on a low budget. In any case some organic products are cheaper than conventional these days, well it can be if you look around. Certainly some organic products can be cheaper than popular brand name products.

> slower digestion of starches

No doubt they checked whether starches that are harder to digest would cause any problems for termites and fungi, because the precautionary principle ...

... oh, wait, Monsanto is a US corporation, isn't it? And they don't believe there could be any problems with genes spreading, and this stuff only matters for the time span of the patent anyhow, so they wouldn't have considered any of the the obvious consequences of changing starches to make them less digestible.

Hank - why would Monsanto give a flying frog either way about the consequences of this particular trial given that it... isn't their trial?

Do try and keep up.

Thanks for the answer, Ewan. It helps to make things less black and white, although it would take a lot for me to trust big corporations as Monsanto (as long as their bottom line is making shareholders happy).

On the other hand, of course, it would be strange for you not to be loyal. For you Monsanto is the people you work with. I have friends who work for big banks that invest in land mines and the coal industry. But all the colleagues are such great people!

Food Inc. wasn't exactly fantastic, but there are a couple of others, that - even if only 50% correct - do not paint such a great picture of Monsanto. Most of them have Percy Schmeiser in them.

But to truly assess the situation, I'd have to do more research. Either way, I always wonder how people rationalize working for multinational companies that are willing to go far for profit.

Most of them have Percy Schmeiser in them.

The facts of the Schmeiser case rather undermine his capacity to invoke pity. I'd suggest if the documentaries mentioned don't mesh with the facts of the case as presented below then the documentary is likely simply just making crap up, or at least promulgating crap that has been made up without doing the requisite research. I'm lazy at the moment so I'll simply copy and paste my schtick about Schmeiser in response to Wow over at erv:-

this is a guy who discovered the accidental presence of the gene (the general feel isn't that it arrived on pollen, but blew in off the back of a truck, not that how it got there is particularly pertinent) - at which point he was totally non-culpable as a patent infringer, he then selected for the RR canola by spraying ~3 acres with roundup and collecting the seed from the plants which survived (probably still not culpable, but this isn't exactly normal behaviour) - this seed was stored separately from the rest of his seed and subsequently used to plant ~1000 acres - at which point only an utter imbecile would claim that the presence of the transgene was accidental - it's all there in the court documents - 1000+ acres of saved seed with absolute foreknowledge that these seed contained the RR gene (which unless Percy was living in a box he'd know was patented material) certainly falls under the category of intentional presence - Schmeiser decided to fight this (perhaps for celebrity, who knows? Not sure what the green global lecture circuit pays these days - probably more than farming, I know I keep it in mind as a nice early retirement opportunity should I ever become disenfranchised) and lost hard, repeatedly.

Ewan: thanks for the lengthy response. I don't have time to respond at length, but re: my concerns about monoculture, I will quickly note this: you say that farmers can still use their own seeds, but you do acknowledge that monoculture is a serious problem, and implicitly admit that the farmers HAVE to use their own seeds to counter the problem that widespread use of one standard GM seed creates. And that, in my mind at least, raises doubts about how much of a net improvement GM crops really bring. The whole point of creating a new crop through technology seems to be that large numbers of people are expected to use it, because it's allegedly better than the old stuff, and that's where the benefit comes from. But if that results in monoculture, then the net benefit may not be nearly as great as expected.

Not really - pro GM propaganda actually appears to be spectacularly underfunded...

Forgive me for being rude, but HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW...

Ewan seriously undermines his case when he says this: *the risks as I see them in the current regulatory and legislative environment*

What environment? In the U.S. the regulatory and legislative environment is practically non-existant, particularly since the Reagan administration which helped to eviscerate regulations in the environmental arena. Since then, *substantial equivalence* has predominated, which is utterly meaningless is one considers that this ignores important intrinsic physiological traits that are impossible to verify visually. As I also said above, regulatory bodies are often occupied by people who used to work in the same corporations they are supposed to be policing. Its a classic case of the good-cop/bad-cop strategy.

Furthermore, a BS in Molecular genetics provides zilch in the way of qualifications to be able to assess the ecophysiological risks of GMOs in nature. I might just as well trust the opinions of a guy who works in a cardboard box factory. IMO the most terrifying development is that a small number of powerful corporations - including those which created toxins like agent orange and PCBs - have more recently ventured into other domains, and are now buying up seed companies in order to exert control the food supply. They aren't doing this out of any altruistic aim, but in order to maximize profit.

What strikes me about Ewan's emails is their striking naievete. Its is if he has not considered any of the many arguments that undermines his views. As I said above, my concern over GMOs would be slightly reduced if they were not hindered by that tidy little tag: intellectual property rights. Moreover, I will also reiterate that bioengineered grains require deep PR cover that manifests itself through the threat of poverty and hunger. But the devil is in the details: many farmers in the south are so poor that they can barely afford a hoe, let alone pay the staggering cost (or annual levies) for GMOs. Simply put, there is more than enough food the profoundly reduce starvation in the developing world, but there is a massive equity gap that maintains (or exacerbates) poverty whilst keeping the rich world in control of the planet's natural resources. Prominent economists like Patrick Bond, Tom Athanasiou and Samir Amin have made this point clear many times, but clearly people like Ewan have never heard of them.

The thrust of my argument is that IMHO most GMOs - at least in those examples where phylogenetic barriers are crossed - pose profound risks to the environment. IMO they are profit and not hunger driven, and that the technology is hardly ' advanced' but still very crude. Moreover, the widespread use of GMOs in cropping systems promises to reduce genetic diversity, making it that much easier for weeds or insect pests to evolve resistance to them (as is already happening with many examples evident in only a few years). Genetic diversity in natural populations is a pre-requisite for adaptation to multiple challenges, and in many genetically modified crops this is being lost through the mass production of one genotype. I work with wild brassicaceous plants and in wild cabbage plants, for instance, we can find enormous genetic variability in secondary plant compounds (phytotoxins) in populations growing naturally only a few kilometers from one another. These differences suggest that the plants are possibly adapted to a suite of biotic and abiotic constraints (e.g. micro-climate, moisture, temperature, pathogens, herbivores) that are local in scale. Single genotypes of GM plants may be resistant (at least temporarily) to one kind of threat but not to many others, and thus balancing selection is lost.

These and many other factors need to be considered in exploring this technology, but so far, in my view, this kind of rigorous scrutiny appears to be lacking.

Finally Ewan writes this disposable remark: *Not sure what the green global lecture circuit pays these days*

I will answer it: a lot less than the contrarian/anti environmental/pro corporate lecture circuit. There's a huge slush fund in that area, as one can see by the volumes of money flowing into think tanks, astroturf lobbying groups and PR firms. In "Trust Us, We're Experts" (2001) John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton showed that in 1998, agribusiness firms invested 29 million dollars in lobbying members of Congress. That same year, *all* NGOs - and that covers an enormously wide field including the environmental arena - spent a measly 4.7 million dollars lobbying Congressman. And recall that this is only lobbying money, and excludes other monies such as those donated for election campaigns. Its clear which 'side' has more money at their disposal.

Well, I was in a meeting with Percy Schmeiser where I live in Austria, and I don't buy that he tried to rip off Monsanto, was caught lying and then continued to lie because he's getting rich lying during lectures all over the world. But if he is, he and his wife are fantastic actors.

Either way: I really don't like the idea that DNA can be patented. And I don't like it especially if it is patented to make profits. I wouldn't want to be associated to that kind of set-up, so I take my hat off to you, Ewan. I couldn't do it.

@MFS

Greenpeace is opposed to GM crops because it takes empowerment away from the farmer

Sorry, I think this is just populist bunk. The overwhelming determinants of "empowerment" are the economic and social relationships under which GM or any other technology is, or is not deployed. It is not some intrinsic property of the science and technology itself. One could also observe that in developing countries, small farmers are already well and truly dis-empowered.

Following this sort of populist line promotes neither public understanding and informed discussion of the technology itself nor critical examination of the social, economic and legal framework under which it may be deployed. Buried in the political economy of the latter are the issues of social equity.

This same sort of stuff is also enlisted in some of the politics of the anti-nukes. Nuclear power is held to be the property of the Very Big Corporation or of the state and therefore not nice. Which kind of ignores the fact that if renewables are ever deployed on the scale needed then they will also be the property of the same sort of players and in many cases the same players. The social and economic relationships will have changed not a jot.

Some people sympathetic to Greenpeace may think this type of politics to be anti-capitalist, but it really isn't. It's just confused.

Sadly, this is a PR disaster for Greenpeace.

Imagine if climate sceptics had broken into CSIRO labs and destroyed computers in order to stop "modelling" of the climate?

We'd be outraged. I'm sorry - but while I've had some sympathy for Greenpeace over the years, anyone with a genuine respect for science and empirical evidence should be appalled by such luddite behaviour.

A war on science, whether waged by those on the "right" or "left" is still a war on science. It casts a shadow of fear over research.

We rightly condemn the death threats made against climate scientists.

Greenpeace claim they had "no choice":

â...We had no choice but to take action to bring an end to this experiment,â said Greenpeace Food campaigner Laura Kelly. âGM has never been proven safe to eat and once released in open experiments, it will contaminate. This is about the protection of our health, the protection of our environment and the protection of our daily bread.â

There is no empirical evidence backing these claims.

One cannot accept climate science and reject other empirical facts because they don't fit your world view.

This makes them no better than the climate sceptics.

Just to back up my statements with evidence, the following bodies have stated at this point there is no risk from GM, and that millions of people have consumed GM food with not one case of harm reported:

@008 study by Royal Society of Medicine: Key S, Ma JK, Drake PM (2008). "Genetically modified plants and human health". J R Soc Med 101 (6): 290â8. doi:10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372. PMID 18515776

US National Academy: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population." [http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977#toc]

I note Greenpeace state that CSIRO is a "front" for big firms. How do these allegations differ from climate sceptics stating the CSIRO is a front for a world wide conspiracy:

"...The CSIRO is being used as a front for foreign biotech companies; this has compromised its research and put Australiaâs multi-billion dollar wheat industry at risk."

Are scientists the tools of high taxing socialists or evil capitalists?

Watching the Deniers, if you want to discuss this on a conspiracy theory level, bear in mind one big difference: in one case science is opposed by Big Industry X. In the other case science is supported by Big Industry Y. Both Big Industries are lobbying very hard to protect their profits.

Now if everything in the food industry was hunky dory, I'd say: What a coincidence! But I'd rather be careful in adopting a view that can be transposed to whatever you like, or did you also believe that tobacco was good for you?

Every issue must be judged on its own merits. And I can help it, but as soon as there is some Big Industry involved that cares about one thing only: infinitely growing profits, I get a tad suspicious.

So, it's entirely possible to say: AGW is potentially dangerous, and GMO is potentially dangerous. I don't see how taking position on one thing, forces you to a certain position on some other thing. Because the scientists say so? Scientists can be very different across different disciplines.

Greenpeace has never had any useful traction or influence in the climate debate (at least in Australia), with their lobbying of govt possibly counterproductive, and their stunts and campaigning too polarising to be of net value.

It seems they are pretty much the same for other environmental issues, except maybe whaling and nuke testing.

I'd like to thank Jeff Harvey for injecting a bit of sanity into this thread. The misplaced trust of the GM-food-supporters is incredibly naive. Planting GM food releases genes into the environment which contaminates others' crops against their wishes. That's all there is to it.

And despite all the talk of GM crop to cure this and fix that, virtually all of it so far has been aimed at increasing their sales of pesticide.

The case of Percy Schmeiser seems quite polarising: here is a farmer whose land was contaminated by Monsanto - he tried to "empower himself" by doing exactly what farmers have been doing for 8,000 years and he was prosecuted for it.
You either support that situation or you don't. If you do support it, there is something wrong with you.

This particular action seems slightly misguided, but then with extremists like Monsanto on the loose, it is good to have balancing extremists whose motives are far less questionable.

What environment? In the U.S. the regulatory and legislative environment is practically non-existant, particularly since the Reagan administration which helped to eviscerate regulations in the environmental arena.

The global regulatory environment - the one that costs ~$100M to get a GMO trait approved in - it wouldn't matter if the US regulatory environment didn't exist as you'd still be left with the Japanese and the Europeans to deal with - unless what you're suggesting is some sort of global conspiracy whereby a company that makes a couple billion a year net profit has the power to control all the world's governments or somesuch.

which is utterly meaningless is one considers that this ignores important intrinsic physiological traits that are impossible to verify visually

Although the literature shows substantial equivalence in metabolites, transcripts, reaction of test animals to feedstuffs - what magical physiological traits are you on about which cannot be verified?

Furthermore, a BS in Molecular genetics provides zilch in the way of qualifications to be able to assess the ecophysiological risks of GMOs in nature.

I don't believe that anyone asserted that it was - a capacity to read the literature, 10 years of following the subject with an interest capable to read the literature, and 3 years working in the industry however does allow me to speak with a little bit of knowledge on the subject (you may have noted my crack about crop science perhaps being a better subject to have taken was a little bit of self depracation for picking the wrong subject...)

IMO the most terrifying development is that a small number of powerful corporations - including those which created toxins like agent orange and PCBs

See even with my BS in molecular genetics I'm aware that agent orange was created by the US government, not by any powerful corporation.

my concern over GMOs would be slightly reduced if they were not hindered by that tidy little tag: intellectual property rights

This doesn't track - you make a song and dance about ecophysiological issues which are utterly unrelated to intellectual property rights - what the lack of IP rights would do is effectively kill the entire endeavor (if you can't make back the cost of regulatory approval then you don't make the GMO (or at least never release it) - perhaps this is what would assuage your fears?

The thrust of my argument is that IMHO most GMOs - at least in those examples where phylogenetic barriers are crossed - pose profound risks to the environment

Nebulous uncategorized and as yet undocumented risks - one would think that after 15 years these risks would have made themselves clear if they existed.

Moreover, the widespread use of GMOs in cropping systems promises to reduce genetic diversity

Only that it doesn't, as I made clear above - the traits are introgressed into many different varieties - you seem to be stuck on the erroneous assumption that all GMOs are the same basic genetic package - they ain't.

many farmers in the south are so poor that they can barely afford a hoe, let alone pay the staggering cost (or annual levies) for GMOs.

Staggering costs? Can you back this with any sort of evidence? The costs paid by cotton farmers in India, for instance, equate to less than 2% of the overall cost of growing the crop and lead to 50-150% increases in annual income - the pricing of GM seeds is based on a value share - farmers end up making more than they pay for the seeds (if not why would they buy the seed again - if a farmer doesn't buy again then wherein the profit?)

Genetic diversity in natural populations is a pre-requisite for adaptation to multiple challenges, and in many genetically modified crops this is being lost through the mass production of one genotype.

which GM crops have mass production of one genotype? It certainly isn't corn, it certainly isn't soy, it ain't cotton - perhaps alfalfa and sugar beets - I'm not actually sure here - but the trend for every GM trait introduced is initial release in a small number of germplasms followed by increasing germplasm offerings as the trait matures - this is increased by the cross licensing of traits across the whole industry (Monsanto's single biggest customer is probably pioneer - who license Monsanto traits and introgress them into their own diverse germplasm)

These differences suggest that the plants are possibly adapted to a suite of biotic and abiotic constraints (e.g. micro-climate, moisture, temperature, pathogens, herbivores) that are local in scale. Single genotypes of GM plants may be resistant (at least temporarily) to one kind of threat but not to many others, and thus balancing selection is lost.

Only that as stated, there is no single genotype - you need to stop being so dishonest around this.

I will answer it: a lot less than the contrarian/anti environmental/pro corporate lecture circuit.

But - more or less than a farmer makes... which is rather the pertinent question - the only qualification required to get on the green lecture theatre is a good sob story - veracity of the tale is clearly unimportant etc.

Well, I was in a meeting with Percy Schmeiser where I live in Austria, and I don't buy that he tried to rip off Monsanto, was caught lying and then continued to lie because he's getting rich lying during lectures all over the world.

He is however being whisked around the world to tell his tale to the credulous - the court documents are readily available for anyone to peruse and the story contained therein matches my above characterization - the additional conjecture on my part was mostly lighthearted - and has no evidencial backing whatsoever.

I really don't like the idea that DNA can be patented. And I don't like it especially if it is patented to make profits.

It technically isn't as simple as that - it's a specific configuration of DNA that would be none obvious (under the legal meaning) used for a specifc purpose in specific crops - the whole of which represents a ton of research and development effort plus the cost of regulatory approval - what would be your option for recouping this cost and cultivating innovation in the field? (Cost recouping, cultivating innovation, and sharing of knowledge are essentially what the patent system is built around)

And despite all the talk of GM crop to cure this and fix that, virtually all of it so far has been aimed at increasing their sales of pesticide.

Horseshit - profits this year from roundup sales have netted $900M (an increase on last year, but still well under the heydey of patented roundup), profits from seeds and traits were in the region of $2.9Bn (this sector has seen year on year increases)- the money comes from the seeds and traits - the pesticide sales quite clearly aren't the drivers here - makes a nice story though as pesticides are clearly teh ebil compared to just plants.

So 25% of their profits are from selling pesticides and that's not a driver?
Has anybody told their shareholders this?

Would we even be having this discussion if Greenpeace hadn't done what they had done? They tried other tactics and they were ignored. They wrote to the companies to ask for more information on the testing and they were denied. People love to bash Greenpeace's actions before they know the full story, and the bullies they are up against.

Look up 'GM Genocide' in India. Presenting them with the exact promises they are presenting us with, healthier more effective grains. They went on to destroy hundreds of thousands of farmer's crops, which ultimately cost them their lives as 1000 people a month take their own lives after losing everything. These GM companies are con artists and we're falling for it. Meanwhile no other country in the world has allowed GM wheat testing, not hard to guess why.

So 25% of their profits are from selling pesticides and that's not a driver? Has anybody told their shareholders this?

25% of the profits are from pesticides, you claim this 25% is the reason that the other 75% is done, I was merely pointing out that this is a ludicrous stance - the other 75% is done because it is vastly profitable, that it may boost the sale of roundup is just a happy coincidence (particularly now that roundup is off patent meaning that the sales of both are not inextricably linked)

Look up 'GM Genocide' in India.

How about look it up honestly rather than looking up crank pieces. There is no link between GM release in India and increases in suicide. There is however a proven advantage to utilizers of GM cotton of increased yields and increased net incomes - if the technology was responsible for a "genocide" you are left in the rather sticky predicament of explaining precisely why adoption has increased every year in India in absolute lockstep with massively increased cotton production - these two facts simply don't mesh at all with any hypothesis that GM cotton is failing to the extent in India that it would be responsible for a wave of suicides (and indeed when one looks at the rate of suicide amongst Indian cotton farmers spanning the period of introduction of GM cotton what is abundantly clear is that the rate doesn't change at all)

@ Neven,

AGW is a little more than potentially dangerous - it's a risk, which the scientific evidence clearly shows. We can argue the particulars, the rate of temperature change etc. Sure, but we now that more CO2 in the atmosphere will raise surface temperatures.

Risk of GM foods? Where is the peer reviewed science supporting the claims made by Greenpeace?

I've been to their web site, and seen claims but no evidence. There is an [open letter from some scientists and GPs](http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/320004/Open_%20letter_%20…) (!) citing some [flawed studies](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks).

Wiki sums up the debate, I'm going through the papers.

>>"...In 1998 Rowett Research Institute scientist ÃrpÃ¡d Pusztai reported that consumption of potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin had adverse intestinal effects on rats.[108] Pusztai eventually published a letter, co-authored by Stanley Ewen, in the journal, The Lancet. The letter claimed to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.[109] The experiment modified potatoes to add a toxin (snowdrop lectin), but the experiment failed to include a control for the toxin alone or a control for genetic modifications alone (without added toxin); therefore, no conclusion could be made about the safety of the genetic engineering. The experiment has been criticised by other scientists on the grounds that the unmodified potatoes were not a fair control diet and that all the rats may have been sick, due to them being fed a diet of only potatoes.[110]

And:

>>"...In 2009 three scientists (VendÃ´mois et al.) published a statistical re-analysis of three feeding trials that had previously been published by others as establishing the safety of genetically modified corn.[111][112][113] The new article claimed that their statistics instead showed that the three patented crops (Mon 810, Mon 863, and NK 603) developed and owned by Monsanto cause liver, kidney, and heart damage in mammals.[114] A 2007 analysis of part of this data by the same group of scientists funded by Greenpeace[115] was assessed by a panel of independent toxicologists in a study funded by Monsanto and published in the journal Food and chemical toxicology. Some reviewers reported that the study was statistically flawed and providing no evidence of adverse effects.[116] The French High Council of Biotechnologies Scientific Committee reviewed the 2009 VendÃ´mois et al. study and concluded that it "..presents no admissible scientific element likely to ascribe any haematological, hepatic or renal toxicity to the three re-analysed GMOs."[117][118] An evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority of the 2009 and 2007 studies noted that most of the results were within natural variation and they did not consider any of the effects reported biologically relevant.[119][120] A review by Food Standards Australia New Zealand of the 2009 VendÃ´mois et al. study concluded that the results were due to chance alone.[121]"

I'm sorry, but we've all seen these tactics before:

>>"Independent" scientists questioning consensus science.

>>Arguments based on controversial, if not flawed research.

Again I ask - where is the evidence? An assertion of malevolent intent is not evidence.

I'd ask you, or anyone from Greenpeace the following quesions:

>>Do you accept the position of the US National Academy of Sciences, that do date there is no evidence of anyone suffering harm from GM foods? Y/N?

>>Is an attack on the work of scientists justified or not? Y/N?

>>Do the "ends justify the means"? Y/N?

These are the central questions.

No one gets a free pass on making claims on scientific matters without good, clear evidence supported by solid peer reviewed evidence.

The irony is that I've been accused of being a green-fascist-luddite by climate sceptics for accepting the science of climate change.

If there is a risk associated with GM foods, then it needs to be investigated. Greenpeace is effectively silencing scientists by such acts. Teh only way to determine the risks to agriculture, ecosystems and public health is through research.

As a member of the lay public I trust the scientific method and community. Yes, some get it wrong. Theories can change. But isn't that the nature of science?

**Update**: [John Quiggin](http://johnquiggin.com/2011/07/15/greenpeace-an-enemy-of-science/) "It will be a long time before Greenpeace can regain my support, if they ever do."

Here is a post I put up on Coby Beck's "How to talk to a climate sceptic" blog a few months ago.

................................

The four areas that I think are important are:

Environmental effects

Economic effects, especially wrt farmers

Potential health effects, both human and animal

Lack of proper regulatory control of GMO's

Iâll start with potential health effects.

When I first became aware of attempts to create herbicide resistant crops I was not worried about potential health effects. At that time (mid 1980âs) there were a number of groups working on creating herbicide resistant crops. One group in Calgary was using a modified mutagenic approach and other groups were using different but similar approaches.

However, the most successful appeared to be the use of genetic transfer. Genes for enzymes capable of breaking down the herbicide were introduced using what became known as recombinant DNA (r-DNA) technology. My initial views were that introducing one foreign gene product into a plant could have no harmful effects. So for the next few years I was more interested in following up on harmful environmental effects such as gene transfer (herbicide resistant weeds) and the harmful effects of excessive herbicide use.

As the years passed by some of the actual techniques used in the r-DNA technology became available. I became quite concerned when I discovered that it was just not one gene but several which were transferred into the host plant. Two genes in particular raised warnings. Firstly the whole technology required the addition of a promoter gene to get a decent level of enzyme production. Secondly, antibiotic resistance genes were introduced to enable researcher to select positive insertions of the genetic cassette. Both of these are not what one could call benign.

The promoter gene is obtained from a virus. Promoter genes raise concerns because they may induce other normally silent genes to become active in either the host or other organisms. One of the most worrisome cases is that the promoter gene may activate viruses which have their DNA incorporated in the mammalian genome. Such viruses are well known and some cause cancer. These virus genes can also be activated by chemical carcinogens. The problems with antibiotic resistance genes are well known.

These potential problems were raised when r-DNA technology was first used but the people involved said that they were confident that incorporated genes could not be transferred either from plant to plant or from plant to animal. Such predictions have been shown to be myths and the genes are very labile and have been found in many places where they are not supposed to be.

Another problem with r-DNA which may, and has in fact been shown to, cause health problems in animals and humans is that the gene product as expressed in the host organism is not the same as the initial protein which when isolated from its true host e.g the BT toxin is not the same when produced in Bacillus thuringiensis as when produced in BT corn. The reason for this is what is called post-translational modification (PTM). PTM can take a variety of forms but usually involves a shortening of the translated protein or modification such as glycolysation (addition of various sugar groups to the protein). The PTM is determined by enzymes from the new host thus the finished protein can be quite different from the original. It is the original that was tested, in isolation, for potential health effects.

This is exactly what Dr. Arpad Pusztai did. He was a pro GMO scientist who was picked by the UK Government to design protocols for testing GMOâs. He did some preliminary experiments on this and decided that one of the things he would check is to see if the GMO organism is more than the sum of its parts. He added all the ingredients in a GMO (he made his own GMO potato) separately and compared that to feeding the GMO. He found nothing when the ingredients were added separately but found many problems in the animals fed the GMO. Thus there is something in the procedure which is the culprit. Unfortunately, his work was immediately halted and he was fired when he presented the preliminary results.
There are many other cases of problems when feeding GMOâs to animals. There was a celebrated case when GMO maize was fed to dairy cows in an experiment in Hesse, Germany. A couple of the cows died. The experiment was immediately stopped and all of the cows disposed without proper autopsies. How about the experiment by the Russian scientist Dr. Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

who fed GM food to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were given non-GM soya and a third group was given no soya at all. She found that 36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the modified soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, a staggering 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GM diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

Then there is the case of the results presented to the US Government for testing and approval. Eventually these results were released (in Germany) and the results mimicked the results found by Pusztai.

Why are these results found? First of all, in the US the GMOâs are not tested per se for toxicity or health effects. The groups producing them only have to show âequivalencyâ to the non GMO counterpart. That is only a very gross analysis and involves nutrient content, protein content and does it âlook likeâ the native organism. In the case of insecticidal proteins (BT) the original BT as produced by the bacterium (it was an approved microbial pesticide for many years and is approved for âorganic useâ) was used as the hall mark for the new BT incorporated into the new crop. This has been shown to be untrue in at least two properties. Firstly, the gene isolated from the bacterium and inserted is shorter than the native gene thus the protein will be different (possibly three dimensional structure). Secondly, the toxic protein is a highly glycolysated protein. The genes for this are in the bacterium not in the plant. The GM toxic protein will have completely different sugar molecules added. This will have a tremendous effect on the immunological response between native and genetically engineered proteins.

My own thoughts on the regulatory process for these products is if the results had been presented for a lifesaving drug they would not get past Phase Zero or Phase One clinical trials let alone be approved for use.

.............................

The science is good but the technology is dreadful showing that technology is not just scaled up science but involves a number of other disciplines, all of which have to be examined and a cost benefit analysis performed to determine the success, or lack of success, of any new technology.

I don't agree with what Greenpeace did but I also don't think that the research plan came anywhere close to stopping migration of genetic material from the test plot. Wheat and barely are wind pollinated and it has been shown that GM pollen can migrate long distances (many kilometers) from the test site. Check out the GM grasses recently tested in the States.

Watching the deniers quoted Wiki as follows:

The letter claimed to show that rats fed on potatoes genetically modified with the snowdrop lectin had unusual changes to their gut tissue when compared with rats fed on non modified potatoes.[109] The experiment modified potatoes to add a toxin (snowdrop lectin), but the experiment failed to include a control for the toxin alone or a control for genetic modifications alone (without added toxin); therefore, no conclusion could be made about the safety of the genetic engineering.

This is a completely wrong (dishonest?) description of the Lancet paper. Here is a quote from that paper:

We compared the histological indices of the gut of
rats fed potato diets containing GM potatoes, non-GM
potatoes, or non-GM potatoes supplemented with GNA, to
find out whether GNA [Galanthus nivalis agglutinin: snowdrop lectin] gene insertion had affected the
nutritional and physiological impact of potatoes on the
mammalian gut.

http://www.biosafety-info.net/file_dir/385548857c702dc83.pdf

I'm afraid there is as much misinformation spread by the GMO companies and their supporters as there is by the fossil fuel industry.

I've donated to Greenpeace every month for a decade. This is the last straw. Despite their other good work, their anti-science and increasingly illogical approach to nuclear power and GM means I'm withdrawing my support. This from International Executive Director of Greenpeace, Kumi Naidoo
:

A handful of GM chemical companies are working with government scientists on a type of white bread they say will cure bowel cancer. The reality however is that this magically modified white bread is no better for you than any number of safe, healthy, affordable foods already available in local grocery stores.

"Cure" bowel cancer?! How's that for denialist style mis-representation. As for "magically modified white bread"!? This is just scientifically illiterate fear mongering. These people used to be heroes - now they just sound like ignorant luddites. Very sad.

> âThey walked in wearing full hazmat gear and walked out
> without encountering a single security person...."
from the original article

Did Greenpeace mention whether they carefully removed all the pollen from their hazmat suits and tools? Somehow I doubt it.

I think reality is getting ahead of us rather quickly:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20694-e-colis-genetic-code-has-be…

How timely:

DNA is now DIY: OpenPCR ships worldwide 06 Jul 2011

http://openpcr.org/2011/07/dna-is-now-diy-openpcr-ships-worldwide/
"... OpenPCRs are on their way to users in 5 continents and 13 countries around the world. For $512, every OpenPCR kit includes all the parts, tools, and beautiful printed instructions â you ONLY need a set of screwdrivers.

A PCR machine is basically a copy machine for DNA. It is essential for most work with DNA ...."

Like Pete Bondurant, I've been supporting Greenpeace for years. I'll be withdrawing my support as well, and letting them know why.

While I'm dubious about the safety and benefits of GMO, I'm not a life scientist. Every credible scientist I've heard give an opinion on them (most prominently Lord Robert May) doesn't seem to be concerned.

I don't believe we're justified in cherry-picking which science we accept, and which we deny.

@ Ian Forrester

I know what the paper claimed: it is the methodology of the research methods that are in question, and it would seem to be flawed research.

That's the point, and I was very, very clear in stating that flawed research does not make the foundation of a rationale argument.

[Enserink, M. (1999). "TRANSGENIC FOOD DEBATE:The Lancet Scolded Over Pusztai Paper". Science 286 (5440): 656a. doi:10.1126/science.286.5440.656a](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5440/656.1)

But you've not answered my direct questions:

>>Do you accept the position of the US National Academy of Sciences, that to date there is no evidence of anyone suffering harm from GM foods? Y/N?

>>Is an attack on the work of scientists justified or not? Y/N?

>>Do the "ends justify the means"? Y/N?

So, anyone arguing the anti-GM cause prepared to tackle these questions.

Imagine if religious extremists attacked a research facility developing a new form of birth control. Would we be outraged? Of course, they'd claim the moral high ground.

What do we need to help clarify the the risk of GM foods? More research. But we can't do research if extremists attack the work of scientists.

This is what frustrates me about some elements of the environment movement: it gives the likes of Andrew Bolt/News Corp/Alan Jones perfect fodder to tar scientists with the same brush.

A few activists feel they've "done something". Thanks guys. Good work. In the midst of the *very important* CO2 debate and what looks like a runaway greenhouse effect kicking into high gear, these stunts are nothing more than "own goals".

@ Tim Lambert - good to see John Quiggin coming out swinging. Those of us with a respect for science and the scientific method need to equally condemning of anyone waging a war on science.

@ Hand Roberts

End of article notes;

>>There are other advantages. Genetically engineered organisms whose genomes are written in a brand new genetic code cannot mix promiscuously with other organisms if they escape into the wild. A new genetic code would also confer immunity on bacterial cells against viruses, which attack by incorporating themselves into the host cell's own DNA. That could help with applications like drug production: the bacteria we engineer to produce drugs like insulin are routinely attacked by viruses.

Back in the 1990s CSIRO senior scientist were lamenting the funding regression from pure science to Applied science. Then the move to more commercial partnerships.

Last I heard CSIRO where beginning to require more and more commercial partnerships in order to win internal funding allocation. This grant transmutation coincided with the rapid growth in for profit biotech and monopolisation of genomes.

[Maarten Stapper](http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/csiro-dumps-antigm-expert/2007/0…) believes that his GMO caution got in the way of this new commercial partnership funding paradigm. Though *assistant chief of plant industry, Dr Mark Peoples, said Dr Stapper's redundancy had nothing to do with his views on genetic engineering. A project on the management of irrigated wheat he had worked on was now finished.*

Howerver, what Mark Peoples asserts was a simply a case of Stapperâs work finishing, actually required a mediator in 2004 *to resolve a dispute between Dr Stapper and the then head of the plant industry division, Dr Jim Peacock*

[More recently]( http://www.crikey.com.au/2008/07/21/csiro-scientists-gm-letter-campaign…) CSIRO Plant Industry Deputy TJ Higgins has defended the safety of GMO crops by making an improper associations between regulatory tests required for current commercial GMO (such as Monsantoâs Roundup Ready Canola) , and with effectiveness of case-by-case evaluation of GM plants*â (such as was done with Higgins GM Field Pea, abandoned because toxicologists found it caused immune problems and lung damage in mice.*)

But Higgins' *claims are âsimply wrongâ says nutritional biochemist and epidemiologist Dr Judy Carman, whom the West Australian government commissioned to undertake independent studies into the safety of GM foods.*

>*Carman told Crikey: âTJ Higginsâ GM pea provides a clear example of the failings of our current GM food regulatory regime. The pea failed miserably on all the [independent health] tests conducted.â And despite Higginsâ claims, âthese tests are not required by our food regulatorâ.*

Watching the deniers said:

Do you accept the position of the US National Academy of Sciences, that to date there is no evidence of anyone suffering harm from GM foods? Y/N?

How can the US NAS make such a ridiculous assertion? There have been no feeding trials on humans, except for the huge unregulated one where GMO's have been added to the average diet without anyone's consent or knowledge.

In case you are unaware of it there is no labeling of GMO's in the States or anywhere else. Milk can be labelled as GMO free except in the US.

Therefore my answer to your question is I do not accept the NAS position since it is impossible for them to have reached that decision because we cannot connect illness to eating GMO's. There are a large number of peer reviewed papers which show that GMO's are harmful to animals, including the study which you do not seem to understand or are deliberately misinterpreting. Shades of AGW deniers here.

It's no worse than the misrepresentation that has accompanied Monsanto's unrelenting PR.

The fact is that Greenpeace aren't trying to sell us anything, whereas Monsanto is pursuing profit by deliberately releasing something into the environment which will contaminate others' crops, whether they want it or not.

Think Cane Toads. But far, far worse.

@ #81 - why bring wishful thinking into this? This isn't about organisms with a brand new code, but about organisms that *do* promiscuously share their Frankengenes with other organisms in *my* environment. No rational person should be happy about this incredibly poor way of implementing a supposed scientific advance.

@ Ian Forrestor

Again, I know what the paper said. I'm not misrepresenting it. All the literature cited that "proves" GM foods may be harmful have been examined and shown to be flawed. Go back and read the quote I got from Wikipedia, and look at the follow up studies/research.

I think I'm really, really clear here. Look past that paper.

You say "How can the NAS make such a ridiculous statement..."

So - where is the evidecne of harm? Can you point to a fatality? An injury? No?

Do you accept their position on AGW?

Tim asks:

>*How are scientists supposed to discover whether it is safe to eat if you destroy experiments that would address that question?*

Indeed, but how are scientists supposed to discover whether it is safe to eat long term if they limits tests to [28 day feeding trials](https://p3-admin.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/321712/Greenpeace%2…)?

It can take months for some substanced to imbalace one's system or build to a level that produced toxic effects. I've recently suffered zinc toxicity which took 12 months to build up to a level high enough to produce pathalogical symptoms. Insulin resistance associated with diabeties can take decades of poor diet to produced its expression.

>there is currently no publicly available information on the parameters of these animal-feeding studies and the OGTR
does not require testing for potential toxic or allergic effects [...] Greenpeace has submitted a Freedom
of Information request to the CSIRO for both the health and safety parameters and the ethics clearance papers relating to the testing of GM wheat on humans. CSIRO has denied
this request [...] This removes the capacity for any
external review of the testing of potentially unstable, experimental GM products on Australians.

>The limited public information that is available indicates that CSIROâs tests on rats and pigs will run for just 28 days before GM wheat is tested on humans. The first two phases of human tests will go for just one day.

>Can you point to a fatality? An injury? No?

We'd also have trouble finding a fatality caused by smoking if we couldn't find who smoked and who didn't

>*Greenpeace has a big scary block diagram of all the commercial links between CSIRO and big scary corporations, but without something more substantive this is just silly innuendo.)*

[The text](https://p3-admin.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/321712/Greenpeace%2…) accompanying that diagram reads:

>This yearâs GM wheat trials were proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO. Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsantoâs
Roundup Ready products in Australia. Doug Rathbone has been Nufarmâs Chief Executive and Managing Director since 1982. During this time, he served on the board of CSIRO from 2007 until 2010.9 John Stocker joined Nufarmâs board in 1998. He served simultaneous appointments as CSIRO Chief Scientist
from 1996 to 1999 and returned to CSIRO as Chairman from 2007 until 2010.10

>The CSIROâs current GM wheat project was locked in during this time â a clear confl ict of interest. CSIRO policy requires that no board member of CSIRO should become entitled to receive a benefi t by reason of a contract made by CSIRO with a firm the board member represents.

>We've been genetically modifying crops for millennia through hybridisation and natural selection, only doing so the slow way

Our tried and tested hybridisation does not produce large random damage to the genome like a gene gun does (damage to genes can have significant and unpredicatable an effects).

Nor does our hybridiastion place the new the new gene is a random spot along the gene sequnce (like the gene gun, where changing place on in the gene sequence can have significant and unpredicatable an effects).

@ jakerman

>>"Can you point to a fatality? An injury? No?

>>We'd also have trouble finding a fatality caused by smoking if we couldn't find who smoked and who didn't>

Ah yes, but millions of people have been eating GM foods for over 15 years, again got the NAS report.

Again I ask: point me to a fatality or injury.

Unless like Ian you're going to dismiss it out of hand without reading it?

I mean, you wouldn't want to dismiss information based solely on gut feeling? Right?

>*but millions of people have been eating GM foods for over 15 years*

Yep, and millions smoked. After more than a century of not finding any fataltiy due to smoking, we were eventually able to conduct epidemilogical population studies. Key to such studies are the questions like:

* do you smoke?
* how long have you smoked?
* how much have you smoked?

The equivalent GMO questions are not answerable by most of the popution where GMO are avalible. Hence I take a conservative appraoch rather the Laissez-faire three monkey approach to public health. Especially when there is little gained but gene monopolisation the current by commercial GMO crops.

Are you suggesting that

>*Again I ask: point me to a fatality or injury.*

Same answer WTD, you count

It seems we're prodding an angry beast with a sharp stick in more ways than one.

Please ignore anything from *"Are you suggesting that"* in my post @92

>*It seems we're prodding an angry beast with a sharp stick in more ways than one.*

My understanding is this would have likely been GP's aim. To get the subject into the public eye, rather then hidden away.

**Update 2**: [Christopher Preston](http://theconversation.edu.au/greenpeaces-gm-vandalism-bad-for-farmers-…):

>There is no evidence to support the claims of hazard about this trial made by Greenpeace.

>I am left with the view that the destruction of this trial was unnecessary and wanton. Thatâs why the destruction of this trial has left me completely appalled.

As I said above, nonsense. Many of these patents will be renewed.

This is simply incorrect.

Except in extraordinary cases (undue approval delay at the PTO, or undue delay due to an interference proceeding), U.S. patents cannot be renewed. I'm not especially familiar with foreign patent law, but I know that European patents are also 20 years with no further renewal, and I think the same is true for most signatories to TRIPS (which mandates a minimum term of 20 years, but no maximum term).

Davis,

Your defense of GMOs is feeble. As I said earlier, there are many reasons - both socially, politically and environmentally - to be very concerned about the spread of some aspects of this technology. If your only defense is that some patents will not be renewed in several years then you've already lost.

WTD: in the U.S. most of the research on cross-phylogeny GMOs is done by the corporations themselves, who then hand their results to the regulatory agencies. Given that the FDA and EPA have been reduced to mute status, many of these results are accepted as valid and used in evaluating the safety criteria. My point is that inserting the gene of an insecticidal bacteria into a plant and then expecting it to be an important arsenal in pest control is very much mistaken... plants have evolved to respond to a myriad of threats in the environment, and yet here we are assuming that one genotype of a certain crop will enable pest damage to be reduced over an extended time period. As I witnessed at a conference I attended recently in Bloemfontein South Africa, talk after talk addressed rapid resistance of some serious pests to GMOs. The whole technology reeks with simplistic assumptions about nature whilst ignoring the fact that diffuse selection operates in natural selection, whereby optimality is evolved through compromise. Threats to fitness are dynamic and often unpredictable.

And to reiterate, much of the technology is not driven through anything other than short-term profit. Even if some of the patents were not renewed after 5 years, who cares? The horse has already bolted and the ecological questions remain.

Ewan, I am not being dishoest about genotypes. Let me ask you this: Is there more genetic diversity in Roundup ready resistant soybean or in the seeds that farmers have collected for years after harvest? In Bt-maize or in wild types of teosinte as well as in many different strains of maize that are grown by different cultures around the world? Don't be stupid! Your BS degree is certainly clouding any rational judgment you have on this issue.

The rest of Ewan's responses to my posts are useless bunk. Fifteen years is certainly not long enough to verify the many potential hidden dangers in this technology to the environment or to human health. He has never heard of the 'extinction debt', or of time lags in cause-and-effect relationships in global change scenarios. Besides, there is also evidence that many weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides as a result of increased spraying on crops, as well as insect resistance to Bt-crops. Hardly unexpected. When Ewan writes, * There is however a proven advantage to utilizers of GM cotton of increased yields and increased net incomes -* he is speaking more rubbish. GM cotton is not well adapted to very wet environments and soils, which are characteristic in cotton growing areas of India. The use of GM cotton in India, from all available evidence, has been an unmitigated disaster.

And the technology is not cheap. Its not aimed to benefit farmers in the south but investors in the north.

Let me ask the proponents of GMOs this: if the public really does want GMO food, why is it that they refuse to allow marking of food products with GMO products in it?

A free market REQUIRES a fully informed consumer.

Why then are you refusing to inform the consumer?

This excellent article in the GMO journal sums up some of the scientific concerns over the technology:

Loss of Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Crops
By Deniza Gertsberg | June 17th, 2011 |

It is a statistic that is hard to deny: industrial forms of agriculture, with emphasis on large-scale monoculture crop production, have a negative impact on biodiversity. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, referring to the scale of the loss as âextensive,â found that some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost since 1900 as farmers turn to genetically uniform, mass-produced crop varieties.

The term âbiodiversityâ was derived from âbiologicalâ and âdiversity,â and refers to the total diversity of all life in a given locale â one as small as a backyard (or smaller) or as large as the entire planet Earth.

Since genetically modified crops (a.k.a. GMOs) reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large scale monocultures, they contribute to the decline in biodiversity and increase vulnerability of crops to climate change, pests and diseases.

Genetically modified crops grow in a dynamic environment and interact with other species of the agro-ecosystem and surrounding environment. As âbiological novelties to the ecosystems,â GM crops may potentially affect the âfitness of other species, population dynamics, ecological roles, and interactions, promoting local extinctions, population explosions, and changes in community structure and function inside and outside agroecosystems.â

The recent concerns raised by Dr. Don Huber, who noted a link between GM crops, engineered to withstand continued applications of glyphosate, plant diseases and spontaneous abortions and infertility in pigs, horses, cattle and other livestock, further underscore the troubling fact that GM crops may likely have a larger negative impact on the agroecosystem and the surrounding environment. More importantly, Huberâs revelations further point to the inaccurate assumptions made by this nationâs regulators. GM crops are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, they interact in novel ways to impact the plant, the soil and the animals that consume them and government agencies should think twice before deregulating GMOs.

Independent scientists studying the affects of GMOs have also raised other concerns regarding the impact of GMOs on biodiversity. The spread of transgenes to wild or weedy relatives, the impact of GMOs on nontarget organisms (especially weeds or local varieties) through the acquisition of transgenic traits via hybridization, the evolution of resistance to pests (in case of Bt crops), accumulation of Bt toxins, which remain active in the soil after the crop is plowed under and bind tightly to clays and humic acids and the unanticipated effects of the Bt toxin on nontarget herbivorous insects, ((Garcia and Altieri.)) are areas of concern as are increasing concerns about the adverse impact of GMOs on insects (such as bees, for example), nematodes, and birds, all of whom either consume GMOs seeds or their by-products or are present in glyphosate saturated soils. â[T]he vast majority of soybeans and cotton, and 70% of our corn, is Roundup Ready, leading to over 230 million lbs of glyphosate being sprayed each year,â noted Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst at the Center For Food Safety.

Furthermore, the impact of GMOs on biodiversity is also seen in the development of superweeds and superbugs since over-reliance on and the abundant use of single herbicide and pesticide lead to resistance in the pest community. The âunregulated use of glyphosate-resistant crop systems has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds infesting 10 million acres or more,â in this country alone.

GMOs contribute to a decline in biodiversity in one other way. According to Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst with the Center For Food Safety, as biotech companies acquire conventional seed companies, conventional and organic seeds are pushed out. Freese states that:

When Monsanto buys up seed firms, it discontinues the conventional lines, and offers only biotech versions. â¦ So from Monsantoâs perspective, it makes no sense to sell a high-quality conventional variety when you can charge higher prices and make more money selling that exact same seed, only with a Roundup Ready or other biotech trait(s) stuck into it.

Itâs not just Monsanto. Bayer and other biotech firms donât want to sell conventional varieties anymore. [They are] [n]ot as profitable. And since the biotech trait is patented, you get the bonus of patent protection when you insert the trait into a seed. That allows the likes of Monsanto to sue farmers for the âcrimeâ (patent infringement) of saving seed, â¦ .

While additional studies are needed to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of GMOs on biodiversity, the currently available information begs the question of whether GMOs bring more harm than good, especially when small-scale farmers, using ecological methods, can address the pressing agricultural concerns.

Jakerman:

Our tried and tested hybridisation does not produce large random damage to the genome like a gene gun does (damage to genes can have significant and unpredicatable an effects).
Nor does our hybridiastion place the new the new gene is a random spot along the gene sequnce (like the gene gun, where changing place on in the gene sequence can have significant and unpredicatable an effects).

Do you realise that you're making exactly the same error made by creationists when they dismiss evolution: focusing on the "random" and completely failing to consider the all-important selection?

Let's look at what happens when plant cells are transfected with a new gene. First, out of the millions that are treated, only those that stably express the vector are selected for. Of those, the ones that have incorporated defective or empty vector are weeded out. Then, the ones that fail to form proper plants are of course discarded. Of the population left, the edible parts are thoroughly assayed against their wild-type counterparts to look for any nasty surprises. Then, after all the boxes have been ticked, a crop may be grown for safety trials in animals. It's only after years of testing that a new GM product goes to market.

Now, let's consider some numbers. An average cell, plant or human, undergoes between one and ten DNA damage events every second. All entirely random, most (but not all) repaired with high fidelity. In the time you've taken to read this, the DNA in your body has undergone some few hundred trillion double-stranded breaks. Obviously, since you're still with us, random DNA damage isn't really as scary as it sounds.

Now let's consider the techniques used in traditional plant breeding. In order to develop a wide range of variability to select for, the tried-and-true method used by plant breeders is to... expose plants to mutagens. Flush a greenhouse with mustard gas, expose the plants to a cobalt-60 gamma source, that sort of thing. Then collect the seeds, plant them and see what comes up.

The level of testing required need be no more than "Oooh, that's a BIG one!" - there is no safety testing required for plants developed in this manner. Most of the fruit and vegetables currently sold in supermarkets have at least one such event in their family tree.

So, if it's really the spectre of random genetic changes with inadequate safety testing that you're afraid of, I'd advise against eating... well, pretty much anything, really.

>*Funny how these Greenpeace people with brains never duke it out in the peer-reviewed literature.*

Nexus6, [here is](https://p3-admin.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/321712/Greenpeace%2…) a key reason there are few independent studies in the peer review:

>In 2009, Scientiï¬c American and Nature Biotechnology reported that GM company contracts prohibit independent researchers from accessing the seed needed for environmental and health research.

>The independent research on GM that does exist consistently reports different results to GM company research on both the health risks and agronomic performance of GM crops

[...]

>Greenpeace has submitted a Freedom of Information request to the CSIRO for both the health and safety parameters and the ethics clearance papers relating to the testing of GM
wheat on humans. CSIRO has denied this request, declaring this information commercial in conï¬dence.

The Australian public fund the CSIRO, yet CSIRO's commercial partnerships forbid the disclosure of health and safety parameters of tests.

[Here are](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…) some of the commercial interests.

> focusing on the "random" and completely failing to consider the all-important selection?

But we don't know the consequence of the selection.

After all, I could SELECT you for vivisection to see if I can remember where the appendix goes.

So stop complaining about the randomness of my desires and consider the all-important SELECTION.

Gene splicing puts us in a situation where we have nothing to guide us: there are no natural insect/wheat hybrids. Cross breeding puts us in a nearby available genetic space, where our extrapolations can at least be vaguely trusted.

You're like the denialists who look at the projection of 2-3C warming and think "Well, that's only a little bit warmer" when forgetting that 2-3C warmer could take us into a new climate pattern, one where we don't know and can't reliably extrapolate our experience so far.

You're like the man falling off a tower block, thinking "I'm safe so far and I've fallen 10 floors. So another 10 won't do any harm". Whooshing past the second floor saying "So far, so good!".

*Of the population left, the edible parts are thoroughly assayed against their wild-type counterparts to look for any nasty surprises*

So much for Triustan's argument. He lost it right there. Thoroughly assayed by who? The patent owner? This kind of argument is made up on the spot. To reiterate again, interphylogenetic GMOs create organisms that could never have occurred in nature. Never. Period. As Jakerman said, the technology is very crude. Its not the same as traditional plant breeding, not by a long shot.

And not surprisingly Tristan has not addressed the myriad of other reasons to hold this technology in grave doubt. Let's say its safe to eat for argument's sake. That in no way makes it socially or environmentally sound technology.

Back to the drawing board for you, Tristan.

Wow: what the fuck?

>*Let's look at what happens when plant cells are transfected with a new gene. First, out of the millions that are treated, only those that stably express the vector are selected for. Of those, the ones that have incorporated defective or empty vector are weeded out*

Only the cells that appear stable using limited screening are selected for, we don't know how stable they are due to the signification and unknown damage that occurs to the genome.

Rather than the conventions causes of mutations we have evolved to deal with, gene guns make are large disruption in the formation state on the new gene, these mutations are subsequently passed to every cell of the new organisation, multiplying billions of times. This is radically different to the rate of mutation normally dealt with by organisms.

@ Tim, sorry, for the first time since I've been lurking and commenting here, I just can't see what the fuss is all about. One CSIRO GMO experimental plot gets trashed, a few in the dotEDUdotAU community get snotty, and this is the downfall of Greenpeace? I mean, really??. For the life of me I can't see why this is worth more than a mention, let alone what some at The Conversation are getting their knickers in a knot about.

I'm with jakerman, Jeff Harvey and those who:

a) question the efficacy of the methods employed to insert genes in plant genomes;

b) have rational, reasonable grounds for significant unresolved doubts about the benefits accrued from these radically modified organisms vs. the potential effects of their release into "the wild" (and the consequent, significant [until proven otherwise] risk to naturally-occurring organisms, communities and ecosystems - i.e the Precautionary Principle);

c) wonder about the influence of the $ and significant global corporate influence on scientific establishments and endeavour; and

d) highlight the need for long-term studies to determine whether human intake of GMOs AND their release into the environment has, on balance, an undesirable effect.

And to those who've suddenly come over all conscience-stricken about their Greenpeace subscription over this (relatively) minor issue, I say you were Clayton's supporters in the first place - a few Greepeace bods slashing a CSIRO plot isn't exactly busting into Crick and Watson's lab and shutting off the power. It's probably a cock-up on the part of Greenpeace, and certainly a PR blunder, but the event itself is small beer people. Get a bloody grip.

[FTR I'm not a Greenpeace subscriber, but I do subscribe to several volunteer not-for-profit organisations. For those who can't see the wood for the trees, I support these organisations (like I would Greenpeace) for their general approach to the matters I give a shit about, and more often than not their take on specific matters. This does NOT mean I support EVERY SINGLE EDICT OR ACTION they take - indeed, if any one of these orgs acted in a way I wasn't happy with, I'd ping others' views and make damned bloody sure the organisation knew that a number of their supporters, members and subscribers had the right raving shits and wanted something done about it.]

PS Whether the majority of academics at The Conversation or the assorted commenters here crticise, castigate and calumnify Greenpeace or not, the plain fact is that without activist organisations like them (and FoTE, The Wilderness Society and the Victorian Forest Alliance), approaching sweet fucque-all would ever get on GetUp, let alone the MSM, and it certainly would not get stopped when it needed to be stopped (see the shit-fight that is Australian Regional Forestry Agreements). Before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm not saying that these organisations don't make mistakes and are not above criticism, but without them our planet would be a significantly worse place.

By all means let's have intelligent, informed debate about GMOs, and certainly let's debate effective methods of protest. But FFS people, getting all steamed up about one hiccup in a greater issue? Get some f**king persepctive.

Further more, stability of genes in not the only concern with significant random mutation. There are also toxic effects induced by exposure to products of stable but significantly altered novel genes.

SteveC, that comment was rather like Richard Dawkins one to the Skepchick complaints.

And you know what happened to HIM!

All I'm saying is take care out there...

[Here are](http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/GeneticRoulette/HealthRisksofGMF…) some of the observations we should studying openly to either increase confidence in the safety of GMOs or improve understand so that GMO can safety problems can be confronted.

Currently such open disclosure and review is [not on offer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…).

Brilliant post by SteveC. Many thanks for it, and also to jakerman.

I am not a member of Greenpeace, but IMHO this incident is a blip of insignificant proportions. A stupid, irrational act and a PR blunder for sure, but not worthy of some of the invective I am reading on this thread.

My concern is certainly much more placed in the direction of a small number of essentially borderless, immensely powerful multinational corporations who appear to be trying to take over control of the human food chain. And of course there are many reasons for this concern as I have alluded to above, and which Ewan and his acolytes have failed to address at all successfully. Monique Robin addresses some of these concerns with great alacrity in her book, "The World According to Monsanto" (chilling read, I may say). "Redesigning Life", edited by Brian Tokar and with contributions from many scientists, also is worth a read.

Intelligent and informed debate? Yes, that'd be nice indeed! Instead, we're stuck with word salad like this:

Rather than the conventions causes of mutations we have evolved to deal with, gene guns make are large disruption in the formation state on the new gene, these mutations are subsequently passed to every cell of the new organisation, multiplying billions of times.

and similar strings of sciencey sounding words from people who don't understand the basic science - heck, don't even understand the basics of what science is. But, they've got positions, and they're strong positions. Important positions, darn it. And being strong, important decisions, they have to be defended at all costs. If defending them requires the use of large quantities of bafflegab, lots of emotional buzzwords, ignoring counterpoints and outright lying - well, so be it. After all, these are strong, important positions we're talking about, so of course defending them is paramount, right? Right?

> and similar strings of sciencey sounding words from people who don't understand the basic science

Rather odd coming from someone who has dished out their own smorgasbord of greenstuffs themselves on this splendid picnic.

Again there's nothing here about what "science is" that is understood, instead just a tirade against people who don't agree with tristan.

Tristan I note your declination to address the arguemnt and instead your fall back on abuse. So be it.

I'd agree that GP's action wasn't all that clever.

But I'm also not so thrilled with the CSIRO experiment.

Our experiences with experimentation in the field of agronomy have been pretty disastrous (something like 4 useful pasture grasses for 60+ noxious weeds over the 20th C) . It seemed like a reasonable idea to grow a few feilds of some potential useful grasses and see how they went......except that some went quite well and, strange as it may seem, they just spread....and keep spreading.

Gamba grass is threatening the destruction of the tropical savannahs from one such failed experiment.

I'd like to think we've learned our lesson, but the controls on these experiments seem just a little lax.

If something like this were a medical experiment, I suggest it might have a snowflakes-chance-in-hell of getting ethics approval.

Here is a [web site](http://gmcropsfarmertofarmer.com/) which includes a video on how farmers are reacting to the GMO "revolution":

Actually Tristan makes a good point regarding word salad. The one he quoted reveals the person making the statement doesn't understand what they're talking about so an informed debate isn't possible. Every second rebuttal would be "Please crack open a first-year textbook".

We should listen though to find out what their concerns are. Maybe they're misinformed, or maybe they might have valid concerns but lack the background to articulate it, or lack the knowledge to know why that particular concern has already been addressed. If they choose to remain willfully ignorant so they can hold onto their opinions in the face of contrary fact, then they'll be no different from other deniers of all stripes.

I also think we should listen because their concerns may initially be more about marketing, market domination and monopolies, economics, onerous restrictions on farmers/growers, etc. That is a whole other area of debate, and I think we should first learn what a person's main objection is--economic/free market or the actual science, or both strongly intertwined--you can explain the science all you want and not change a person's mind** if their objections are based on past abuses by large companies. And in economics, opinion is often just as valid as any other knowledge.

**I know, often you can explain science all you want and still not change a person's mind even if their objection is strictly based on their misinformed science.

"Planting GM food releases genes into the environment which contaminates others' crops against their wishes. That's all there is to it."

Exactly. And to repeat, this GM experiment is totally unnecessary. Try eating less wheat or stick to complex carbs (in moderation) for the exact same results. Or better, since we already know that that alternative works.

Why this experiment? just because it is "science" all us scientists must defend it?

So why not look into other posts, Daniel? E.g. Ian Forrester above. Or Jeff Harvey. Or any post by anyone where the posters position is articulated to your satisfaction?

In short, rather than look for posts you don't understand, look for posts you do. If there aren't any THEN articulate your problem with the counter proposal posts.

Watching the deniers claims that Dr. Pusztai's research protocol was wrong and badly designed. Too bad that wtd did not show some sceptism and actually read what others have found out about the correctness of Dr. Pusztai's research.

For those not cognizant of the Royal Society's biased and completely wrong assessment of GMO's I will point out that they have been shown to act like the AGW deniers in their biased and compromised support of the GMO promoters.

[Here](http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12411-biotech-propag…) is a summary of the conclusions reached by independent scientists on the quality and validity of Dr. Pusztai's research findings:

Dr. Pusztai's research design had already been used in over 50 peer-reviewed published studies conducted at the Rowett Institute, the most prestigious nutritional institute in the UK. Furthermore, the design was explicitly approved in advance by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)âthe UK government's main funding body for the biological sciences.

The validity of the work was also confirmed by an independent team of 23 top scientists from around the world who reviewed the research, as well as The Lancet, that published it.

But Chassy and Tribe instead reference their partners-in-spin from the Royal Society. As indicated in Part 1, at the Society there are plenty of scientists with close ties to the biotech industry who came in quite handy during the Pusztai affair. They staged a so-called peer-reviewâthe first in the Society's 350-year historyâbut it was more of a hatchet job. The reviewers didn't even bother to look at all the research data. Dr. Pusztai told me he had offered to provide the complete findings and to meet with them to answer questions, but they refused.

The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, denounced the Royal Society's unprecedented condemnation of Dr. Pusztai as "a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work." He called it a "reckless decision" that abandoned "the principles of due process".

I urge readers to read the whole report as it confirms the government and institutional bias and dishonesty in approaching the GMO debate.

A very good web site for info on GMO's is GMwatch which is on a par with Realclimate in giving an honest description of what is happening with GMO's.

"Let me ask the proponents of GMOs this: if the public really does want GMO food, why is it that they refuse to allow marking of food products with GMO products in it?"

Umm, because labelling of all GM foods is mandatory

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/gmfoods/

Thank goodness we have agribusiness to help us with our Science against those Luddites from Greenpeace.

I want to thank some of you guys, Jeff Harvey, jakerman, Wow, Ian Forrester, for your passionate and informed rebuttal. I know I should be researching it more myself and form my own opinion (which I will do some more, climate science takes up all of my reading time), but you confirm my suspicion that something is very rotten in the state of Monsanto.

I still wonder how people like Ewan R manage to stay working in this industry. If even 25% of the charges against Monsanto are true, that means you are complicit in all the misery that is being caused. I couldn't live with that. I mean, I'm just a measly translator who feels his conscience gnawing when he has translated some horrible reality-show so that the format can be sold in other countries.

If Monsanto is the monster it seems to be (like so many other multinationals and banks out there), it is people like Ewan R who make it possible. What a horrible and saddening thought. So many smart people who could be so much more useful in a positive way. But that what's you get in a brainwashing culture.

I trust greenpeace more than the so-called skeptics who are market fundies to a man.

The contamination has not been by design of neighbors - that's simply paid propaganda.

Until the so-called skeptical movement becomes anything other than a mouthpiece for the corporations, no one will, or should, trust it. The amount of bad faith out there is enormous.

we have very real issues - theft of the commons, strangulation of the poor by intellectual property, the loss of species diversity, the violation of the rights of smaller farmers by larger ones and by the artificial agriculture giants, the very short term of the unsustainable "green revolution" - all of which get swept under the rug by a corps of people uncritically parroting a line that to address them is "unscientific."

You shouldn't sabotage testing, agreed - that's how you gather evidence to regulate things.

But I think honestly the reaction is mostly bullshit. Fake balance. Look at the narrowest possible safety considerations, period, because it's corporate friendly - put the burden of proof on the unfunded public and volunteers. It's precisely that corporate-friendly, artificially narrowed focus that leads to things like climate change.

It reminds me of chris mooney's guest on point of inquiry - to show a fake balance, he said, while cons didn't get the NAS view right on A, B, C, D ... liberals didn't get the NAS view right on the safety (to people) of disposing of radioactive waste in deep ocean ridges. Without breaking it down by education (liberals are at the 2 ends). Not asking about what was in the media - disposing of it at a place like Yucca Flats.

Oh, and where are the people, I ask again for, what? the 100th time? taking the lying bastards at "Brave New Climate" to task for their public-endangering proven lying about Fukushima? It's easy to pile on a public-interest group, but not so easy to take on people who shill for powerful corporate interests, is it?

Really disappointed by this thread and many of those who've proven so capable in other venues. Special tip of the hat to Vince Whirlwind in that regard for his 'balancing extremists' contribution. Might be worth his googling Northern Ireland or the Occupied Territories to see how that works in practice. Alternatively googling 'reap the whirlwind' will probably do.

More generally, it would be nice if the anti-GMO jihadists refrained from conflating the distinct issues here regarding the case for GMO and the case for blowing up science experiments whose findings you might not like. The latter not the former, fyi, is the subject of the post.
I was only able to find one genuine defense of Greenpeace's actions in this thread, which was that it 'wasn't a big deal' (and fyi, justification by attack on CSIRO, let alone via guilt by association innuendo, is fallacy). This assertion ignores the fact that institutions, like people, reveal important things in small ways.

The Reign of Terror was in many ways foreshadowed by the self-indulgent fanaticism by which budding French Revolutionaries loathed the aristocrasy. A former business colleague's shabby treatment of his secretary would predict subsequent and more consequential asshattery, and on and on etc. ad nauseum.

The point is not the magnitude of the impact of Greenpeace's dabbling here in scientific terrorism, but what that says about the character of the organization. And that is something I for one could never justify associating myself with.

Your defense of GMOs is feeble.

Defensive much?

I made no defense of GMOs. Your understanding of the patent system was flawed, and you were repeating one of the most common misunderstandings of how the system works. Especially in the context of this discussion, I consider it important to actually get these sorts of facts correct.

[John Qiggin](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…)

Australia's largest GMO crops are round up ready canola and cotton. And GMO canola oil and cotton seed oil are excepted from labeling by the Food Standards Authority of Australia. Children are already eating GMO oil is Australia, with no human feeding trails and no way of determining the effects is population studies.

Similarly sugars from GMO crops are exempt from labelling.

For Wow and all those that are defending the actions of GP.
There is little use using rational argument with you people. Like Climate Change deniers you just make up your own facts and push conspiracy theories to drum up fear in a effort to gain support for your position. The point here is that GP vandalisied a scientific experiment being performed by govt scientists. There were no secrets surrounding the experiment that was being performed as CSIRO and OGTR have pointed out. How would GP react if a bunch of Climate Change deniers smashed a Solar Panel experiment or wind turbine experiment? The surprising thing here is that none of the climate change denier loonies have done such a thing, where does this leave GP!

If GP took the time to engage with the scientists from CSIRO they would realise that this piece of work is just one small part of a larger research direction that is also looking into nonGMO options. The reasons for using GMO is because its a quick way to gain proof of concept before going down the track of traditional breeding and other avenues that take considerably longer. But it seems GP has little interest in the facts and its main drive is to gain media attention.

The tobacco analogy made by jakerman has some problems. It took time for the link to be investigated, partly because epidemiology was much less developed in the first half of C20, partly because there were other suspects like air pollution and partly because of the disruptions caused by WWII (which meant that early German research wasn't followed up).

But as soon as researchers started looking at the possibility of a link between smoking and lung cancer, the data showed it clearly. And animal experiments rapidly confirmed the link/

By contrast, in the GM case, Americans have been consuming GM foods for years, while Europeans have not. It ought to be easy to see any substantial risk in epidemiological data pretty soon. At this stage, the only plausible candidate for a large effect would appear to be obesity, but there are better explanations available for that. On top of that there is the failure of animal experiments to yield significan results.

It is entirely possible that some GM foods may have health risks - that's one reason for the CSIRO experiments. But returning to the original post, that's precisely why this action was so destructive.

D.J Andrews;
>Tristan makes a good point regarding word salad. The one he quoted reveals the person making the statement doesn't understand what they're talking about so an informed debate isn't possible.

Sorry my response was not up to standard. Let me state it another way. The disruption caused by inserting gene with a gun is on a different scale to that of the mutations organisms deal with day to day.

So too the genetic mutation resulting from the combination of gene insertion and tissue culture, which can change 2-4% of the DNA (Bao, Granata et al 1996; and Labra, Savini et al 2001).

Gene insertion has significant effects on gene expression through the organism. Srivastava et al (1999) found that 5% of the hostâs genes changed their level of expression after a single gene is inserted.

It is difficult or impossible to assess the safety of such complex changed to hundreds of thousands of interacting proteins and enzymes without long term comprehensive feeding studies. These have not been done.

>*in the GM case, Americans have been consuming GM foods for years, while Europeans have not. It ought to be easy to see any substantial risk in epidemiological data pretty soon.*

On the surface you'd think so, but reading from an epidemiological perspective its not so simple. [Judy Carman](http://www.gefreeaustralia.org/images/JUDY-download.pdf) writes:

>letâs assume for a moment that GM food is making people ill and see how easy it would be to find the proof that GM food is causing the illness. The first problem is to recognise that there is a new health problem in the community.

>Without full animal testing, we donât even know which diseases to look for in people. If the resultant disease is an existing disease, for example, cancer, that has a registry or effective surveillance system established for it, we will be alerted to an increase in that disease if people are paid to look for it. If the disease has no effective surveillance system, either because it is a new disease and therefore cannot be under surveillance, or because it is an existing disease without a surveillance system, the problem may go completely unnoticed. Most diseases have no surveillance system, including diseases that kill many Australians each year, such as asthma.

>Consequently, we are likely to be unaware of any problem until a critical mass of clinicians begins to individually recognise that they have been seeing a lot of syndrome X, start asking their colleagues if they have seen the same, and push for an investigation. If this does not happen, we may never know there is a problem. The HIV/AIDS epidemic went unnoticed for decades, even though it created memorable secondary infections, such as those obtained from cats, and had a focus in young gay men who tended to cluster geographically and see the same doctors. It was largely picked-up by chance, because record-keeping of one pharmaceutical drug, pentamidine, indicated an unusually high number of patients with a rare pneumonia, even though there were by then thousands of HIV/AIDS cases worldwide. We still do not know how many people are infected, even in Australia, which has one of the best surveillance systems in the world. It is also important to note that, by the time some surveillance data are collected and made available for analysis, several years can elapse. This can lead to a lag of several years between the cases occurring and appearing in a surveillance system. [cont...]

Naomi Oreskis points out that tobacco companies in the 1950 or 1960s argued that cancer varied from country to country and state to state in the US even where smoking rates were similar. But Oreskies points out that other population factors confounded such comparisons.

What you say is true jakerman and is widely accepted by scientists in the field. In fact alot of transgenic cereal plants grow poorly when compared to plants that aren't transgenic. BUT transgenic plants are a useful tool when trying to understand a trait compared with other more traditional methods that would otherwise take ALOT longer. Like I said previously the work that was destroyed is a small part of a larger research direction that will more than likely result in a nonGMO product. But that doesn't seem to concern GP they just seem hellbent on whipping up fear and misinformation.

By the way this has all been outlined by CSIRO before. The debate just seems to have been hijacked by people who don't really understand the complexities of the field.

Why do GM supporters who also claim to be against AGW deniers accept the lack of transparency shown by GM companies and their supporters such as the Royal Society and many Governments yet get their knickers in a knot over the lack of transparency by AGW deniers? This is hypocrisy.

It took years for people to get access to the "scientific" reports submitted to the USDA to support the regularity acceptance of GM products. When the reports were eventually disclosed they were shown to be both scientifically shoddy and actually showed many of the same metabolic abnormalities found by Dr. Pusztai's original Lancet paper.

Since then there are many peer reviewed papers showing similar abnormalities in experimental animals. Yet the USDA (and other regulatory agencies) keep all industry reports under wraps.

This is deplorable and is the exact opposite of open and correct science. Why do you support such lack of transparency?

Will the supporters of GM who have commented on this thread please explain their lack of support for honesty and transparency?

The comment by AaronG:

Like Climate Change deniers you just make up your own facts and push conspiracy theories to drum up fear in a effort to gain support for your position.

is an insult to those intelligent and honest people who have taken the time to study exactly what is going on in the dishonest world of GM crops and their biased supporters. Please be more sceptical and actually try and read up on the many dishonest tactics used by Monsanto et al.

AaronG said:

The debate just seems to have been hijacked by people who don't really understand the complexities of the field.

Please stop insulting people who know a lot more about the GM mess than you seem to have.

AronG,

I'm advocating open and transparent feeding trials. This is [not currently on offer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…).

Jakerman, in addition to the lack of transparency in the feeding trials there is currently no transparency or information on exactly what they are doing from a biochemical point of view. To claim that "starch enzyme" will be added is an insult to the intelligence of independent people who can give an honest appraisal on any possible problems in the metabolism of the modified plants. Without knowing exactly what is being added, manipulated and messed around with we are completely in the dark as to possible and probable problems arising.

Two things

Jakerman
The reason there is no information on feeding tials is because it hasn't been decided if it will go ahead. Something which has already been clearly outlined by CSIRO.

Ian Forrester
What did I say that was wrong or insulting? The fact remains that the trial that was destroyed was not solely for the purpose for feeding trials. Again something that has been either overlooked or simply ignored by people beating the drum for both sides of the debate.
I'll point it out again...the use of transgenic or GMO's in this project is but one small part of a larger research focus that will most likely lead to the generation of a nonGMO product. Something that has been pointed out by CSIRO before.

And Ian I suspect your keeness play to the man and not the ball is a sign of the weaknesses of your own arguments.

Ian

Just so this is straight in your head. Their not adding a starch enzyme. Their silencing a gene that encodes a starch enzyme. And the work that they are doing was supposed to address these questions of biochemical changes.

>*Jakerman The reason there is no information on feeding tials is because it hasn't been decided if it will go ahead. Something which has already been clearly outlined by CSIRO.*

CSIRO declined the FOIR declaring this information
[commercial in conï¬dence](https://p3-admin.greenpeace.org/australia/PageFiles/321712/Greenpeace%2…):

>Greenpeace has submitted a Freedom of Information request to the CSIRO for both the health and safety parameters and the ethics clearance papers relating to the testing of GM wheat on humans. CSIRO has denied this request, declaring this information commercial in conï¬dence

Jakerman
I'm symphatic to your concerns but I think its missing the point. What GP did was to destroy an experiment that may or may not have answered your questions. The chances that GM cereal crops will become a reality in Australia is small. This is not because GP will stop it, but because its too expensive and difficult. Its very difficult to transform wheat...for instance for every 100 plants you try to transform about 5 might come through the process and even then the results of the transformation are mixed. Add this to the ongoing improvements in breeding technology and GMO becames impractical. So I think worrying about GM wheat entering the foodchain is premature. Using GM is a useful tool, it helps understand how genes control certain traits and will continue to be one that will help improve breeding programs.

Aaron, As you've gathered I'm not against GM trials and studies per se. I am open to the possibility that GM could be useful under careful control, supported by appropriate safety trials.

What I'm skeptical about is the approval process and safety protocol for the current GMO commercial crops. CSIROs with holding safety protocols of trials under the declaration of commercial in-confidence relationships strips me of any confidence that their planned tests will be open and transparent. The conflict of interest in CSIRO makes me more skeptical.

I have no evidence that this planned trial will be more than the previous inappropriate 28 day feeding trials, using mature rather than developing test animals.

If GP's goal was to get this protocol under some scrutiny and into the public awareness then I don't know how else they would have achieved this.

Jakerman
I think were arguing for different things. I can understand you wanting more transperancy but I think there are better ways of arguing your point than simply destroying someone elses work. I was very upset to hear of this vandalism as I know how hard it is to get your research to this stage of development.

Again I think the fears of many here are premature. There is little evidence to suggest that GM wheat is a viable commerical crop. However it is very good for being able to understand the role of genes that are linked to useful traits. Like I said before its very difficult and expensive to transform wheat, which is why it upsets me to see that when an experiment reaches maturity like this that it is so needlessly destroyed. For me GP acted recklessly and should apoligise

Aaron, yes I think we arguing for different things. One's personal assessment of GM wheat viablility is a not the key issue for me. The vandalism of the crop is not the key issue for me (except that it altered me to the trial). The key issue for me is a proper feeding trial protocol for any GMO. The right time to establish this is immediately, not waiting until there is a crop one thinks might be more viable.

(except that it altered [alerted] me to the trial)

AaronG is using the same tactics as AGW deniers, the use of ad hominem attacks:

And Ian I suspect your keeness play to the man and not the ball is a sign of the weaknesses of your own arguments.

For your information I know a lot more than I suspect you know about genes and genetic regulation. I worked for a number of years in cancer research studying the activity and expression of cancer genes (onco-fetal genes to be precise). I know what promoter genes are and how dangerous they can be. There are many potentially nasty genes which are silent after a certain period in embryonic development. These genes are turned off by unknown mechanisms but can be turned on by external agents such as viruses and chemicals (carcinogens) resulting in cancer. The promiscuous insertion of promoter genes in the wrong place can turn on these "silent" genes. You may be prepared to take such a risk but I am not. Genes added during GM are now known to move from one organism into another.

The potential for harm if these promoter genes are incorporated into mammalian genes is not nice to contemplate. Most genetic modifications use the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter which is a powerful promoter. No one can say that it will not induce unwanted "silent" genes from becoming active especially when most "safety" tests are performed for only 28 days and are not tested over at least one complete generation.

Most molecular biologists are just "gene jockeys" and have very little understanding of the complex metabolism of plants and animals.

As I said in an earlier post, stop insulting and using ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you, it makes you look like an AGW denier.

Ian if you took the time to read my arguments then I think you would find that you are being rather silly

"Most molecular biologists are just "gene jockeys" and have very little understanding of the complex metabolism of plants and animals."

I detect a whiff of bullshit here. Ian stop insulting and using ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you, it makes you look like an AGW denier.

Furthermore Ian many of the claims you outlined re gene transfer, are in the realm of pseduo science. If genes from plants could transfer to mammals then why isn't there any evidence of this happening already? Thats because it doesn't happen.

Plus the amount of DNA in bread is so small and damaged that it could never be re intergrated. Not to mention what the digestive tract does to it.

Also just out of curiosity, does your objection to GMO extend to the production of insulin or clotting factors that diabetics and others with chronic illnesses rely on? Or is it selective?

This is besides the point though GP destroyed research something that was not necessary.

>The potential for harm if these promoter genes are incorporated into mammalian genes is not nice to contemplate. Most genetic modifications use the cauliflower mosaic virus promoter which is a powerful promoter. No one can say that it will not induce unwanted "silent" genes from becoming active especially when most "safety" tests are performed for only 28 days and are not tested over at least one complete generation.

Aaron, [this study](http://www.springerlink.com/content/k1314216v854qr56/) might interest you.

Ian I've read that paper and all it shows is that the CaMV promoter is active in the selected cell lines when they are treated with transfection agents that enable the transient transfection. I would guess that the same experiments have a control system where the cells aren't treated with the chemicals to calculate transfection efficiency. That is the promoter isn't active when you don't use chemicals that enable the transient expression. So in simplier terms the promoter / bit of DNA does not work unless you treat the cell lines (anueploidy cells, in simplier terms they aren't normal cells) with chemicals that enable the DNA to intergrate with the host cells DNA. So unless you drink a whole lot of these chemicals and then shock yourself with electricity or a freezing cold bath to enable the Promoter DNA to enter your body I would say that the CaMV promoter stands little chance of entering your cells and being active.
Plus the promoter used in these plants is usually a maize ubiqitin promoter...a promoter from a plant that we as humans have been eating for 1000's of years without sprouting corn shoots from our heads

*scientific terrorism*

Majorajam,

What about economic, financial and corporate ' terrorism'? Where does that rank on your list is ' isms'?

@ Ian Forrester

So Ian.

You wave away the US National Academy of Sciences, claim the Royal Society is in on the "GM" thing and state:

"...I urge readers to read the whole report as it confirms the government and institutional bias and dishonesty in approaching the GMO debate."

Wait, haven't we heard these claims before?

Wait.. I hear the echo of a conspiracy. You know, the supposed institutional/guv-a-ment/science establishment *bias" against climate sceptics.

Your counter? A post to a link to a partisan website (GM Watch), which is not peer-reviewed research? I could write that report in a matter of hours.

This is crank science. Science by blogging. And yes, as an active blogger I know the difference between research and an opinion piece.

GM Watch offers opinion pieces.

- Point to one fatality or injury or incident of harm
- Point to one valid piece of science, without claiming everyone is against you/anti-GM

Where is your science?

When you are presented with counter evidence to your beliefs, you claim "massive institutional bias".

Ian - I'm sorry mate, but I'm going with orthodox science with this like so many other things. I'll ignore the GM Watch as an anti-GM equivalent to "Watts up with that!"

I expect better from Greenpeace.

All I can see is a "the ends justifies the means" argument and reliance on shoddy/flawed science.

Poor play, poor play indeed.

Some have questioned why we should highlight, or condemn the actions of Greenpeace. Haven't they done enough "good" to deserve a free pass, or just a mild rebuke?

Are they not fellow travellers, useful in the fight against the climate sceptics? Well, they don't get a free pass in my books.

The reason I'm bitterly disappointed is because "we" - the progressive, pro-science, reality based community - are better than that.

We are *better* than the climate sceptics.

We are *better* than the creationists.

And we are better than those that send death threats to scientists, the anti-vaxers and other armies of the night that threaten Enlightenment traditions.

We expect the climate sceptics et.al to play by the rules of science, and despair at how they fudge data, rely on faulty reasoning and junk science.

Deltoid is up to over 60+ posts on the Australian's war on science. And that is only a timy % of the crap emenating from the Murdoch press. Then there is the swill produced by Anthony Watts, Marc Morano, Monckton...

Their entire campaign is based on manipulation, publicity stunts and playing to people's fears.

Greenpeace have been fierce in taking the fight to them.

Good.

But Greenpeace use the imprimatur of science to argue action on climate change is needed, and that the "sceptics" abuse science.

To then turn around and attack the work of scientists and base their hostility to one branch of science for *ideological reasons* is more reason to condemn them.

We are better than that.

We should aspire to be the best.

Greenpeace should aspire to be better than that.

What separates "us" from those that would attack science is our respect for not only the methodology of science, but for reason. For evidence. For the belief that we can know the universe.

*Sapere aude*

Dare to know.

If Greenpeace want the respect of the reality based community, then - damn it - play by the same rules.

If you want to put it into purely political terms, descending to the same level of the climate sceptics et.al damages us all.

It is the reason the public have embraced epistemological relativism and are confused by debates around science: if "they" do it and "we do it" who is right?

No, Greenpeace was wrong.

They are wrong on the science.

Their actions were wrong.

"We" are better than that.

And yes, I will say it.

We are better than Greenpeace.

WTD:

You have lost the plot. You singularly fail, for instance, to argue any of the many points which raises serious doubts about the social, economic and political ideologies underlying the ' gene revolution' , and how these are likely to reduce food security rather than to increase it. I think that the concept of intellectual property and patent rights owned by giant for profit corporations on staple foods is a form of economic terrorism. I explained this in an earlier posting (#100) and elsewhere, and you for some reason keep digging at Ian on the basis of one - just one - aspect, ' human health'. The same goes for John Quiggin. Your trick is to focus on one small area and to run with that, irgnoring a vast wealth of other concerns. It seems to me that the climate change denial lobby is quite good at doing that too - attacking Mann et al's 'hockey stick' whilst ignoring all of the other evidence showing that humans are forcing climate. You know the truth is that your defense of transgenic technology is a lot closer to the climate change deniers than you clearly realize. Your strategy is to defend the technology using but one incomplete example (effects on human health) and to ignore many other important concerns. Even if transgenic organisms are not a serious threat to human health in no way justifies the technology as currently defined. The huge environmental risks aside, the very fact that a small coterie of immensely powerful multinational corporations are slowly taking over the human food chain should be of profound concern to everyone. And the fact that they focus on only the most profitable seeds - meaning transgenic over conventional - should at least raise serious warning signs as to their real agendas.

And, most importantly, we need to address the question as to the huge number of environmental concerns. For instance the fact that more glyphosate has been used since the use of so-called herbicide resistant crops? And the clear scientific evidence that this has led to rapid herbicide resistance in a number of noxious, outbreaking (or invasive) weeds? Ot the fact that gene transfer between GMOs and wild types will certainly give some wild relatives a competitive edge over natural wild types? Or the fact that the reliance on GMOs erodes genetic diversity as more and more farmers converge towards a single type of GMO? That genetic diversity is a pre-requisite for adaptation to multiple biotic and abiotic threats in nature? Or the fact that the technology will never be affordable to farmers in the developing world, and that once 'roped in', governments who subsidize the use of this technology will forever be beholden to it and to the companies that hold the patents? Or the fact that many insects are developing resistance to transgenic crops in only a few years?

You want scientific evidence? There's lots of it in these areas, even if in the human health arena we are admittedly working on conjecture. But my advice to you as a scientist is to take off those blinkers and to expand your vision as to the effects of this technology on humanity and the environment in the longer term.

The ecological risks and consequences

Jeff Harvey:

Itâs not just Monsanto. Bayer and other biotech firms donât want to sell conventional varieties anymore. [They are] [n]ot as profitable. And since the biotech trait is patented, you get the bonus of patent protection when you insert the trait into a seed. That allows the likes of Monsanto to sue farmers for the âcrimeâ (patent infringement) of saving seed, â¦ .

Sounds like a restrictive trade practice is being suggested. Farmers would well know if they have to pay GM firms everytime they sow GM seeds and would be able to decide if it's worth it. If GM firms decide they don't want to sell conventional seeds anymore there's nothing to stop farmers saving their own conventional seeds or indeed setting up their own conventional seed supply businesses.

Anti science is throwing out testing protocol when it finds health risks. Its anti-science to block access to GMO seed to conduct safety trials.

We need a proper feeding trial protocol for GMOs. That is a pro-science position.

Where is your science.

Give me evidence of harm or a fatality.

Waiting.

@jeff harvey
Your concerns whilst based in some sense of reality are a little late and misguided. The food chain is largely already taken over by large companies (and not that is all bad). The lack of genetic diversty shouldn't be blamed on transgenics but the sucess of breeding programs and the distribution of the elite modern varities throughout the developing world (largely because of well meaning Aid workers).

The problem I think people have with your arguments is that the Green movement delibrately ignores all the benefits of GMO's and tend to exaggerate the risks. For instance, the use of GMO cotton in China has had massive health benefits as farmers aren't exposed to as many carcinogenic pesticides as they dont need to spray as much. And speculating that the DNA in plants could reintergrate with human DNA is just silly.
However, I agree there are problems with GMO's re: resistance and gene transfer to close relatives. But the world isn't perfect so instead of insisting on wild fantasies about organic farming being able to feed the world, maybe the green movement should take a more measured and pragmatic approach to food.

But I think what annoys most people here is that what GP did was anti-science and none of the arguments presented above have or could justify their actions. The ends does not justify the means!

My *small point* is asking for evidence. Any evidence. The rest of what you say are assertions and speculation.

I'm not arguing for or against GM.

I'm asking you to back up your claims with good, solid science. I've not seen it yet.

Answer these two questions, as I have asked many times:

>> Point me to one example of harm or a fatality caused by GMO that supports you concerns about health.

GM foods where [first put on the market in the early 1990's](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Health_risks) so we've had close to two decades for evidence of their harm to amass.

Where is it?

Is this not the whole crux of your concerns? Human health?

Where is your evidence of harm?

Secondly:

>> Point me to peer-reviewed literature that backs up your claims that GMO represnets a substantial risk

To [quote Wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food#Future_developme…):

>> Plant scientists, backed by results of modern comprehensive profiling of crop composition, point out that crops modified using GM techniques are less likely to have unintended changes than are conventionally bred crops.

See:

[Catchpole, G. S. (2005). "Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 14458.](http://www.pnas.org/content/102/40/14458)

>>There is current debate whether genetically modified (GM) plants might contain unexpected, potentially undesirable changes in overall metabolite composition. However, appropriate analytical technology and acceptable metrics of compositional similarity require development. We describe a comprehensive comparison of total metabolites in field-grown GM and conventional potato tubers using a hierarchical approach initiating with rapid metabolome âfingerprintingâ to guide more detailed profiling of metabolites where significant differences are suspected. Central to this strategy are data analysis procedures able to generate validated, reproducible metrics of comparison from complex metabolome data. *We show that, apart from targeted changes, these GM potatoes in this study appear substantially equivalent to traditional cultivars*.

Come on guys, I'm happy to play.

Where is your evidence?

@ Ian, Jaker etc.

[British Medical Association 2003 statement on GM Foods](http://www.isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/ksheets/K%20Sheet%20%28BMA%29…)

Opening:

>>The need for further research - Despite the great deal of research conducted on the genetic modification of food, many
unanswered questions remain, particularly with regards to the potential long-term impact of GM foods on human health and the environment. Few studies on the effects of GM food on human health have been short-term and specific. There is still a lack of evidence-based research with regards to the medium and long-term effects on health and the environment â which is presently the focus of public debates. *Thus, it is crucial for research sponsors and the government that the publicâs concerns are taken into account from the earliest stage of the research process.*

And:

>>*The BMA believes that the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small, and many of the concerns expressed pertaining to risk also apply to conventionally derived foods.* However, safety concerns must still be addressed.

Conclusions regarding GM foods and health:

>>BMA believes that *there is no substantial evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe however*, the
organization calls for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

>>Epidemiological health surveillance will remain impractical in the UK while so few of the population are
exposed to GM foods.. The BMA still considers that with adequate risk assessment procedures, independent
and rigorous testing of novel foods, adequate post marketing surveillance and proper regulation, GM food
has potential benefits for both the developed and developing world in the long-term.

>>Continuing sound scientific research will also provide the only means of eliminating the uncertainty that still surrounds the environmental and health impact of GM crops.

So - no known health risks,

BMA calls for more research.

*How can we research when the research is destroyed?*

As stated, this is what has angered and disappointed many. It's not about the GM debate, but the actions of Greenpeace: stopping research.

You do know [Queensland have been growing GM crops (cotton)](http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fieldcrops/9548.html) since mid 1990s right?

And that it has led to a [90% decrease in pesticide use?](http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/media-releases/gm_australia):

>>GM cotton was released in 1996, as part of the fight back against Helicoverpa â arguably the most destructive agricultural pest in the world. Bollgard II varieties now make up 90% of the Australian cotton industry. What difference have they made?

>>*Gary Fitt from CSIRO Entomology in Queensland will report that farmers have reduced pesticide use by up to 90% providing on-farm benefits and greatly reducing environmental disruption.*

>>But he will also say that the best results come from good integrated management. Long term success will require mobilization of the whole farm environment and greater understanding of the flows of impacts and services between intensive cropping systems and the surrounding landscape.

I mean, if you [want to read the research](http://www.icac.org/cotton_info/tis/biotech/documents/recorderdocs/dece…):

>>In 1998/99 it is estimated that the reduction in spraying across 125,000 ha of IngardÂ® crops resulted in 1.75 million liters less pesticide entering the environment. Despite the variable performance, the average 56% reduction in pesticide applications for Helicoverpa represents a spectacular impact for an IPM product...

And that:

>>The most consistent âwinnerâ from IngardÂ® technology has
been the environment, with reduced pesticide loads, while the cotton industry has gained long term sustainability through the progressive adoption of more integrated pest management approaches using IngardÂ® cotton as a foundation.

Concluding:

>>Ingard cotton, as the first commercial introduction of
biotechnology to the Australian cotton industry, has shown
the potential of transgenic pest tolerant crops to significantly reduce pesticide use, providing major environmental benefits. After an initial period of negligible economic benefits, Ingard varieties are now returning significant economic benefits.

So farmers are using less pesticide. Bad GMO! Bad!

CSIRO must be docturing those figures right?

Hiding the decline in pesticide use?

Right?

Bt is nice piece of gmo tech and it's great to see how much it has reduced the amount of spraying needed for cotton (which was astronomical, now it's just a fair bit).

I think there's neglible risk in the consumption of gmo's, but I still have significant concerns over the release of some gmo plants into the 'wild' given our abysmal record in managing non-gmo plants outside of their origins.

We are better than the climate sceptics.

We are better than the creationists.

And we are better than those that send death threats to scientists, the anti-vaxers and other armies of the night that threaten Enlightenment traditions.

We are better than Greenpeace.

Obviously it is about being better than others for some. Newsflash: this isn't about ego or identity.

Science isn't a homogeneous monolith to be worshipped unquestioningly and at all times. In fact, science isn't called 'the sciences' for nothing.

Imagine all climate scientists all of a sudden get millions from Big Fossil and start saying that there is no problem with the climate whatsoever. What does the progressive, pro-science, reality based community do then?

Imagine all climate scientists all of a sudden get millions from Big Fossil and start saying that there is no problem with the climate whatsoever. What does the progressive, pro-science, reality based community do then?

Break into their offices and smash their computers, apparently.

Aaron, please elaborate why it is not such a bad thing that borderless, largely unaccountable MNCs aree gaining increasing control of the human food chain. You make the quite irrational claim that "The food chain is largely already taken over by large companies (and not that is all bad)".

It certainly is bad for poor farmers in the south who cannot afford the technology. Its also alarming when one considers that society can be held to ransom with respect to this technology.

WTD: pesticide use drops only insofar as insects remain susceptible to Bt-containing GMOs. You must seriously need your brain examined if you think that insects will not respond to such a simple challenge. In fact, many species already have. And once they are resistant o Bt containing crops, then this renders Bt useless as a biological control agent in future. Its much the same story as occurred with the overuse of DDT. So in effect, your argument is utterly useless, and shows that you understand not one iota of evolutionary biology. You appear to think that, once used, Bt-containing crops will forever be useful in combatting lepidopterous pests. I explained earlier that many of the most serious pests - including chewing herbivores like Helicoverpa armigera and Heliothis virescens - are already becoming fully resistant to Bt-containing crops. I spoke with many entomologists recently in South Africa and they came back with a number of similar scenarios. You appear not to want to read what you do not like to read, much like the climate change deniers whom you claim fall into the same category as those (like me, a scientist as it turns out) who have a lot of misgivings about an expensive technology that appears to primarily benefit well-fed people in the developed world whilst bypassing most in the south.

And of course many of the big chemical-agro biotech firms are just delighted to see the landscape sprayed in huge quantities of herbicides so long as this is profitable. Weed resistance? Who cares so long as the investors benefit.

What I see here from some posters is a blind acceptance of a technology fraught with a huge number of social, political and economic risks that are conveniently ignored. Chris: as you are well aware, many of the seed companies have been bought out by the big agro-biotech firms. Its not as easy to remain independent as you might think.

"Bt is nice piece of gmo tech and it's great to see how much it has reduced the amount of spraying needed for cotton (which was astronomical, now it's just a fair bit)."

Of course, we *could* have just planted hemp....

Neven:

> > We are better than the climate sceptics. We are better than the creationists. And we are better than those that send death threats to scientists, the anti-vaxers and other armies of the night that threaten Enlightenment traditions. We are better than Greenpeace.

> Obviously it is about being better than others for some. Newsflash: this isn't about ego or identity.

No, it's about remembering that there's a difference between right and wrong, between good and bad, and that it's not OK to do bad things 'in the name of' doing something which may, perhaps happen to be sort of good.

If we go around trashing anything we don't like, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, then how are we different from ideological thugs?

-- frank

Jeff
Of course there are benefits, the first thing that comes to mind is economies of scale cheaper production costs. Another is the fact that many large companies invest significant amounts of money into R&D.
But I suspect you will ignore the benefits or twist them to fit your own ideology. I notice you didn't address my points about the obvious benefits of certain GMO's. Would you prefer that farmers like those in China that are reaping the health benefits of GMO cotton revert back to using nonGMO. Or would you prefer they not farm cotton at all and slip further into poverty. The problem with your arguments is that they come from the perspective of a middle class westerner that has probably never experienced or witnessed real poverty. Spouting your ideological points of view about the evils of MNCs while ignoring the benefits is a sure fire way of becoming irrelavant in this debate.

Also as I addressed your point could you address mine...how do you justify the destruction of the experiment by GP...was it a means to an end? In that case how would you feel if a bunch of climate change deniers went out and smashed a sloar power experiment? Some thing different ideology.

Frank exactly my point! GP destroyed something they didn't like regardless of the fact that it was approved by the government regulator. So how do you justify GPs actions...ideological thugs maybe?

Sorry about the friendly fire frank

I keep asking for evidence that would support the claims of Ian, Jaker et.al.

I've asked at least half a dozen times now.

@ Jeff, surely your not about to claim science is my religion? I'm asking you guys to give me evidence, reports and research that supports your case. I've brought examples of research and statements by the NAS, BMA and Royal Society. I've given PNAS research.

And still nothing?

You keep dodging and weaving.

@ Ian, insects develop resistance/defences to GM crops, pesticides or "natural" predators. I think evolution is well understood by now. The red queen hypothesis is a given. Same with drug resistant bugs. Do we throw out antibiotics because of the well understood interaction between drugs and bugs?

Organic pesticides would cause the same evolutionary arms race. So, what's your solution?

Again, evidence!

Come on guys, give me something? Anything?

Watching the deniers is showing is lack of ability in knowing anything about human studies. Of course we can't show people dying from eating GMO's. Stop being so stupid.
You are just acting like an AGW denier throwing out strawmen.

However, if animal experiments show harmful effects, and they do, don't deny it then we can fairly confidently predict that there will probably be problems to humans too.

As a scientist who has worked with animal models in the past I can be confident in extrapolating effects from animals to humans. But I can't prove it and it is very unlikely that proof will ever be provided.

Do you have to be reminded that science never proves anything only disproves something.

There is no evidence to disprove that GMO's are bad for animals.

AaronG said:

Would you prefer that farmers like those in China that are reaping the health benefits of GMO cotton revert back to using nonGMO

Well I suggest you read up on what is actually happening today, not five or ten years ago when BT cotton was first introduced.

I suggest you read up on how the Mirid bug is reaping havoc in BT cotton fields.

This always happens when you put all your eggs in one basket.

India is faring even worse than China with it's BT cotton fields.

WT Denier,

If you are so sure that GMO are intrinsically safe why not support a proper transparent independent protocol for feeding trials?

If proper feeding trials found GM pea damages mice, we need a high level of testing in an open transparent protocol for all GMO, including current commercial crops (that were approved without such). This finding proved GMO can not be assumed to be equivalent to normal food.

We've pointed you to [evidence of the risks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…) of GMO, but you seem to be denying this.

You also appear to be denying that we [cannot expect](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…) to find damage caused to humans without proper feeding trials.

So Jaker, if GP destroy research how can we conduct trials?

That is the point.

I'm not arguing GM, I'm arguing for research.

I'm also asking to back your claims.

If we go around trashing anything we don't like, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, then how are we different from ideological thugs?

This. So much this.

Ian you say your a scientist but your fanciful proposition of DNA from food being able to reintergrate with our own DNA and be able to be actively expressed makes me seriously question your credentials. I notice you haven't responded to my rebuttal....

Being a technician in a lab doesnt make you a scientist or an expert on GMO plants Ian. Especially when that lab you worked in dealt with mammalian models and not plants.

And AGAIN...no argument has adequately addressed the rational behind the needless destruction of the CSIRO experiment by GP...I'm beginning to think you guys don't have one and all the arguments presented are just deflections to somehow reconcile this gross act of vandalism with your own conscience.

And as for the Chinese cotton farmers...take another look there are new varieties of cotton that don't suffer from resistance...plus again you failed to address my question about GMO clotting factors and insulin as well as other medications that are being brought onto the market...are the too dangerous...well are they?

WT Denier, I've [answered that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…) How about you answer my [ question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…).

AaronG is an other GMO supporter who seems to like strawmen. Do you use GMO straw, is it better?

If you had actually read what I posted and followed it up by doing a little bit of research you would have seen that resistance is not the problem with BT cotton in China. The problem is that other bugs have found cotton plants to be very tasty and safe haven without the normal use of pesticides. Thus farmers experience a double economic whammy since they are paying much higher prices for GM seed then they have to use chemical pesticides anyways.

The problem in India is different. The seeds being sold there are resistant to a pest which is not really a problem there and the farmers once again pay for expensive seeds then have to spray anyway. The strain being pushed in India is also not suited to the climate conditions in many parts of the cotton growing areas.

I wont go into the super-weed problems encountered in the USA.

I will ignore your ad hominem and insulting comments. I think that the people who are criticizing GMO's know where knowledge and expertise lie.

Well, if you google 'india gmo suicide' you find many hits, though most do not look too credible. These two articles weigh some of the arguments, the first in 2009:

http://www.columbiacitypaper.com/2009/11/10/the-suicide-belt/

This one from May 2011 has some interesting conclusions:

"...Look at the AP line in the chart and consider that Bt cotton wasnât even adopted on a significant scale until 2005. Thereâs a ten year surge in cotton yields, and six years of it happened before Bt started to spread. Ag hands can ponder the various factors affecting these trends, but one thing is for sure: most of the cotton boom cannot be attributed to Bt seed.

In fact Bt seed also appears to be exacerbating a key problem underlying the suicides: technology treadmills..."

http://fieldquestions.com/2011/05/13/do-not-read-gm-cotton-and-indian-f…

@Ian
Are you against GMO insulin and other meds...simple question?

AaronG asks:

plus again you failed to address my question about GMO clotting factors and insulin as well as other medications that are being brought onto the market...are the too dangerous...well are they?

That is not a simple question to answer since I have no knowledge of the conditions for production and we don't know if the products are identical to their natural counterparts or not.

Any production of pharmaceutically active products should adhere to the following guidelines:

The facility must be enclosed, waste streams should be sterilized before disposal to the environment.

Pathogenic or human colonizing micro-organisms should not be used. This apples to E. coli in particular.

The products should be identical to their natural counterparts. If they are not e.g. lack of proper post translational modification then they should undergo rigorous testing and they should not be assumed to be "equivalent".

I am completely against pharmaceuticals genetically engineered into plants since they cannot be controlled no matter what the promoting companies say.

That second link is to a fairly new blog by Glenn Davis Stone, who appears to have expertise in the area:

http://www.eanth.org/Officers.php?Role=President%20Elect&Bio=Stone.htm

http://fieldquestions.com/

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/402763.Settlement_Ecology

http://gaddeswarup.blogspot.com/2011/06/glenn-stone-revisits-warangal.h…

Ian like I have said previously the world isn't perfect and neither are GMO plants. The difference is I believe we can work to make the technology better, whereas you will never concede that there is a place for it under any circumstances...it would'nt matter if there were a thousand trials showing no adverse impacts you would cling to one or two trials that fit your ideology and come up with bizarre claims like that of reintergration of GMO dna with our own and continue to advocate the senseless vandalism that GP commited.

Ian
Its funny how you have never considered this.
Guess what all those conditions you outlined are used for transgenic plants

And guess what the insulin and other therapeutics are not identical to the 'natural' form, and they do use bacteria that can potentially colonize human...and unlike your crazy theory about plant-human gene transfer gene transfer between bacteria is real and therefore the chance of crazy frankenstein bacteria infecting humans is much likely than your wacky proposition.

So unless you want to apply double standards I suggest you and those like you should probably explain to those that suffer from diabetes and other illnesses that if we want a pure society free of GMOs tht they will have to do without or starting slaughtering pigs for there insulin.

Like i said the world isn't perfect so deal with it.

One more link about Prof. Stone:

http://anthropology.artsci.wustl.edu/stone_glenn

More strawmen from AaronG, he cannot focus on one particular argument but jumps around and around (hey there were some promiscuous genes which at one time were called "jumping genes", maybe you have been infected by some of these from GM jumping beans).

One of the first things I learned when I got into applied research as opposed to pure basic research is the concept of cost/benefit analysis. With pharmaceuticals there is an obvious benefit so it is prudent to look at their production. However, one should still consider potential problems.

With GMO crops the benefit is only to the producer of the seeds of the plants or associated products required for the plants to grow. All the so-called benefits to consumers and farmers have just not materialized. In fact there are lots of problems both economic and environmental with the majority of the GM crops. That is why I am against them. Why can't you see that?

I know why. Please answer this question, is it possible to identify AGW deniers and GMO supporters using facial recognition technology?

Answer, NO, since both groups have their heads in the sand. Is that why you cannot see all of the problems associated with the products you are supporting?

As for this comment:

Guess what all those conditions you outlined are used for transgenic plants

in reference to the suggestions I made for the necessary conditions for a facility to produce GMO's that is so ridiculous that it is not worthy of comment. No wonder you are so blind to the effects of GMO's if you consider an open field with netting as sufficient to contain any GMO release is just nonsense.

As for your comments on insulin and other pharmaceuticals, if you have been keeping up with the science you would be aware researchers are looking at other hosts for the genes such as yeasts.

There are also methods to produce natural human insulin. Have you ever heard of mammalian cell culture? In fact,the future for treatment of type 1 diabetes will be the use of immobilized islet cells either external or hopefully internal to the body. There are rapid advances in this technology being made.

Ian this will be my last post here before I go on living in the real world and leave you to your naysaying and pessimism where nothing is ever good enough and corporations are evil.

Yes I have heard of mammalian cell culture, having done a PhD in molecular biology I am very familiar with many of the techniques used for transformation and in vitro protein production and purification. And yes I'm aware that yeast has in the past been used and is still used for various applications. But guess what yeast and mammalian cells can be tricky to grow and therefore more expensive to use in the production of drugs like these. So big bad corporations use the cheap alternative E.coli to ensure people can afford there drugs... Those evil corporations. So these supposed alternative techniques that researchers are investigating aren't a reality yet are they and probably wont be because there is a cheap way to do it that works alread...better get your GP buddies to go down to the pharma labs and trash them.

As for your stupid remarks about netting and so on about the containment of the trial that was destroyed by GP. Did you know that wheat pollen is enclosed within the flower and that outcrossing to other species is almost impossible...why because wheat is from the fertile cresent and has no wild relatives in Australia and secondly, wheat is so inbred from thousands of years of human selection that it doesn't cross with anything. Its hard enough to cross it with its wild relatives let alone an unrelated species. But im wasting my breath because all this was clearly outlined in the OGTR risk assessment...something which have chosen to clearly ignore.

My advice to you Ian is to chill out a bit and stop being such an alarmist. If not leave the problem solving to those of us that are willing to accept the world isn't perfect and come up with real solutions not some fantasy about organic farming. Seeya and have a nice life

Jeff Harvey:

as you are well aware, many of the seed companies have been bought out by the big agro-biotech firms. Its not as easy to remain independent as you might think.

At the very least, the big agro-biotech firms would not be able to charge more for seed than it would cost farmers to supply themselves. It is possible that a cartel arrangement would enable them to do this but it would then attract the attention of competition commissions, especially when they are notified by farmers lobby groups which in Australia at least, are very influential.

Anyone else notice the similarities between AGW deniers and GMO supporters? One is they both use the same language

stop being such an alarmist

I guess that AaronG is going to go back to his GMO corporate environment where he will be patted on the back for standing up to an alarmist and putting him in his place.

Well, I live in the real world, I spend lots of time out in the country and have talked to many farmers about the corporate takeover of their industry. Many are not at all happy.

AaronG's knowledge of wheat seems to be very low.

If anyone wants to read about wheat pollen and gene transfer to both other what strains and other plants they should read [this article](http://www.npsas.org/newsletters/wheatPollen.html).

It does not agree with what AaronG claims. Why am I not surprised?

#182
Ian Forrester
Are you aware that it would be impossible to produce _any_ protein based pharmaceutical product without "pathogenic or human colonizing micro-organisms"? There is no shortage of chemical pharmaceuticals made with biotransformations either.

An antibody-producing hybridoma cell line is a cancer cell.

"... waste streams should be sterilized ..." (!) Gee, why didn't anyone think of that? I hope the Powers That Be read these comments.

And no, the products should not be "identical to their natural counterparts". The products should be the most effective possible taking into account toxicity, immunogenicity, potency, pharmacokinetics, shelf-life, etc, etc, etc. Lucentis, Victoza, Pegasys spring to mind without too much effort.

You can live in the dark ages without the option of safe and effective medicines if you like; don't force your nonsense on my children and me.

Ian,

AaronG's knowledge of wheat seems to be very low.
If anyone wants to read about wheat pollen and gene transfer to both other what strains and other plants they should read this article.
It does not agree with what AaronG claims. Why am I not surprised?

Your ability to read and comprehend information seems to be very low. (BUUUURN! AaronG's analysis seems to be spot-on; the article you linked to was about the possibility of out-crossing with jointed goatgrass, a very close relative to wheat that does not exist in Australia.

I doubt I'll post any more on this topic, since the signal-to-noise ratio is depressingly low, but I'll leave with this parting statement: Anyone calling themselves "anti-GMO" is being frickin' dumb. There exist valid concerns about gene copyrighting, testing procedures for new GMOs, etc, but I suppose those are too nuanced for the luddites and nature-worshipers in Greenpeace and other organizations. Demonizing GMOs but being fine with artificial selection is akin to praising the art of painting but calling digital art an abomination. (Drawing without paper?! How unnatural!)

No, it's about remembering that there's a difference between right and wrong, between good and bad, and that it's not OK to do bad things 'in the name of' doing something which may, perhaps happen to be sort of good.

If we go around trashing anything we don't like, regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence, then how are we different from ideological thugs?

-- frank

Frank, I'm not condoning what those Greenpeace activists did. I don't have enough details anyhow. But that's why I also don't condemn it, cry about own goal this, own goal that, and how we, the reality-based progressive smart ones, are so much better than the anti-science, anti-GMO luddites who are really just like AGW deniers.

How do we judge the Greenpeace activists that scaled that chimney at Kingsnorth power station?

Nsib writes, *Demonizing GMOs but being fine with artificial selection is akin to praising the art of painting but calling digital art an abomination*

What a vacuous remark. Two points. First, artificial selection works with genes already present in an organism. It does not create inter-phylogenetic crosses that would not occur in a billion years. I work with cultivated plants and their wild relatives in my research. In many instances, cultivars have lost the ability to defend themselves through the process of domestication and its attendant effects on secondary plant chemistry - usually meaning that the plants have lower concentrations of defensive phytotoxins that the wild types. Research is ongoing to determine if it is possible to breed other forms of defense - such a morphology - into plants using artificial selection via plant breeding using genetic in formation already stored in genomes of different plant strains. However, once we begin randomly inserting genetic material from completely unrelated donor organisms into new recipient organisms, we are entering an uncertain new world where there are all kinds of unanticipated consequences. Its just another example where humans think that they can fix any kind of limitations placed on us by nature with technology, whilst failing to draw back the scale of the human enterprise. We now have drought resistant crops, saline tolerant crops and the like, which are fine but do not deal with the problems wrought by burgeoning human numbers and per capita impacts on the environment through widespread destruction of our ecological base. Many of these techno-fixes deal only with symptoms of the human enterprise but not the underlying causes, such as climate change, habitat destruction and the overconsumption of natural capital.

Second, many of us here are not 'demonizing' GMOs, but raise a number of concerns about the technology. These concerns cover a broad swathe of disciplines and fields of endeavor. I agree with WTD that we need more research, but certainly this should be the domain of independent bodies such as non-corporate funded universities and institutes and we should not at all depend on results 'handed' willy-nilly to us by the same companies who manufacture GMOs for profit. Working alongside and in collaboration with molecular biologists, I would also say that this research must be multidisciplinary, involving researchers with expertise in genomes, organisms and right up to experts in the study of communities and ecosystems. Like it or not, much of the efficacy of the research IMHO has relied on molecular biologists, who like it or not lack much in the way of any expertise on larger scale ecology.

Finally, I would argue that the those with the financial means to conduct this technology must share it with their poorer counterparts in the south. I would think more highly about this research if it were aimed at sharing technology rather than seeing genetic diversity in terms of 'intellectual property' and 'patent rights'. The very fact that bioprospectors are paid by the big firms to look for plants and animals in the topics that they can collect, bring back to northern labs, and look for certain properties (e.g. medicinal traits) that they can extract, refine and patent, suggests to me that the technology is not at all driven by any altruistic agenda but simply for profit. As I said earlier, who in the end benefits from it? The African farmer who can barely afford a new hoe or the industrial farmers in the north with farms covering many thousands of acres?

I have already addressed the other areas of concern about this technology and will not reiterate it here, except to say that (unsurprisingly) none of the strong defenders of inter-phylogenetic bioengineering have responded to them.

What concerns me most about GMOs is the risk assessment process, particularly the time factor.

A plants that is now posing the biggest threats in North Australia since mimosa was initially released in the 1930's and has only recently been delared a noxious weed. Remember too, that mimosa was judged to not have 'weedy' charateristics before it went totally feral.

I wonder just how much thought has gone into assessing the risk not just in 5 years, but over 50 or more.

And chance of them steering those whipper snippers towards the climate research division?

Oh no, that's right.... they're on YOUR side!

Its just another example where humans think that they can fix any kind of limitations placed on us by nature with technology, whilst failing to draw back the scale of the human enterprise. We now have drought resistant crops, saline tolerant crops and the like, which are fine but do not deal with the problems wrought by burgeoning human numbers and per capita impacts on the environment through widespread destruction of our ecological base. Many of these techno-fixes deal only with symptoms of the human enterprise but not the underlying causes, such as climate change, habitat destruction and the overconsumption of natural capital.

Amen...

Jeff Harvey,

I think you're holding too tightly to your initial assessment of GMOs, and your argument is suffering for that. In your response @195, you've bent and broken the truth in many places, apparently solely for the purpose of rhetorical strength. For example, no one is "randomly inserting genetic material" into anything, and to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest. If you feel that the existing protocols and regulations for testing GMOs are lacking, please focus on that rather than tilting at windmills. Honestly, I too have concerns about the regulation and especially the legal status of GMOs.

Secondly, you've brought up what I view as a false dilemma; the idea that we have to choose between research on GMOs OR working on environmental improvements. Your insinuation that I think GMOs are a cure-all is puzzling, since I said nothing about that in my first response, nor do I hold that belief.

Lastly,

Second, many of us here are not 'demonizing' GMOs, but raise a number of concerns about the technology.

my initial post was in response to Ian Forrester, who, judging from his posts, would have no problem with being called "anti-GMO." I thought I made it clear that there are a lot of concerns about GMOs that are worthy of discussion; I was just sick of arguments that boiled down to: GMOs are unnatural and evil! That's an argument born of fear and ignorance, and I've seen that same view way too often from anti-government types in the US.

Jaker wrote:

>.Here are some of the observations we should studying openly to either increase confidence in the safety of GMOs or improve understand so that GMO can safety problems can be confronted.

You've given me a link to a blog! (Seed of Deception it's called).

I've asked you guys repeatedly for *peer reviewed science.*

Actual research.

It's like refuting AGW by sending me to Watts up with that!

You posted this stuff over at John Quiggin's site, and he dismissed it as well.

@ Jaker, Ian, Jeff etc.

It comes down to this: should we attack the work of scientists if we don't agree with it based on our *beliefs* and *values*? GP have committed an act on par with the Climategate hack.

I note over at the Conversation that [John Cook of Skeptical Science writes](http://theconversation.edu.au/greenpeaces-gm-vandalism-bad-for-farmers-…);

>>I once supported Greenpeace but discontinued because I became fed up with its arrogant know-all claims in areas where I suspected the world was at the frontiers of knowledge. At least we can support genuine efforts to discover the truth - so far as it can be ascertained.

Greenpeace are shedding support and allies over this stunt.

Really is time for them to reconsider their attitude to science and their tactics.

nsib said:

For example, no one is "randomly inserting genetic material" into anything, and to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest.

That is a completely dishonest statement. The "shotgun" method (using gold rather than lead) is a completely random process. No one knows where the genes especially the nasty promoter gene will be located.

Promoter genes in the wrong place can have very nasty results.

I suggest you actually read up on the various methods involved.

Using AT is just as random but maybe a bit more reproducible from insertion to insertion.

Good grief, you GMO promoters are as lacking in your science knowledge as the AGW deniers.

Ian,

Nah, I'm not falling for tag-team tactics. You misrepresented AaronG's argument and this article. Do you have anything to say in your defense?

Jeff Harvey,

I see I probably misread your statement about "randomly inserting genetic material". I took it as saying the genetic material was random, rather than the location. Sorry about that. Still, I don't understand the divide you see between technology and, well, whatever you think we should be using to solve our environmental problems. After all, aren't things like crop rotation still a technological innovation?

nsib wrote:

>>Still, I don't understand the divide you see between technology and, well, whatever you think we should be using to solve our environmental problems. After all, aren't things like crop rotation still a technological innovation?

Agree 100%!

*I'm NOT advocating GMOs are a cure all, and should not be treated without caution.*

Properly researched and regulated they *may* be part of a mix of solutions to help feed the growing global population.

Just as importantly, climate change is going to put our food producing capability to the test: we're going to need a very large toolbox of adaptation strategies and technologies at our disposal.

And no, I don't science/technology is a panacea for it all.

Adaptation/our response will come down to government policy, market driven solutions, industry solutions and by individuals willing to make changes to their lifestyle.

I'm planning to install solar, water tanks and grow my own food (I'm buying a new place to facilitate this). I'll never get 100% "off the grid" but plan to reduce my reliance on fossil fuels, reduce my CO2 foot print and learn a bit of self sufficiency.

But all those lovely solar panels I want, the hybrid car I'm planning to buy are "technology driven" solutions.

Heck, a push bike is a piece of technology.

So, there seems to be agreement on my first question that GM foods pose a low risk to human health.

Should we have concerns about the implementation and regulation of the technology? Of course!

But we don't break into labs and destroy research.

That is the work of thugs, and places GP on the same level of other anti-science movements.

WtD,

I don't think technology per se is the issue at all. As ever, it's the use that technology is put to.

And equating crop rotation with genetic engineering is avoiding the issue of the huge difference between things like breeding selction.

@ Michael who said:

>>I don't think technology per se is the issue at all. As ever, it's the use that technology is put to.

I agree!

This debate is an important one. It must be had, and if it has to be vigorous, then good. I'm not arguing GM=good.

I'm saying we have to play by the same "rules" and respect the value of the *scientific evidence.*

It's why I've asked Jaket et.al to give me science to back their claims. To date, I've been given blogs and partisan websites (such as "Seeds of deception", neutral much?). As a blogger - but I understand the difference between my opinions at that of actual research.

GP are making assertions of a scientific nature. Thus their evidence has to be credible.

You can't claim the imprimatur of science and then trash research claiming "it had to be done".

However, if you opposition to technology is based on flawed/incorrect assumptions and beliefs, then yes. If it is about stoking people's fear of bio-tech, then that is of concern to me.

To me it's a romantic reaction to technology, stemming back to Huxley's "Brave New World"... heck even Shelly's Frankenstein - note how GM food is often called "Frankenfood"?

It's an irrational fear.

A lot of what I see coming from the "anti" GM crowd is a mixture of:

>A) mistrust of technology (hence the continual reference to the "unnatural" qualities of GM and referencing flawed studies

>B) mistrust of corporations and governments/scienctists unable to properly regulate this technology - or the regulators and scientists are in the thrall of the likes of Monsanto.

I've been to the GP site and the message is:

>A) GM has "never been proven to be safe"

>B) CSIRO/Monsanto are in bed together, therefore cannot be trusted

Therefore, because GP does trust CSIRO or the work of these scientists, they can have the "right" to attack research.

I'd ask if Jaker, Jeff and Ian are comfortable with that precedent.

nsib said:

Nah, I'm not falling for tag-team tactics. You misrepresented AaronG's argument and this article. Do you have anything to say in your defense?

Just what part of that report are you claiming I misrepresented?

Was it the part where they said:

Mallory-Smith studied wheat pollen flow last summer using blue seeded winter wheat, along with white wheat cultivars to identify the potential for gene transfer to nonresistant wheat varieties. Working with a graduate student, Brad Hansen, to do wheat-to-wheat studies, they verified that pollen traveled 145 ft. according to a recent Farm Journal report [mid-February 2002]. Mallory-Smith told Farm Journal, "It's safe to assume the same would be true for pollen from herbicide-resistant varieties." The research is ongoing.

According to Martin Entz at the University of Manitoba, Pierre Hucl's research at the University of Saskatoon has shown that wheat pollen can move up to 800m [2,624 ft or about 1/2 mile].

or was it this bit:

Hucl (1990; cf Anon 1999b) found that the frequency of outcrossing for 10 Canadian spring wheat cultivars varied according to the genotype, where the frequency was always lower than 9%. [Research results were compiled by National Pollen Research Unit, at the University College, Worcester, UK.]

I don't consider 9% to be negligible as stated in the paper submitted for approval of the tests.

In fact, the term "negligible" is mentioned frequently. As a scientist that is meaningless but I'm sure that lots of non-scientists will equate "negligible" with "zero".

From my reading of the submission I'm sure it was probably not prepared by scientists but by the various hangers on who spin scientific information to fool the lay person.

To get back to your comments by AaronG, he said :

wheat pollen does not go very far (well 1/2 mile is pretty far to me)

and that wheat strains do not cross pollinate. This report claims that wheat does in fact do that so any farmer planting non GMO wheat has a "non negligible" chance of his crop being contaminated and a subsequent drop in price.

Don't say that hasn't happened with other crops because it certainly did. When RR canola was introduced into Canada the price of RR canola was aprox 50% of non GMO varieties. Within a few years non GMO canola was contaminated (from seed contamination) and suffered the same drop in price.

Of course the companies selling the GMO's and their promoters said the chances of this happening were "negligible".

WT Denier, you are in denial of the evidence I've presented. Genetic Roulette cites multiple peer reviewed studies.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/274.pdf

It doesn't help your argument to exhibit such denial. Further more, what evidence would you expect when Biotech companies block access to their product for independent testing?

JQ, fallaciously dismissed the site, its up to you if you want to repeat the same fallacy. But you are exposing yourself when you ignore the evidence.

WT Denier, let me ask a very simple yet fundamental question:

Do you accept the evidence that GMOs have been found to increase damage (e.g. gut, liver, or other organ damage) to rats and mice compared to controls, even in limited feeding trials? And consequently we cannot assume that GMO do not differ from other foods in "any meaningful" way?

And following from this, do you not think it sensible and rational to require proper transparent verifiable feeding studies for GMO food before said GMOs are comercialised?

@ Jakerman

Your link is a bibliography, full of citations to blogs, websites, company web sites, press statements and some research (?).

There are hundreds, and hundreds of sources listed here but it tells me nothing.

It includes references to those studies that have been flawed or found wanting. It includes references to the Monsanto website. It has references to government agencies.

*There is no context, nothing to indicate the content of the references. So which of these hundreds of references are you referring me too?*

The Monsanto references?

So in fairness, I decided to play ball and look at one piece of research that would seem to support you case: yes I picked it randomly.

I chose:

>>âGenetically modified soy affects posterity: Results of Russian scientistsâ studies,â REGNUM, October 12, 2005; http://
www.regnum.ru/english/526651.html

Which took me too... what I don't know. Some random Russian website?

So I decided to look into the study of rats in more detail.. I looked for the author and further references of this study.

The results of this study where presented at Terra Madre: a food conference!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_Madre

The aim of this biannual conference is to:

>>Terra Madre is a network of food communities, each committed to producing quality food in a responsible, sustainable way. Terra Madre also refers to a major bi-annual conference held in Torino, Italy intended to foster discussion and introduce innovative concepts in the field of food, gastronomy, globalization, economics. Terra Madre is coordinated by the Slow Food organization.

What th..?

So, the research was presented at a slow food conference?

I mean... what th...?

OK... maybe this research is somewhere else? So again I looked and found it on this site: http://www.iatp.org/

This is the Institute of Agriculture and Trade Policy.. which sounds impressive, until you read it's tag line "Progressive Politics. Practical Solutions."

Apart from GM, [they don't like nanotechnology either!](http://www.iatp.org/documents/racing-ahead-us-agri-nanotechnology-in-th…)

Jeez... I'm in the rabbit hole here.

So I tried another reference to this piece of *ground breaking research*:

>>âGenetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first
generation. Preliminary studies,â Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4â9.

This must be the original research? Right? I mean it looks "sci-ency"? Right?

So I try and find it, but it leads me to the same rabbit hole of the SAME websites, saying the same things! It's all self referential. It's a bloody hall of mirrors!

I found the "journal" Ecosinform on a Russian website

http://ecosinform.ru/

Now... I spent some time on that site. It appears to belong to a Russian environmental group as best I can tell. How do I know? I'm not fluent in Russian but I can read cyrillic characters and can do some on the fly translation with the help of a dictionary.

The citation refers to a magazine article, not peer reviewed literature.

Here is edition the "research" appears in:

http://www.ecosinform.ru/userfiles/file/1-64_Ec_inf_1_06.pdf

Now the "research" itself has not actualy been published in any peer reviewed science journals.

Nada.

None.

There are some [vauge conspiratorial musings that the authors were "stopped".](http://www.mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Winter2008…). Apparently the author of the paper was hushed up in some big conspiracy... uh oh.

Ecosinform a supplment to another glossy Russian enviromental nournal called Echoes. Now, I'm all for Russian enviromentalism - goodness but don't they need it.

BUT...

I've seen this *crap* before with the climate sceptics.

It's a Potemkin village of science, it all looks impressive, and full of "sci-ency" references. But seriously Jaker.

I mean seriously!

It's a Gish Gallop, nothing more. Seriously, it was like being back writing "Watching the deniers" following up Monckton's/Bolt/IPA etc. claims.

I mean, if I'm going to present an argument I at least back it up with credible evidence.

*This GM-soy-kills-rats "research" was presented at a slow food conference and published in supplement to a Russian glossy enviromental magazine?*

Do you know how freakin long it took me to untangle that garbage?

Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrk....

For example, no one is "randomly inserting genetic material" into anything, and to suggest otherwise is quite dishonest.

That is a completely dishonest statement. The "shotgun" method (using gold rather than lead) is a completely random process. No one knows where the genes especially the nasty promoter gene will be located.

Oh my - it's as if you have this picture in your head of a gold bullet blasting into a nucleus, randomly shattering the genome and then the parts coming back together with the new DNA somewhere in them.

This isn't how it works at all. The "gene gun" approach is simply a brute force physical method of getting your plasmid past the cell wall, rather than having to take the trouble to develop a complete vector that'll infiltrate the cell of interest. Once in the cytoplasm, the approach to getting the DNA actually into the genome is the same as in any other transfection technique - hijacking viral machinery. You include the DNA coding for viral integrases in your plasmid. Cell transcription/translation machinery makes integrases, integrases splice your gene into the genome.

Yes, it's random - but the processes involved are (a)physical trauma, and (b) viral processes. Far from being unprecedented, these are exactly the sorts of processes plants have been dealing with throughout their history.

Seriously - I don't have a problem with you disliking GM. My problem with you is the same as my problem with climate change deniers, creationists etc. - you've very obviously decided you don't like it, you've arrogantly decided you know enough about it to not need to learn more, and you're very, very obviously simply making up ad hoc arguments to defend your position rather than trying to use the facts to decide what your position should be.

The one thing you're not doing is skepticism.

Tristan,
I'll fully support GM product testing that is done in a way that guarantees zero contamination of existing crops.

I'm not being ignorant, arrogant, or dismissive of the facts. The facts are that these products -
- are often of dubious economic value
- force people into a "locked-in" relationship with Monsanto (etc.)
- reduce biodiversity
- create superweeds
- contaminate other people's crops willy-nilly
- are surrounded by a slick and dishonest PR machine's efforts - pretty much the same PR machine that gives us the anti-climate change bull and gave us the Iraq war and the nonexistent WMDs.

*That*'s scepticism.

Oh, and by the way, there is no such thing as a "promoter gene". A promoter is a sequence of DNA at the start of a gene that basically says "start transcribing this gene here". There are many different ones: some "always on", most condition-dependent. GM can use either.

Tristan said:

Oh my - it's as if you have this picture in your head of a gold bullet blasting into a nucleus, randomly shattering the genome and then the parts coming back together with the new DNA somewhere in them.

My, my more strawmen. Are your strawmen made from GMO straw too?

And thanks for confirming my comment:

The "shotgun" method (using gold rather than lead) is a completely random process.

by saying:

Yes, it's random

It seems like Tristan doesn't know where the DNA in plants is located. The DNA is located in the nucleus, not the cytoplasm.

It seems like Tristan doesn't know where the DNA in plants is located. The DNA is located in the nucleus, not the cytoplasm.

Oh, for crying out loud. In order to transfect a cell, the most challenging step is getting your plasmid from the outside of the cell, to the inside of the cell (the cytoplasm). If you've designed the plasmid properly, the cell itself handles the rest - which of course includes transporting the construct into the nucleus.

See, this kind of utterly moronic "gotcha" is exactly what I was talking about.

As for your response to "Yes, it's random" - I said that mainly in response to jakerman's earlier suggestion that the random damage from this approach is somehow magically different from the sort of random damage that every single cell goes through every single day:

Rather than the conventions causes of mutations we have evolved to deal with, gene guns make are large disruption in the formation state on the new gene, these mutations are subsequently passed to every cell of the new organisation, multiplying billions of times. This is radically different to the rate of mutation normally dealt with by organisms.

Anyway, you know what's not random? The selection step, where you go through the collection of cells you transfected, to find the one(s) where the gene inserted properly, in a suitable location where it is expressed well and does not markedly disrupt the expression of other genes.

WT Denier,

Like other deniers you engage in the fallacy of cherry picking, so I'm forced to be boring and start you with a small fraction of the the list you are denying:

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/documentFiles/274.pdf

* J. R. Latham, et al., âhe Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,â he Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology
2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7;
* Allison Wilson, et. al., âTransformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications,â Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews â Vol. 23, December 2006.

*âElements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by he Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada
Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canadaâ he Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.

* Allison Wilson, et al., âRegulatory Regimes for Transgenic Crops,â Nature Biotechnology 23 (2005): 785; citing the following: M. Hernandez, et al., Transgenic Res. 12 (2003): 179â189; P. Windels, I. Tavernier, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. De Loose, M. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 213 (2001): 107â112; W. Freese and D. Schubert, Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 21 (2004)

* A. Forsbach, D. Shubert, B. Lechtenberg, M. Gils, R. Schmidt. âA Comprehensive Characterisation of Single-Copy TDNA Insertions in the Arabidopsis thaliana Genome,â Plant Mol Biol 52 (2003): 161â176.

* F. E.Tax, D. M. Vernon, âT-DNA-Associated Duplication/Translocations in Arabidopsis: Implications for mutant analysis and functional genomics,â Plant Physiol 126 (2001): 1527â1538.

* H. Kaya, S. Sato, S. Tabata, Y. Kobayashi, M. Iwabuchi, T. Araki, âHosoba toge toge, a syndrome caused by a large chromosomal deletion associated with a T-DNA insertion in Arabidopsis,â Plant Cell Physiol 41, no. 9 (2000): 1055â1066.

* Wilson, et. al., âTransformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications.â

* S. K. Svitashev, W. P. Pawlowski, I. Makarevitch, D. W. Plank, D. A. Somers, âComplex Transgene Locus Structures
Implicate Multiple Mechanisms for Plant Transgene Rearrangement,â Plant Journal 32 (2002): 433â445.

*Allison Wilson, PhD, Jonathan Latham, PhD, and Ricarda Steinbrecher, PhD, âGenome ScramblingâMyth or Reality?
Transformation-Induced Mutations in Transgenic Crop Plants Technical ReportâOctober 2004, http://www.econexus.info;
see also J. R. Latham, et al., âhe Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,â he Journal of Biomedicine and
Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1â7.

* I. Makarevitch, S. K. Svitashev and D. A.Somers, âComplete sequence analysis of transgene loci from plants transformed
via microprojectile bombardment,â Plant Mol Biol 52 (2003): 421â432.
* Latham, et al., âhe Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,â 1â7; see also John Innes Centre, âStudy
G02002âMethods for the analysis of GM wheat and barley seed for unexpected consequences of the transgene insertion,â
September 2001 to January 2005.

* S. M. Jain, âTissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement,â Euphytica 118 (2001): 153â166.

So WT Denier, instead of being such a bore, anser my [simple fundamental question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…).

>I said that mainly in response to jakerman's earlier suggestion that the random damage from this approach is somehow magically different from the sort of random damage that every single cell goes through every single day.

[Evidence shows](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…), the damage from gene insertion (especial with massive gene gun damage) is on a diffident scale to the sort of random damage that every single cell goes through every single day. The effects on genes and gene expression are massive.

5% of genes differentially expressed, is I think what you said. You know what other things will cause differential expression in 5% or more of genes?

Lack of sunlight.
Excess of sunlight.
Lack of water.
Excess of water.
Cold.
Heat.
Time of day.
Time of year.
Lack of minerals.
Salt.

Pretty much everything, really.

Differential expression of genes means sweet F. A. in and of itself. More data is needed to know whether it's a good or a bad thing.

Oh, wait...

>I'm not being ignorant, arrogant, or dismissive of the facts. The facts are that these products - - are often of dubious economic value - force people into a "locked-in" relationship with Monsanto (etc.) - reduce biodiversity - create superweeds - contaminate other people's crops willy-nilly - are surrounded by a slick and dishonest PR machine's efforts - pretty much the same PR machine that gives us the anti-climate change bull and gave us the Iraq war and the nonexistent WMDs.

What a lot of criticism of GMOs seems to fail to address is that farmers only grow them because they are more profitable for the farmer. Case in point: an acquaintance grows opium poppies. Due to a moratorium on GMOs in the state he lives in, he cannot get RoundUp Ready poppies. As a result of this he has to spray his poppy crop six times with different cocktails of herbicides that every time manage to almost, but not quite, kill the poppies, as well as killing everything else (hopefully). It costs an arm and a leg, significantly reduces the yield, and if it rains at the wrong time, at best he has to re-spray the same crap, ot worst he loses the crop to weeds. His friends elsewhere who grow RoundUp Ready poppies only have to spray twice with glyphosate, which is not only much, much cheaper, but significantly less harmful to the environment.

Nobody is forcing him to lock into a supplier with a company. He can choose to go back to growing the less profitable traditional varieties any day. It's just not good money for him and not good for the farm. As to a reduction of biodiversity, that is called a monoculture, and has little to do with GM. Virtually every plant strain of hybrid origin being grown today is the same, and open pollinated commercial crops in many plant families have been rare as hens teeth since long before GM came along.

As to superweeds, they arise the same by being hit continually with herbicides (i.e. through an artificial selection process). Hybridisation of GM plants with wild weeds has only proven a problem with very few families, and AFAIK is pretty much restricted to the Brassicas. What is the solution to this problem? Terminator technology, of course. Again, a farmer is not obliged to purchase a seed lot with terminator technology from a supplier, they can keep on growing the same variety they have been. There is no market for them unless they're significantly more profitable for the farmer to grow than traditional varieties, enough to overcome the fact that the farmer cannot save seed from one generation to the next.

As for mutations, it's been known for rather a long time that that's a consequence of plant tissue culture, not of transfection per se.

Plants regenerated from relatively undifferentiated callus cultures possess a vast array of genetic changes. Such variations can result in useful agricultural and horticultural products. For other purposes, however, variations in traits other than those of interest may be undesirable--for example, using cultured cells for genetic engineering. Any steps made toward understanding the basis of tissue culture-induced genetic variation should be helpful in developing a more stable and manipulatable somatic cell system. This review provides a glimpse at the specific kinds of genetic changes encountered among regenerated plants and their progeny. Included among these variations are cytosine methylation alterations of the genome. The repeat-induced point mutation (RIP) phenomenon, reported for filamentous fungi, is invoked to provide a framework to consider the origin of variation in plant tissue cultures.

My bold. You know who really like and take advantage of that fact? Traditional plant breeders. For GM engineers it's actually a problem, because what they really want is a plant that's identical to the original apart from their inserted gene.

Let me re-state that very clearly: it's not the gene insertion that causes most of the mutations. It's the very high background mutation rate that occurs in any plant tissue culture, which plant breeders have been taking advantage of since well before GM ever existed.

Tristan is ignoring a 2-4% change in DNA and acting like the insertion of single gene producing a 5% change is expression of genes is nothing of interest, and raises no questions or concerns or indicates.

I suppose next Tristan will argue that this scale and quality of DNA change is the same as the disruption caused by DNA breakage in each cell every day? Oh, wait...

Because of this discussion I have watched a documentary that has been sitting on my hard drive for quite a while: The World According to Monsanto. This documentary was co-produced by Arte France, the National Film Board of Canada, WDR, which in my opinion are quite serious broadcasters (no Channel 4). It has some great material on the role the FDA played/plays in the approval of GMO for the market, the influence of revolving-door-lobbyists, the suppression of scientists who said 'wait a minute'.

The pro-GMO people are basically telling me I should trust Monsanto. It's like asking me to trust Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs and Tepco. The thing that is driving AGW is the same thing driving GMO research. How people don't see that is beyond me.

Ewan R, if you're still reading: quit your job asap, plan for it, step out, you don't want to be part of this criminal organisation, no matter how friendly your colleagues and bosses are. You're smart, you can do something more useful. Please, it is people like you who are making all of this possible.

Neven, you say it perfectly when you write, "The pro-GMO people are basically telling me I should trust Monsanto. It's like asking me to trust Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs and Tepco. The thing that is driving AGW is the same thing driving GMO research. How people don't see that is beyond me."

Many of the same people endlessly promoting GMOs as a 'wonder technology' are the same people denying AGW. Philip Stott comes to mind, but there are others. In both camps, we are endlessly told that 'human ingenuity' and 'technology' will deal with any limitations imposed on us by nature, and especially those caused by human simplification and/or alteration of natural systems across the biosphere. Its the ugly head of neoclassical economics raising itself again.

I have expressed my concerns about the technology in several posts on this thread. These concerns cover a wide array of quite different fields: social, economic, political and scientific. Several people here - WTD most prominently amongst them - argue that it is up to scientists like myself to *prove* that GMOs pose a threat to human health of the environment. This is exactly what the climate change denialists are saying. Throw the 'precautionary principle' out the window and that the onus is on critical scientists like myself and many colleagues to prove that the outcome of these two experiments - one through climate change, the other through genetically engineered organisms - may have serious consequences down the road. Until this is proven, we should plough ahead with this technology as well as to keep belching out those greenhouse gases. As far as I am concerned this is a 'bastardized' reversal of what the PP is all about.

To repeat myself for the umpteenth time, inserting genetic material from insecticidal bacteria or goats or rabbits or whatever into the genomes of plants pushes science and humanity into a new and unpredictable direction. For many molecular biologists, IMO the genome has become a 'plaything' in which the consequences of the technology end at the level of the organism. Consequences beyond that - with the environment, for example - are seldom factored in. Therein lies the rub. Certainly many GMOs have been placed into the environment with little or no concern or study as to their potential effects on native flora and fauna or on large-scale ecological communities. This is probably because a lot of money and profit is at stake. I am not an anti-technology luddite but a cautious scientist with profound concerns. Again, IMO its just a shame that in this area amny scientists have abondoned the notion of caution and have opted instead for a reckless devil-amy-care attitude that downplays all of the potential risks whilst focussing only on the perceived benefits.

Reading comprehension. It's a dying art.

I am not "ignoring 2-4% change in DNA" - I'm pointing out that this isn't primarily due to the genetic modification, but simply due to the very high background mutation rate in plant tissue culture - something that non-GM breeders take advantage of to generate random variability from which they can select new traits.

Similarly, I'm not ignoring changes in expression in 5% of genes - just pointing out that, in isolation, such an observation is meaningless. To understand whether or not it's a bad thing, you have to look much deeper, at what those differentially expressed genes do. What pathways they represent, what enzymes are produced, what metabolites are affected.

Or, you could just do what most breeders do: look at how well the plant grows, look at its yields, look at the composition of the edible portion, perform feeding trials etc.

Now, a question for you. Should be a trifle, since you're so knowledgable about GM and, of course, haven't dismissed anything without understanding it first.

In your own words, describe in a few sentences:
A. How roundup (glyphosate) works, and why it's so toxic to plants and not to animals;
B. How a Roundup Ready plant is resistant to glyphosate; and
C. Why this makes RR plants so scary?

Pretty straightforward questions. I could answer A and B in 2-3 sentences, but I must admit I'm stumped on C.

@ Jaker

Ok thanks for your references! Now we getting somewhere. I'll read.

At the very least, I've been forced to review a greater variety of materials and consider the issue.

More like it mate.

@ Neven you say:

>>The pro-GMO people are basically telling me I should trust Monsanto. It's like asking me to trust Exxon, BP, Goldman Sachs and Tepco. The thing that is driving AGW is the same thing driving GMO research. How people don't see that is beyond me.

No, I'm not asking you to trust Monsanto.

I've asked for evidence to back claims. Heck, I wouldn't trust them - what we've all been saying is "don't destroy the work of scientists".

Remember, it was the work of CSIRO scientists destroyed *not* a Monsanto facility that was broken into.

It is the supposssed terrible nature of GM and the collusion of CSIRO with evil corporations that lead Greenpeace to think they had license to do what they did.

The logic of of some seems to be:

GM/Monsanto bad > CSIRO bad > destroying "corrupt" research good.

Now, Jakerman asked me if I supported proper trials of GMO - 100% agree.

And I've asked for evidence, which he has and I can now review.

This is how it should be conducted.. not with a whipper snipper but words and debate.

WTD, in response to Frank I wrote:

"I'm not condoning what those Greenpeace activists did. I don't have enough details anyhow. But that's why I also don't condemn it, cry about own goal this, own goal that, and how we, the reality-based progressive smart ones, are so much better than the anti-science, anti-GMO luddites who are really just like AGW deniers.

How do we judge the Greenpeace activists that scaled that chimney at Kingsnorth power station?"

"I've asked for evidence to back claims"

Which claims? The claim is that GMOs are both safe and necessary.

Both claims are unproven and the production of GMOs is proven to be a disaster for the actual farmers in developing worlds.

Tristan I'm glad it seems we agree that GM techniques including combinations of gene gun and tissue culture cause genetic disruption of a scale and quality that can not simply be assumed equivalent to normal day to day DNA breakage.

>*To understand whether or not it's a bad thing, you have to look much deeper, at what those differentially expressed genes do. What pathways they represent, what enzymes are produced, what metabolites are affected. [...] look at the composition of the edible portion, *perform feeding trials etc*.

My beef is that such feeding trials are not required. And those done typically are short term and/or have other serious flaws. A protocol for high quality trials(which includes transparent trials and are repeatable by independent parties) are what I've been arguing for.

"What a lot of criticism of GMOs seems to fail to address is that farmers only grow them because they are more profitable for the farmer"

[FALSE.](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/farmersSuicidesBtCottonIndia.php)

It may be true in the first world and then only in America where you were put on GMOs before you were told about them. Europe has asked for labelling and segregation so that the consumer can choose for themselves. And in the developing world its cheaper to avoid big agribusiness products, but often aid is given as GMO products. Just like Bill Gates pushes Microsoft products "to aid the third world".

@ Jakerman

I've started reading and reviewing your citations. A few things to note.

Ok this one:

>>>[Allison Wilson, et al., âRegulatory Regimes for Transgenic Crops,â Nature Biotechnology 23 (2005): 785; citing the following: M. Hernandez, et al., Transgenic Res. 12 (2003): 179â189; P. Windels, I. Tavernier, A. Depicker, E. Van Bockstaele, and M. De Loose, M. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 213 (2001): 107â112; W. Freese and D. Schubert, Biotechnol. Genet. Eng. Rev. 21 (2004)](http://sbc.ucdavis.edu/files2/20501.pdf)

Is a letter to Nature Biotechnology(Correspondence section)

Does not constitute research, but opinion.

Now, this one which is cited multiple times;

>>[J. R. Latham, et al., â[T]he Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation,â [T]he Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology 2006, Article ID 25376: 1-7](http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jbb/2006/025376/abs/)

So I got to article, I start reading... but I note something. The journal is published by Hindawi Publishers.

Who?

Who or what is Hindawi? They are an "open access peer review" publisher based in Cairo.

Under the Hindawi model authors pay to have their article published processed and published... OK then.

Their business model is interesting and the company has been in operation since 1997 and lets say they're... semi-legit?

It's not a scam, but they're kinda borderline.

Now, I manage the information services department for a large professional firm and I have some guidelines on selecting and purchasing information.

This is my profession: to assess the accuracy, authority and legitimacy of publishers and sources.

I negotiate with publishers pretty much every day, some of them the largest in the world.

I get spammed/mailed/cold called and marketed to every day, so I have a good feel for the legitimacy of published resources. While they seem to be (kinda sorta) legit, they are well.. a little bottom-feederish.

Here's a good discussion on the open text/Hindawi model which is [regarded as controversal and almost a scam by some](http://blog.pokristensson.com/2010/11/04/academic-spam-and-open-access-…):

>>Another open access publisher that likes to send spam is Hindawi. However, news to me was that Hindawi now spams on behalf of EURASIP, an organization I thought was reputable (until now)

Now I could ask my peers at the university libraries their opinion on the status of their publications, who holds this journal in their collections (a good marker of a journals legitimacy).

But having searched a few collections, I can tell you:

> It is not held at the National Library of Australia

> Monash Uni has a [link to it via their catalogue](http://library.monash.edu.au/vwebv/holdingsInfo?searchId=5294&recCount=…), but no physical holdings (I mean it's free, why bother?)

So.. what about the paper itself?

I've read the article and well... It's now wowing me. Don't know much about the Hindawi quality control.

The authors of the paper are associated with:

>>Bioscience Resource Project - an "independent" and pretty partisan group.

>>Econexus - another independent think tanky thing.

The three authors have degrees, which seem legit, though none appear to be currently associated with any academic institutions.

The Bioscience Resource Project don't like nanotech either looking at their website.

I'm seeing a pattern on all these sites now: invisible, tiny stuff like DNA and "nano-tech" is kinda of scary to them. They really don't like teeny-tiny stuff science looks at. I mean, if you can't see it how can you trust it?

Now, you may think I'm not being fair or nit-picking.

But this is my job. To question the legitimacy of sources, determine their value and assess materials as trusted information sources.

This paper is kinda failing on that front.

It makes some very broad and sweeping generalisations, and is about public policy - it does not actually present any original research, but refers to other research... Which means I'd have to go to those sources as well..

In short it argues: WE DONT KNOW ENOUGH SO DO NOTHING.

That's the paper's argument: it's too dangerous. We don't know! So just stop! Ok enough with the research!

It's an Op-Ed with footnotes.

You can see my dilemma here mate, can't you?

It's looking a bit thin, and I'm only two papers in.

I will continue through your list though, that's only fair.

I've been very reluctant to comment on this thread, because it is so fraught with political (and probably with scientific) complexity that it makes the physics of climate change seem plain sailing by comparison. However I've reached a point where I feel compelled to repeat a few points and to add several more. And I say this as a person who worked with one of the first PCR machines in Australia, the clicking, hissing thing that it was...

My first concern with the non-contained use of genetically modified organisms is that their ecological effects are mostly unknown, and are largely unknowable, until they have been released and have completely equilibrated with the environments that they colonise. Even years of controlled testing cannot predict all of the effects that a released GMO might exhibit, as no controlled experimental environment can really replicate the intricacies of a functioning ecosystem.

One of the problems is that genetic engineering is not the same as random mutation in a genome, nor is it the same as hydridisation between species capable of natural interbreeding - protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. Reflecting its very raison d'Ãªtre, GE involves the wholesale transference of large and (often complexly) functional pieces of genetic information, and as Jeff Harvey points out these transferred inserts are usually foreign to the taxa receiving them.

The upshot is not only that humans might release weedy species novel to a particular ecosystem, as is commonly discussed, but that a GMO may have other, unforeseeable impacts. One such impact is exemplified by [Bob Seamark's work with mouse poxvirus](http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr2001/Prmousefox.htm) (pretty illustrations [here](http://www.bioresearchonline.com/article.mvc/Australians-create-killer-…)), where a predicted response did not occur, and a severe consequence was instead evidenced.

The CSIRO poxvirus incident is a notable example, and many engineerings would not be so spectacular, but to repeat - the problem is that synergies and emergences resulting from transferred genetic material interacting with its new milieu cannot be easily forecast in all cases. And this applies not just to the engineered host organism itself, but to the ecosystem(s) in which GMOs may be released. If genetic exotics follow the pattern of action of more traditional translocated exotic species, then it is quite possible for a GMO to lie as a 'sleeper' in its new milieu, and ony manifest a negative action when density, interaction with other species, or other conjunctions of factors reach a critical threshold.

My second reservation reflects Isobel's observations above, to the effect that a lot of genetic engineering is a case of having a hammer and seeing everything as a nail. This really is the case - often the 'problem' being 'addressed' could be more cheaply and simply solved merely by switching the organisms, or even the varieties, being used, or by altering other techniques and processes.

You want vitamin A? Plant a crop that produces it naturally - there are already plenty available. You want a sweeter tomato (as was being engineered in a lab I used to work in)? Try some of the almost extinct heritage varieties - or just put sugar on the ones that aren't sweet enough for the poor diddums you're marketing to. You want something that can grow in salinated soil? Don't salinate it in the first place, or if you do, consider action to rehabilitate it...

My third issue with much GE is that in many cases it presupposes that the laws of thermodynamics don't act in the 'real world'. Increasing productivity, improving nutritional content, increasing hardiness - all of these modifications are asymptotic to the natural thermodynamic limits of metabolism, and many projects seem to ignore that there are only so many benefits that can be squeezed into a 'useful' organism.

And harking back to my previous point, it is often easier (if not as profitable for corporations) to employ an alternative agricultural/horticultural/forestry (or whatever) strategy to optimise yield (or other desired performance) in a particular context.

My fourth objection to some GE centres on the fact that in many cases it does not deliver cost-benefit to the farmer for example (in the case of agricultural use). The loss of seed-saving cultures, the need for accompanying fertilisers and/or herbicides and/or other sundries, and the cost of the GM seeds or other organisms themselves, all have the potential (and in some cases the demonstrable consequence) to greatly erode the short-term benefits of the GMO - where such benefits might actually exist.

And even if there is a cost-benefit to the farmer, there is the potential for the more general cost-benefit to be less evident, when 'external' costs (point 2) become apparent.

My fifth problem with some GE is that the frequently inevitable spread into 'the wild' (whether that 'wild' is the crops of traditionally-grown produce, or the ecosystems of the planet) cannot be controlled. This is an abrogation of the rights of people who do not wish to be impacted by GE, to be so un-impacted. I have yet to hear of an argument that can justify the removal of the rights of present and future generations to have their own choice for or against GE. I can imagine some, but most GE projects don't seem to have the lofty goals that I can come up with - instead they are simple, commercial enterprises.

Having said all of this, I am not opposed to all GE. The modification of micro-organisms for the production of biological actives is trivially justifiable, as are other modifications where the GMO or its products are easily containable. The problem seems to be the perenial one where, as with many other fields of human endeavour, genetic engineering seems oblivious of the fact that we live in a global ecosystem where everything is interconnected, and where our actions sooner or later have consequences, but vested interest doesn't acknowledge this until Pandora's jar has been well and truly opened.

And expecting a nebulous hope to triumph over the release of all of the other contents of Pandora's jar is a long bow to draw indeed.

*Why this makes RR plants so scary?*

This is an easy one to answer. The introduction of herbicide tolerant RR crops has encouraged farmers to spray more and more glyphosate (roundup) herbicide into their crops and field margins, on the understanding that it won't harm their crops. Of course this ignores the fact that more of the stuff will enter the food chain and that more weedly early successional plants will be exposed to it, meaning that resistance will evolve faster. This article sums it up:

http://botany.wiki.lovett.org/file/view/U.S.+Farmers+Cope+With+Roundup-…

In fact, weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to roundup. Hardly surprising really, but as always there are consequences. What your point illustrates Tristan, is that you don't know a whole lot about population genetics, evolutionary biology and ecology. Let me guess - these are not your areas of 'interest'.

Having read most of this thread I must say the argument from both sides is very weak. I remain agnostic on the environmental threat(s)of GM technology though having worked on the UK GM FSE* trials it is clear that the beneficial effects of GMOs for the environment can sometimes be overstated.

I have seen that GP were instrumental in blocking aid to Zambia when the grain shipment was from GM crops (the advisor to the government (Lovemore Simwanda) had gleaned all his information from GP and had not done any further research) so Zambians starved whilst GM grain mouldered in silos near Lusaka.

I remain sceptical that multinationals have the best interests of the public at heart, but then the same could be said of big pharma. Though we still have better healthcare than at any time in history (and yes, I know the trickle down to the third world is poor in this respect too).

I do feel that there are several GM technologies that can be of great benefit to the human race though - not Roundup Ready or other economically-driven technologies, more the likes of the attempts to alleviate the pressure on fish stocks by the creation of Omega-3 rich plant oils** (note, the likes of linseed do contain Omega-3 fatty acids, but not the very-long-chain fatty acids found in fish oils that are considered beneficial to health)

What I find in this thread though is a continued linkage to secondary, partisan sources such as blogs and cherry-picking of results to bolster an argument (as WtD says this is as bad as linking to WUWT as a source of climate info).

A case in point: Ian Forrester states "Mallory-Smith studied wheat pollen flow last summer using blue seeded winter wheat, along with white wheat cultivars to identify the potential for gene transfer to nonresistant wheat varieties. Working with a graduate student, Brad Hansen, to do wheat-to-wheat studies, they verified that pollen traveled 145 ft. according to a recent Farm Journal report [mid-February 2002]. Mallory-Smith told Farm Journal, "It's safe to assume the same would be true for pollen from herbicide-resistant varieties." The research is ongoing. According to Martin Entz at the University of Manitoba, Pierre Hucl's research at the University of Saskatoon has shown that wheat pollen can move up to 800m".

A look at Mallory-Smith's research (easily found through google) finds this: "Jointed goatgrass continues to be a significant weed problem in wheat production in Oregon and across the wheat growing regions of the USA. It is closely related to wheat and the only options for control are to use a herbicide resistant wheat cultivar or to extend the rotation and use spring crops in the rotation sequence. Our research has shown that wheat and jointed goatgrass form hybrids and that it is possible for the resistance gene to be transferred to the hybrid. When the hybrid was backcrossed with jointed goatgrass, the backcross generations retained the gene and have a high level of self-fertility. The results of our studies are important to the development of management strategies to minimize gene movement to jointed goatgrass. Our data indicate that to prevent gene movement the hybrids must be controlled and jointed goatgrass control in areas surrounding the herbicide resistant wheat fields is critical. Because jointed goatgrass is a winter annual, spring crops have been effective at reducing jointed goatgrass populations but there were reports that spring biotypes of jointed goatgrass were being selected. However, no spring biotypes were identified in our studies although there were variations in vernalization requirements among different populations. A short vernalization requirement may allow jointed goatgrass to produce seed even in spring crops."*** Hardly the damnation that Ian no doubt hoped it would be.

In short this debate would be better if the participants held strictly to the science and referenced their claims using the literature that is available.

*webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080306073937/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/

**greenbio.checkbiotech.org/news/accumulation_novel_omega_3_fatty_acids_transgenic_plants

***cris.csrees.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=AN=0186570&format=WEBFULL

>*It's looking a bit thin, and I'm only two papers in.*

Crumbs WTD, you've only got a few hundred more then you can make an informed decision.

>*In short it argues: WE DONT KNOW ENOUGH SO DO NOTHING.*

Your alleged summary shows me I shouldn't take a review from you as approximately accurate. Here is what the paper's authors actually find:

>To retain public and institutional confidence, biosafety
decisions need to be clearly grounded in evidence. This review is an attempt to determine the degree to which the genetic consequences of transgene insertion contribute to
uncertainty and risk in transgenic plants. We conclude that
much remains to be discovered about genome-wide and
insertion-site mutations. In particular, lack of information, especially for crop plants and particle bombardment, means that plant transformation may be even more damaging than is apparent from this review. Even with the limited information currently available it is clear that plant transformation is rarely, if ever, precise and that this lack of precision may cause many of the frequent unexpected phenotypes that characterise plant transformation and that pose a significant biosafety risk. It is also clear that implementation of the steps outlined above can greatly decrease that risk.

>Ultimately, it should not be forgotten that though transformation- induced mutations magnify the risks of genetic engineering, they bring no benefits and are unnecessary for the production of transgenic crops.

BTW WTD, I assume by your continued declining to answer [this question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/greenpeace_destroy_genetically…) (despite my continued request) that you think it not important nor relevant?

>Do you accept the evidence that GMOs have been found to increase damage (e.g. gut, liver, or other organ damage) to rats and mice compared to controls, even in limited feeding trials? And consequently we cannot assume that GMO do not differ from other foods in "any meaningful" way?

>And following from this, do you not think it sensible and rational to require proper transparent verifiable feeding studies for GMO food before said GMOs are comercialised?

*I remain sceptical that multinationals have the best interests of the public at heart*

Chris, that's putting it mildly. The fact is that I cannot find a single example in the historical record where a multinational corporation had the 'best interests of the public at heart'. I suggest that you read Joel Bakan's "The Corporation", which should tell you everything you need to knw about the primary agenda of MNCs. There are some pretty shocking examples in there where, far from having the 'best interests of the public at heart', large and powerful corporations have dumped toxic wastes into rivers, broke environmental laws again and again, and compromised public safety in a number of other ways even though they were fully aware of the potentially devastating consequences of their actions (or inactions). In some of the more high profile cases, corporations have even presented their statisticians in court to coldly explain that they compromised public safety because in doing cost-benefit analyses it was cheaper to pay the victims of their negligence than to invest in producing safer products through recalling them. I think the term coined by Noam Chomsky, 'amoral tyrannies', describes many corporations perfectly. Some have gone farther and have argued that corporations display classic psychopathic tendencies, bearing in mind that self-valorization (through profit maximization) appears to overrule just about any societal obligations they might have.

One potential impact of GP's action may not be increased transparency but increased secrecy.

Currently the OGTR website publicly lists the locations of all GMO tests sites and even gives you a nice Google map image. Now that scientists have good reason to expect their trials to be destroyed, we can expect a push for this information to be made private.

Own goal by GP in my opinion.

Another potential impact is visibility of the problem and more accountability.

Your opinion seems to be "this could happen, therefore it is happening because it isn't what greenpeace want".

It's basically common sense Wow

Scientists now know GP will happily break into their research sites and destroy their research. They will want to take steps to protect their research. The easiest step to take to do achieve this is not to make public where they are doing the research.

I personally support the fact that the sites are public but GP must have known that an obvious response to their action would be to make it harder for them to do the same again.

I will however make some inquiries with some plant scientists I know when I next seem them to see what people are thinking.

No, it's basically ignoring what you said.

Here is your statement again:

> One potential impact of GP's action may not be increased transparency but increased secrecy.

Note here: potential.

Then you drop straight through that potential and make it real:

> Own goal by GP in my opinion.

Now note that this was government testing. That information is releasable under FOIA.

Hiding it again is not an option.

The "own goal" in "my opinion" is that GP has made secrecy more likely, which is not their stated desire.

I thought what I said was pretty clear. I am assuming you disagree, so why not just say so, instead of performing acrobatics with my words?

From reading the Greenpeace info, they seem unhappy that an FOIA for more information about the target genes was declined. Can you not see a potential situation now where the sites of new research might become "commercial in confidence" or "confidential for security reason" leading to a rejection of any FOIA?

Form this Greenpeace Q&A on GMWatch:

*Why is Greenpeace targeting CSIRO?

Greenpeace's work is targeting the release of unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. The CSIRO is working with foreign GM companies to release unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. These foreign GM companies include Limagrain, one of the biggest investors in GM in the world, and Arcadia Biosciences.

CSIRO's closeness with foreign GM companies has created a clear conflict of interest within the CSIRO. The GM wheat field trial which Greenpeace has removed from the environment was proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO. Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto's Roundup Ready products in Australia and Monsanto owns 90 per cent of GM products worldwide. Monsanto and its GM partners stand to make billions from the genetic modification of Australia's wheat.

CSIRO's closeness to these GM corporations compromises their ability to make decisions in Australia's public interest and has resulted in the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat into the Australian environment.

Does anyone know if this is correct?

And if it is: Can someone watch the documentary I linked to in one of my previous comments and tell me why I should trust anything Monsanto says? Why is CSIRO so close to these GM corporations? Why is Monsanto different from Exxon or BP?

Jeff Harvey, you probably know this, but there is a documentary film based on Bakan's book, also called The Corporation. It's really good, by the way.

Jeff, I write eight paragraphs and all you focus on is one line and then effectively rewrite what you're already written umpteen times upthread.

I don't think you'll find anyone arguing with your point from #237 but it's one thing to fantasise about hippy dreamworlds where there are no multinationals it's another to realise that that utopia aint gonna be around any time soon.

We live in a world of multinationals, the food we eat, the drugs we take, the vehicle we take to work and the fuel we put in it, the computers we sit at and the music we listen to are all largely controlled and produced by multinationals. If you're preaching revolution then I'll say aye but until the revolution comes we're stuck with the blasted corporations.

I'm more interested in your thoughts on the fish oil research I cited. Given a binary choice would you rather GM produced fish oil or further depletion of our fisheries?

(One note on destruction of crops: The UK GM FSEs found largely in favour of the GP-type viewpoint, despite protestors trashing many of the study sites and making those findings less robust - and therefore more open to wrangling by agribusiness).

> Given a binary choice would you rather GM produced fish oil or further depletion of our fisheries?

My answer: "Stop fishing so much"

There's no reason to be a binary choice and therefore answering "No GM fish" to it would be meaninglessly accurate.

Neven, I find it hard to believe that the likes of Syngenta & Bayer Cropscience (amongst others) only hols 10% of GM products. Perhaps it depends on how you measure it?

> The "own goal" in "my opinion" is that GP has made secrecy more likely

That doesn't make it an Own Goal for GP. It makes it IN YOUR OPINION counterproductive. Only if that even comes about would it be an own goal.

But given FOIA, more secrecy isn't really an option, is it.

Wow, how do you get Omega-3 into people without fishing?

Odd. I don't eat much fish. About once or twice a month, I'll have some fried fish in batter, but that's about it.

So how am I getting Omega-3 into me?

Wow, that might explain a lot :p

"omega-3 fatty acids play a crucial role in brain function"

http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/omega-3-000316.htm

Nah, I've enough fatty acids as it is.O_o

I know what role they have, though. I also know that fish don't come in tubs with Flora Margarine written on the side (I also don't like margarine). I also note that we're fishing too much.

There's no need for your binary answer. The answers are far less constrained than you would like.

I'm still functioning absolutely fine and far better than many posting on here. Either they're exuding all Omega-3 they've eaten or they're eating less fish than me.

Which still begs the question: How am I getting the Omega-3 into me?

You insist we have to eat all the fish we do.

I contest this isn't necessary.

Chris S there are numerous sources for long chain unsaturated fatty acids besides fish. In fact most fish get them through their diet and do not synthesize them.

Many years ago when "biotechnology" was a respected discipline (I no longer refer to myself as a biotechnologist) one of the main areas of research was "single cell protein". I was at a meeting over 30 years ago and a prominent scientist said we should not be looking at "single cell protein" but at "single cell oil".

A whole witch's brew of these acids can be obtained from proper cultivation of various fungi and algae, in high yields I might add.

Unfortunately, over the past 20 years or so biotechnology has been taken over by the molecular biologists whose mantra is "genetic engineering can solve all your problems and who cares about knock on effects".

As you can see I am not a fan of what is going on in the commercial aspects of bio-science.

We have missed the boat with the Government and big business view that genetic engineering is a cure-all for all our problems.

I prepared a research proposal on microbial production of these fungal oils over 20 year ago. Unfortunately the response from the government official who looked over the proposal was insulting to say the least.

Meh, I had typed a lengthy response to Jeff upthread, but alas my inability to properly create links (or save copies of my lengthy responses...) means it was lost in mdoeration.

Potted version without links follows.

Ewan, I am not being dishoest about genotypes. Let me ask you this: Is there more genetic diversity in Roundup ready resistant soybean or in the seeds that farmers have collected for years after harvest?

This isn't the right question to ask - comparison needs to be made within available commercial lines used pre and post adoption of GMOs - it's a given that production agriculture reduces diversity to an extent (at least in the farmers field - and frankly the important thing isn't the diversity in the field, but the diversity in the genome collections of the breeding population, which in large multinational collections are far wider than anything that has come previously) - you are asserting that GMOs reduce this further - which categorically isn't the case - there are hundreds of available varieties which have GM traits in them for GM crops - generally as many, or more, than the number of varieites available from the companies selling the traits than there was prior to the introduction of GMOs (because as a seed producer what sells your seed isn't the GM trait - they're so broadly licensed that they can essentially be assumed available in any germplasm - it's the performance of that trait under different conditions)

You certainly are being dishonest - you paint it as a picture where there is a single genotype of GM available. The following quote gives an example:-

Single genotypes of GM plants may be resistant (at least temporarily) to one kind of threat but not to many others, and thus balancing selection is lost.

So yes, on this subject you are clearly either an egragarious liar or have no actual knowledge of what you're talking about. I'll lean to the latter until shown otherwise.

Don't be stupid! Your BS degree is certainly clouding any rational judgment you have on this issue.

How exactly is my brief four year flirtation with molecular genetics having even the remotest impact on my judgement here? Would I perchance have better judgement had I foregone university altogether? Perhaps I would think with absolute crystal clarity if only I'd avoided any sort of formal education whatsoever?

The rest of Ewan's responses to my posts are useless bunk.

Well argued sir, concise counterpoints which sink everything I've said.

Besides, there is also evidence that many weeds are becoming resistant to herbicides as a result of increased spraying on crops, as well as insect resistance to Bt-crops. Hardly unexpected.

So? Yes, it's expected, but it is only a problem if you expect the technology to remain static. Herbicide and insecticide resistance, just like antibiotic resistance, are inevitabilities - but I don't see how this can be an arguement against using them, it's simply an arguement to maintain a broad arsenal and not rely on a single mode of action all the time (hence the current development of more HT and IR transgenics to bring to the mix). Also - if you are opposed to the utilization of, for instance, roundup - surely evolution of resistance isn't any sort of arguement against the technology - just something you'd hope to see ASAP - with enough resistance the GM trait simply goes away.

* There is however a proven advantage to utilizers of GM cotton of increased yields and increased net incomes -* he is speaking more rubbish.

Here you are, without doubt, an egragarious liar. There is a slew of peer reviewed literature expounding the virtues of GM cotton in India - it is linked with increased yield and incomes

Attributes and Socio-economic Dynamics of
Adopting Bt Cotton - Rajinder Peshin, A K Dhawan, Kamal Vatta, Kamaldeep Singh - Economic & Political Weekly december 29, 2007 (paper is rather scathing about production ag in general, but one can only draw the conclusion that the Bt varieties outperform non-Bt hybrids and utterly destroy non-hybrids in terms of productivity and profitability - for a 3% increase in upfront costs one stands to gain 90% in end of year profit)

Peer-reviewed surveys indicate positive impact of commercialized GM crops - Janet E Carpenter Nature Biotechnology Volume: 28, Pages: 319â321(2010)

- letter to nature biotech reviewing evidence of the impacts of GM crops in general - noteworthy is table 2 which has Bt cotton rated as on average giving +30% yield (across 82 individual results with a std error mean of 3.5%, a min value of -25% and a max value of 150%)

IFPRI Discussion Paper 00808 October 2008 - Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India Reviewing the Evidence - Guillaume P. GruÃ¨re Purvi Mehta-Bhatt Debdatta Sengupta

Is a rather mammoth work - I'd call attention to the figures at the end graphing suicides vs adoption for 3 regions and for the rest of India - in 2 of 3 regions there is actually an apparent decline once adoption becomes significant, for most however the rates remain essentially unchanged year on year - which rather scuppers the arguement that GM cotton caused anything approaching a wave of suicides.

Bayer and other biotech firms donât want to sell conventional varieties anymore.

Most farmers don't want to buy conventional - they like the traits, they want more, market forces therefore dictate that you sell 'em what they want (why the hell Pioneer would willingly give up massive licensing fees to Monsanto if farmers wanted its products untraited for instance raises immediate questions - seems rather foolish to line your competitors pockets if there was actually a sizable market for untraited seeds)

I think that covers my lost response... (apologies for unlinked references - I think they killed my last post and thus I have avoided them, hopefully the references are enough for even a white belt in google-fu to find)

This guy argues that cotton yields cannot be attributed to biotech cotton, because they rose before it was in widespread use.

Also he suggests that Bt exacerbates the problem of technology treadmills:

"...Bt cotton has been generally effective in warding off caterpillars. It has not âfailedâ and has not run up farmer debts, no matter what the network of anti-GMO sources say. But it has now snagged farmers on a genetic technology treadmill. By 2009 there were 5 different Bt gene combinations going into 284 separate Bt hybrids. Before anyone figures out how these seeds function, they will be replaced. Now populations of the non-target pests are starting to explode, and biotech companies are working on new genes as a solution for that problem.

But for Indian cotton farmers, the âsolutionâ is the problem..."

http://fieldquestions.com/2011/05/13/do-not-read-gm-cotton-and-indian-f…

Ewan, this kind of thing is why you need to think about the whole ecological along with how the farmers actually farm. There appears to be a problem with producers of GM crops not understanding how the whole system works.

> There appears to be a problem with producers of GM crops not understanding how the whole system works.

I think it's also a problem with Western (especially American) farming practices being considered The One True Way To Farm (Everywhere), when in actual fact, there's a lot of problems in transplanting a mechanised western farming practice to a developing world.

A bit like a looong time back when Nestle (IIRC) gave "food aid" to the third world areas as baby formula. Except that the formula required water which is highly contaminated. If they'd fed the adults better, the babies would be fed better too.

Another one is where milk or powdered milk is sent as Aid. Except that lactose intolerance is the normal state of humans that have been weaned. But we don't remember that here in the west and lactose intolerance is seen as odd or different.

Ewan,

If you want to be taken seriously, then take your head out of your a** and look beyond the individual organism to trophic interactions, communities and ecosystems. For a gene jock that may indeed be difficult, if not impossible, but try for just a second. And may I say that your use of the term 'egregious liar' gains you few brownie points. What is clear to me is that your understanding of biology, at least what there is of it, begins with a few genes and ends at the genome. Beyond that it seems like you don't give a damn what happens. Ever heard of a complex adaptive system? Know even one iota about cause-and-effect relationships in ecology? Or do you think that humans will forever create techno-fixes to deal with our ever expanding war on systems that sustain us?

The entire saga with GMOs, especially in the United States, has largely bypassed regulation in favor of using open systems as testing grounds. Hence the use and abuse of the term ' substantial equivalence'. American consumers have been part of an ongoing experiment for the past 15 years, as GMO foods don't have to be labelled. Chock that one up for pressure applied by the chemical-agribiotech industry on government regulatory bodies, and the fact that these bodies and senior positions in these corporations are ostensibly 'revolving doors'. Once the horse has bolted, its usually too late to do anything about it, anyway. The real coup for the industry has been to be able to bypass the precautionary principle entirely and to use open systems and society as an experimental test ground.

Most farmers don't want to buy conventional??? Where are you referring to? In India, or Africa, where the technology is hardly cheap? I suggest you swallow a little bit of your arrogant pride and read Monique Robin's three year study, "The World According to Monsanto". She describes the effects of GMO cotton on farmers in India in quite a lot of detail, and it isn't pleasant reading. Perhaps it will take off those ideologically-driven blinkers you seem to be wearing. Like it or not, a lot of scientists, including many molecular biologists, have great reservations about this technology. And to presume that it benefits poor farmers in the developing world is utter nonsense. As Holly Stick says (and see my link the New York times article in my last posting) once roped in farmers find it very hard to go back to traditional farming methods.

Like it or not, you are as naive as anyone I have ever exchanged comments with online. I think the reason for that should be patently obvious to everyone reading here.

Wow at #251. This is looking more like the "It's cold today in Wagga Wagga" tactic that we are all too familiar with.

Ian at #252. Sure, we could develop new cultivation methods for fungi & algae or we could use the tried & tested agricultural methods and engineer supplements into them.

Both. I used the fish oil example as it is GM tech that appears to work & is designed primarily for its health benefits than for saving money (through increased ease of cultivation etc.) I'm sure we all agree that in the long-term we are looking at a reduction of available crop-land combined with increasing population pressure that will necessitate squeezing more from our agriculture than we currently do. Perhaps I should have asked whether people are against genetic engineering for (insert health benefit here) instead.

Jeff, is there a reason you're continually referring us to books & newspaper articles rather than the primary literature?

This guy argues that cotton yields cannot be attributed to biotech cotton, because they rose before it was in widespread use.

I'll take the word of peer reviewed literature over a blog post.

Bennett, R.M., Ismael, Y., Kambhampati, U., & Morse, S. (2004). Economic impact of genetically modified cotton in India. AgBioForum, 7(3), 96-100.

Matin Qaim and David Zilberman. Yield Effects of Genetically Modified Crops in Developing Countries
Science 7 February 2003: Vol. 299 no. 5608 pp. 900-902

Richard Bennett, Uma Kambhampati, Stephen Morse, and Yousouf Ismael
Farm-Level Economic Performance of Genetically Modified Cotton in Maharashtra, India
Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. (2006) 28(1): 59-71

etc etc

Ewan, this kind of thing is why you need to think about the whole ecological along with how the farmers actually farm. There appears to be a problem with producers of GM crops not understanding how the whole system works.

I don't think there is a problem with the producers not knowing how the system works - they know fine well how it works - pests are a problem farmers are going to have to deal with if they're growing a particular crop, Bt deals with a subset of these pests - farmers will have to buy it every year, great, here's a profit (or value-share, in industry parlance) opportunity - it's a win win, farmers increase their income wildly, companies producing the technology increase their income - but because you can attach the 'treadmill' label it's apparently a bad thing - seems to me however that if you're increasing productivity, profitability and reducing reliance on actual harful insecticides that rather than looking at things in a vacuum (oh dear, these poor farmers have to pay 3% of their production costs for this technology every year!) you could look at the difference to how things were previously (oh look, these farmers *only* increase production costs by 3% but see 30+% increases in productivity, massive reductions in insecticide use (particularly of the most toxic insecticides), 50-150% increases in profits - looked at in this light who cares that a portion of the money profits the company that originated the technology? The alternative is farmers making less money, producing less cotton, using more insecticides to do so.

ChrisS,

I agre with you entirely. My point was to say that multinational corporations need to be heavily regulated. I tremble when I hear such terms as 'public-private partnerships' or 'voluntary regulatory programs' because one of the main reasons for the existence of governments is to safeguard society as a whole from the actions of a small minority. I am not envisaging any kind of utopian world free of MNCs, but at the same time I believe that we need strong government to keep them in check. In the United States regulations have often been gutted because successive administrations have become more and more dependent on corporate money to get into and stay in power. In essence the system is a plutocracy - with both main parties utterly beholden to the corporate lobby.

If you want to be taken seriously, then take your head out of your a** and look beyond the individual organism to trophic interactions, communities and ecosystems.

Alas as a Crohn's sufferer I would love to have the capacity to have my head where you appear to think it is, I would however suggest that it is you who requires a proctologist's help in seeing the light of day. You have perpetually ranted about seeing the trophic interactions, communities and ecosystems aspect without providing any relevant information about how GMOs are effecting these - again the peer reviewed literature would suggest that the effects are beneficial by and large - reduced toxicity of herbicide used, reduced overall insecticide use, the capacity to produce more on the same amount of land. If you could point me to specifics rather than shouting about generalities which appear to simply sound good but have no substantive backing I'd appreciate it - you simply look like you're running a gish gallop otherwise (ah you've countered that point, but what about the 500 other pieces of nebulous fluff I've ranted on! Ha, didn't cover them so I'm right!)

And may I say that your use of the term 'egregious liar' gains you few brownie points.

I wasn't attepting to gain brownie points, I was simply asserting that you're an egregious liar (although spelling it in an unconventional manner, which is amusing, and I thank you for at least not mocking that aspect!)

Most farmers don't want to buy conventional??? Where are you referring to? In India, or Africa, where the technology is hardly cheap?

As we were discussing the ubiquity of GM seeds in the seed market I was under the assumption that we were discussing the US seed market - where demand for GM seeds is such that those are the varieties on offer. If you want to take a look at India then fine - you'll note that recently a shortage of Bt seeds in India sparked panic amogst farmers leading to them lining up for days to get their hands on them - hardly the action of farmers who do not want the technology.

Also you again harp on about the cost - my citation above shows that the seed cost leads to an approximate 3% increase in production which is countered by 50%+ increases in profitability, in what world is this hardly cheap?

suggest you swallow a little bit of your arrogant pride and read Monique Robin's three year study, "The World According to Monsanto".

3 year studies are easy to do when you don't have to actually fact check or anything - I'm assuming it trots out the same old nonsense that gets raised time and time again, Putzai, Mexican corn contamination, revolving doors (I assume anyone who has moved from one company to another within the same industry would see immediately how bloody ridiculous the idea of holding such loyalty to your previous employer that you'd be willing to do your job improperly is... although probably not as conspiracies are always mroe exciting than the assumption that people with experience and expertise in an industry are likely to be among the top candidates for advancement ot positions requiring experience and expertise within that industry...), Indian farmer suicides (dealt with ad nauseum above... yadda yadda yadda.

And to presume that it benefits poor farmers in the developing world is utter nonsense.

To presume so is indeed nonsense, I do however have the benefit of about a decade of peer reviewed literature covering India, Burkina Faso, Mali, South Africa - so I don't have to work on presumption.

Asserting that there are no benefits to poor farmers in the developing world however is utter nonsense, particularly as it is completely at odds with the literature (although if you're including fluff pieces such as newspaper articles and massively biased documentaries as "literature" then you'll find an avalanche of "evidence" to the contrary - although at the same time you'll have to reject global warming, accept that Elvis is alive and well, and seriously doubt evolution (and apparently buy that for some reason the rutting habits of Hollywood celebs are important newsworthy items))

Like it or not, you are as naive as anyone I have ever exchanged comments with online.

You're the one citing documentary pieces and newspaper articles, I'm the one citing scientific literature (I guess Science may be a little low brow as a publication, for which I apologize) - clearly yes, I'm the naive one here.

"again the peer reviewed literature would suggest that the effects are beneficial by and large - reduced toxicity of herbicide used, reduced overall insecticide use, the capacity to produce more on the same amount of land"

Ewan, I refer you to my link above, repeated here: webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20080306073937/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/fse/ where it was found that GM management of Bt crops were, in general, more harmful to soil invertebrates and pollinators than conventional management (despite the efforts of anti-GM protesters to destroy the trial sites).

When I give you a link to an environmental anthropologist's blog, which you would do well to learn from, Ewan, remember that it is on the internet and that when he provides links that some of them are to the peer-reviewed literature, if you had the gumption to check them out.

If you actually read his blog, you would find some support for some of your positions, but not all.

Current Anthropology Volume 48, Number 1, February 2007
http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/stone480102.web.pdf

Tests on GM associated pesticides in some Canadian women:

"...The spread HT crops into Canada and several other countries has not reduced weedkiller use â actually it has led to increases especially in the use of Roundup, but also to less use of other more toxic sprays. The spread of Bt crops has reduced the use of chlorpyrifos and many other toxic insecticides, but we now know it means most babies (in Quebec anyway) are born with Bt in their blood. What that means for our health and our babies, we really donât know, but itâs hard to resist the conclusion that itâs better than organophosphates in the blood, and worse than neither."

http://fieldquestions.com/2011/04/27/blood-type-bt/

"Summary. â A longitudinal anthropological study of cotton farming in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh, India, compares a group of villages before and after adoption of Bt cotton. It distinguishes âfield-levelâ and âfarm-levelâ impacts. During this five-year period yields rose by 18% overall, with greater increases among poor farmers with the least access to information. Insecticide sprayings dropped
by 55%, although predation by non-target pests was rising. However shifting from the field to the historically-situated context of the farm recasts insect attacks as a symptom of larger problems in agricultural decision-making. Bt cottonâs opponents have failed to recognize real benefits at the field level, while its backers have failed to recognize systemic problems that Bt cotton may exacerbate."

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~anthro/research/stone/WD2456.pdf

From this blog post which I linked to before:
http://fieldquestions.com/2011/05/13/do-not-read-gm-cotton-and-indian-f…

I like John Quiggin but I don't care a bit what he thinks of Greenpeace. And vice versa.

I don't go out doing what they (Greenpeace) do. Even commercialized, secretive safety testing can be better than nothing.

That said, I wish I could say they should do X, Y or Z instead. But that would be misleading too. Nothing, so far, stops the corporatized science lobby. There are no good alternatives. Perhaps the best one would be, more brainstorming, more innovation. Breaking shop windows can draw press attention to protests, but it has diminishing returns.

To point out just one greater issue: if you have all these joint ventures, the secrecy agreements required by the corporate part violate the most fundamental principle in all science - the sharing of data and information so you make progress universally and don't have to reinvent the wheel, and can replicate or fail to replicate results.

To point out another, there's an evolutionary process that's absolutely destructive to the public interest at work here. If I do research, and you do research, and we're driven by market fundamentalist policies of cash-starving publicly funded research to seek private funding, and my research is corporate-friendly in results, and yours is not, I will be re-funded, and you will not. And after only a few years, the corporate-friendly research on that issue will predominate.

And only market fundamentalists who believe that markets have a superior informational process to traditional science will think that's a good outcome.

Holly - Alas time is not something I have in as much of an abundance as I would like - you link me to a blog, I'll assume it's a worse source than peer reviewed science (given that the claims are contradicted by the bulk of the literature on yield I stand by this - yield for instance is shown on a comparitive basis within a single year to be higher in Bt hybrids than non-Bt hybrids - it would be wrong to claim that all of the yield increases are due to Bt (as it is clear that large increases are due to the adoption of hybrids - which themselves can be classed as a technology treadmill - again, not necessarily a bad thing although the terminology would appear to classify it as such)

The work on Bt levels in blood is deeply flawed - the paper reports levels of Bt below the threshold of the test utilized and deeper literature search on the test shows that it hasn't been validated in blood (entirely the opposite infact)

Chris S - your link doesn't work for me, in either incarnation.

Brookes, G. & Barfoot, P. (2006). Global impact of biotech crops: Socio-economic and environmental effects in the first ten years of commercial use. AgBioForum, 9(3), 139-151.

Shows environmental improvements discussed and relies on more than a single paper (if I recall correctly one of the reveiws on roundup safety also includes both modelling and real world analysis showing improved environmentla effects on beets) - again the literature, by and large, supports improved, rather than reduced environmental quality with utilization of GM crops - of course given the stochiastic nature of the world one would be surprised for there to not be any literature which shows otherwise (I'd go with the weight of evidence rather than hanging my hat on a single paper - generally the benefits aren't so great that you'd expect an absolute slam dunk every time, with statistics being what it is, and environmental variability being what it is you are of course going to get false positives and negatives at no fault of anyone)

Ewan: I'm not talking about a single paper but a body of work based around the largest field experiments on GM crops of its time I linked to the non-technical summary. Perhaps you may want to start at the Proc Royal Soc B theme issue linked below where the first papers were published and follow on from there - ISI will help there I'm sure.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/358/1439.toc

Chris S.

Thanksfor taking the time to dig out the roysociety link - alas I see nothing there about Bt crops - all the articles appear to be discussing HT crops - the effects seen in the 3 articles discussing GMHT crops all appear to simply be down to the efficacy of the herbicide - less weeds = less insects, which makes sense if the crop is not the primary draw for insects in the area. This I think is best summed up in the final paper on the link "Responses of plants and invertebrate trophic groups to contrasting herbicide regimes in the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops" which basically states that the reduced availability of weeds had a knock on effect - which isn't really surprising - I would suggest that anyone expecting better weed control without effecting downstream consumers of the weeds etc would be commiting exactly the fallacy I am accused of earlier in this thread (ignoring ecosystems and trophic levels etc) - however if you're going to go along the lines of this arguement you'd have to conclude that any weed control is a bad thing as it's always going to shift energy captured by plants away from insects and the like and towards consumers.

Ewan, you're right it is GMHT rather than Bt, senior moment on my part. Though I should point out that these were within-field comparisons between GM & conventional thus invalidating your general thrust - GMHT management is worse for agricultural invertebrate species than conventional.

As for this "shift energy captured by plants away from insects and the like and towards consumers" I guess you got that straight from the corporate phrasebook. I expected better from you

Chris - I don't think it invalidates my general thrust - GMHT management may be worse for some agricultural invertebrate species than conventional, however the overall environmental impact of the system (which is of greater importance than simply within field performance of invertebrates - particularly when their performance is dependant on the presence of weeds) has been demonstrated to be lower in the literature.

As for this "shift energy captured by plants away from insects and the like and towards consumers" I guess you got that straight from the corporate phrasebook. I expected better from you

Why? This is what agriculture does, it is directly about trophic levels etc - you stop light interception by weeds, capture that energy in crops, and prevent - to the best of your ability, insects from extracting energy from the crop - thus you maximize yield - any farmer is doing this - what else exactly do you think pest and weed management is trying to do?

Ewan R, if you're still reading: quit your job asap, plan for it, step out, you don't want to be part of this criminal organisation, no matter how friendly your colleagues and bosses are. You're smart, you can do something more useful. Please, it is people like you who are making all of this possible.

It's an honest plea, but it's probably not gonna happen. Ewan's in, as he's been demonstrating for years - his decade of reading the literature that somehow failed to turn up Rick Relyea or lead to a real engagement with the IAASTD, his claims that surfactants aren't a problem 'cause they're in shampoos and all, his dismissal of the human rights and environmental crimes of Monsanto connected to Plan Colombia as hyperbole, his hours upon hours years upon years of these disingenuous comments (google him),... Personally, I have nothing against Ewan, but admitting upfront the easily discoverable fact that you work for M*nsant* and talking about how you have Crohn's does not an ethical/epistemic justification make.

(By the way, Wow - I sure hope you're not the one commenting at ERV...)

@ Bernard J #232 above.

Thank you for that post. It sets out pretty much my somewhat fuzzy objections to many aspects of GE, only a lot better than wot i could have.

Speaking of fish oil, Omega-3, ecosystems and actions having consequences:

"...Thus menhaden have what I call ecological leverage. That is, if you fish them into oblivion, you're not just destroying a single species; you're also threatening to unleash a cascading set of effects that could lead to full-on ecosystem collapse..."

http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/07/menhaden-omega-protein-ches…

Personally, I have nothing against Ewan, but admitting upfront the easily discoverable fact that you work for Mnsant and talking about how you have Crohn's does not an ethical/epistemic justification make.

Neither one is intended as such, the being upfront about being a Monsanto employee is nothing more than professional cowardice on my part - not doing so has ramifications at work - we're told "sure go out and engage in the debate - but make sure you a) Tell people you work for us and b)tell them that whatever you say isn't the view of the company"

The second is merely my attempt at a little dark humour, it's a pretty defining aspect of my life this past couple of years and as such I rarely pass up the opportunity to make light of the situation a little when head up the ass type comments happen along (having your haemoglobin levels drop to 50% of where they should be due to things I'm sure you can picture without me spelling them out any more obviously here can do odd things to your sense of humour I guess) - if you want to be utterly conspiratorial about things then fine, it's all a fine tuned strategy to make the people love me - I would have assumed that from my history with your own fine self, and on other matters, that you'd have come to the pretty obvious conclusion that such strategy is probably beyond me.

I am however rather upset that I wasn't greeted with what I thought was our agreed standard, apparently my powers of corporate manipulation are only good for a few hours on a single blog.

Neither one is intended as such, the being upfront about being a Monsanto employee is nothing more than professional cowardice on my part - not doing so has ramifications at work - we're told "sure go out and engage in the debate - but make sure you a) Tell people you work for us and b)tell them that whatever you say isn't the view of the company"

I don't fully believe your "not PR!" shtick. I honestly kind of want not to believe you, given the commitment you've shown to this. If there's no compensation...

The second is merely my attempt at a little dark humour, it's a pretty defining aspect of my life this past couple of years and as such I rarely pass up the opportunity to make light of the situation a little when head up the ass type comments happen along (having your haemoglobin levels drop to 50% of where they should be due to things I'm sure you can picture without me spelling them out any more obviously here can do odd things to your sense of humour I guess)

Whatever. Of course, you know nothing about your interlocutors.

I am however rather upset that I wasn't greeted with what I thought was our agreed standard, apparently my powers of corporate manipulation are only good for a few hours on a single blog.

It's been more than 24 hours since reading your first comments here (which I was shocked, shocked to see, knowing your amateur status).

People can google you, dear.

Good story in Crikey about the political economy of GM wheat trials: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/07/18/greenpeace-gm-wheat-crop/

SC:

I don't fully believe your "not PR!" shtick. I honestly kind of want not to believe you, given the commitment you've shown to this. If there's no compensation...

Seriously: how is that statement not precisely equivalent to the "you're just doing it for the grant money / corporate kickbacks / desire for totalitarian world domination" argument commonly used by climate change deniers on this very blog?

Seriously: how is that statement not precisely equivalent to the "you're just doing it for the grant money / corporate kickbacks / desire for totalitarian world domination" argument commonly used by climate change deniers on this very blog?

Huh? That some people are writing in some form on behalf of corporate insterests is well substantiated by Oreskes and others. I've been dealing with Ewan since I think 2009. Monsanto couldn't buy better spin. (The "not PR!" quote is an actual quote from Ewan. Google it.) I can't prove it, and, as I suggested, it's possible that he's a pathetically unremunerated ideologue. Are you confused?

it's possible that he's a pathetically unremunerated ideologue.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. A person who is:

- (almost) unfailingly polite unless provoked (and even then only goes so far as to call a lie a lie);
- knowledgable;
- erudite; and
- willing to take the time to communicate details of the actual science behind GM, rather than snippets

must, of course, be either a paid shill or a "pathetically unremunerated ideologue". You honestly don't see that you're committing a textbook ad hominem fallacy?

A person who is:...

I've described what he "is." Google it or do a search at Pharyngula.

You honestly don't see that you're committing a textbook ad hominem fallacy?

Sigh. That's not the case. As I've said, I've been dealing with Ewan and his arguments (in great depth) for two years if not more. My comment was in response to one pleading with him to find alternate employment - not to a substantive argument from him. Drop the tiresome nonsense.

Well, I certainly haven't hung off every word he writes, but I've noted Ewan's posts many times over the past few years, and have yet to see one that I disapproved of. As far as I'm concerned, as long as someone is fairly representing the science, I honestly don't care whether or not they're being paid for it. The truth is never "spin".

and have yet to see one that I disapproved of.

How nice for you!

As far as I'm concerned, as long as someone is fairly representing the science,

Brilliant. Of course that's wrong, as I just began to hint at in my original post. I don't have the time to provide you with links to previous discussions, but you're more than welcome to find them or investigate more generally what I referred to.

I honestly don't care whether or not they're being paid for it.

You're sharp.

Brilliant. Of course that's wrong,

Riiight. Of course it is.

It's been more than 24 hours since reading your first comments here (which I was shocked, shocked to see, knowing your amateur status).

Clearly you leave a more lasting memory than I do - I was referring to your rather tender "f*ck off Ewan" way back when on Pharyngula - the one I utilized my powers of corporate whateverwhatever to coerce out of you. It at least left me feeling warm and fuzzy and seemed like a good punctuation mark in our raging to and fro of the period.

Monsanto couldn't buy better spin.

Could you perhaps tell our PR people that - I don't particularly want a job with them, but the occasional kickback would be nice... or a plaque or something, perhaps a statue outside the Monsanto sponsored lecture theatre or whatever it is at St Louis Zoo... nothing too fancy.

The "not PR!" quote is an actual quote from Ewan.

Indeed it is, which, if I did actually work in PR, would likely be a hanging offence internally (that or they'd feed me to the Triffids) - I occasionally change up my disclaimer and attempt to be humorous with it too (and to head off the automatic ah ha - you're from PR, which frankly should be obvious from my unpolished, wordy and quite often rude comments - our PR folk at least tend to be non-confrontational, sunny and nice - all of which I guess I could fake for a while but not so well, and not in so few words) (plus who in PR would use a half paragraph parenthetical so blithly?)

"I don't go out doing what they (Greenpeace) do. Even commercialized, secretive safety testing can be better than nothing."

However, why is it secretive testing?

If it's a secret to protect the company in being beaten to the punch (or not getting as much a headstart as others), then once there's a request for an open trial, why is the testing kept secret?

Why are reports that are started never mentioned again when they don't turn up the right answer when they're done in-house?

The reasons may be benign, but there's a shitload of money out there to get the pressure on to do wrong.

And since you get the patent on it anyway, why be secret about it? The patent is on the mechanism to get the result, not the result itself (you patent the way the moustrap is made, not the trapping of mice in a device), why does even that make a difference?

Each internal trial should be recorded and displayed. The results of them should be made available when a public trial is requested. At least them ideas on how safe the trial may be can begin to be formed on information.

And in the case of this GM product, though it may be benign in this specific case, it is true as well, for this specific case, that it's a rather pointless problem. If you aren't over-eating the wheat with lots of other high-calorie foodstuffs, you won't have a problem. Therefore "eat less" would be just as effective, cheaper and also help in feeding the rest of the world. And without worries about the unintended.

"Wow at #251. This is looking more like the "It's cold today in Wagga Wagga" tactic that we are all too familiar with."

Nope.

This is me countering your "All swans are white" proposal, Chris.

There are a lot of people who don't get much protein from fish around the world. Are we not human too?

There's also a problem with [bycatch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bycatch). Some small improvement for some things (e.g. Australian Shrimp nets being improved reduced bycatch from 85+% of the catch to less than 60% of the catch), but this fish isn't being caught to give people Omega-3, is it.

I'm not saying that Omega-3 has no effect. I'm not extrapolating myself to the entire world. I'm saying that your assertion that humanity needs more fish because we need more Omega-3 is false as anything other than a vague "nicety".

So again, I ask: how am I getting my Omega-3?

Am I not human?

If it's a secret to protect the company in being beaten to the punch (or not getting as much a headstart as others), then once there's a request for an open trial, why is the testing kept secret?

The rather banal reason is that big companies don't want to let their competitors know what strategies they are trying, and also that corporate lawyers would probably prefer employees not to disclose the contents of their lunch - just incase (they are a spectacularly conservative bunch regarding any and all information)

If you aren't over-eating the wheat with lots of other high-calorie foodstuffs, you won't have a problem. Therefore "eat less" would be just as effective, cheaper and also help in feeding the rest of the world. And without worries about the unintended.

Because that has worked so well.

Ewan R said:

Because that has worked so well.

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. There are many ways to eat a lower glycemic diet than eating less. People seem to confuse glycemic index with total calorie intake. While the two are related they are not the same.

One can eat the same number of calories but have foods with a lower glycemic index.

Simple ways are to eat whole grain wheat bread rather than over-refined white bread, or whole grain bread, or substitute other cereals for white rice. An example of this is to eat more barley. As any good Scotsman knows barley is an excellent replacement for potatoes when eating lamb. Barley is also great in stews and soups.

What makes you think that people who are unwilling to take these simple steps to eat a diet with a lower glycemic index will buy into more expensive refined white bread made from this new GMO wheat?

Is this project simply a way to get the government in the mood for approving GMO wheat which will have other traits but once again offering no benefits for the consumer? Or are you expecting this new GMO wheat to displace existing non GMO wheat so that consumers, once again will have no choice in the matter?

And if the problem is "They won't want the BROWN bread", then why would they be eating the Golden Rice GMO?

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. There are many ways to eat a lower glycemic diet than eating less. People seem to confuse glycemic index with total calorie intake. While the two are related they are not the same.

There may be many ways, but a vague assessment of society at large shows that they fail horribly in most cases - if you can provide a lower glycemic index product which is otherwise identical to the crap people stuff into themselves against their own best health interests then in my opinion this is a good thing. If you can provide expanded choice of products to people who have to carefully watch what they eat (type I diabetics for instance) then this, in my opinion, is a good thing.

What makes you think that people who are unwilling to take these simple steps to eat a diet with a lower glycemic index will buy into more expensive refined white bread made from this new GMO wheat?

What makes you think the white bread made from this wheat will necessarily be more expensive? What makes you make the rather bizarre assumption that people won't pay a little more to avoid what many see as a major impediment (drastically altering diet - I've done many various elimination diets in my time to attempt to figure out if any particular products are problematic for me, and it isn't at all easy or pleasurable - my wife works in the gluten free industry where the goal is essentially to provide gluten free products which are as close to indistinguishable from gluten containing products as possible - the rather pat arguement would be 'simply avoid gluten rather than trying to imitate' - but it rather ignores human nature.

I'm not arguing that your solution wouldn't work if everyone had the willpower to undertake it, just that as I see it people don't have that willpower, and that it makes sense to ameliorate the bad choices people do make rather than throwing up ones hands and saying "oh well, they chose it, guess that's score one for the makers of diabetes medicine" (well and that giving people expanded diet choice when they're in a shitty health situation is good)

And if the problem is "They won't want the BROWN bread", then why would they be eating the Golden Rice GMO?

These are two totally different products and you're being incredibly stupid to equate the two - the targetting of golden rice is at people who, I'd assume, would be deeply shocked to hear that anyone at all would refuse food of any sort, and equally dismayed at the wild overabundance and waste of food in the societies to which the low glycemic wheat is aimed - it is a case of fortifying a staple crop to improve nutrition amongst some of the worlds poorest people - the wheat project, as I see it, is somewhat less laudible as it ameliorates issues caused at the complete opposite end of the spectrum (as well as autoimmune issues which cause type I diabetes - not everyone this would help can have blame heaped on them for their condition) of ridiculous overabundance.

Ewan R jokes:

What makes you think the white bread made from this wheat will necessarily be more expensive?

So the GMO companies are going to give the seeds away? The farmers will not pass on the additional costs to keep this product segregated from non GMO wheat? They will not pass on the costs of cleaning their equipment before moving from one field to another? The rail companies (or trucking companies) will not pass on the extra costs of keeping track of this GMO wheat? The millers will not pass on the extra charges for rigorous cleaning of their equipment when changing from GMO wheat to non GMO wheat. Bakers will not pass on the costs of baking small quantities of bread thus losing economies of scale? Grocery stores will not pass on the additional cost of additional marking and pricing of products?

You, Sir, live in a dream world. Of course it is the objective of the company you work for to negate all the additional costs I have outlined by ensuring that everyone in the supply chain has no choice in the market hence no additional costs.

Good grief, you are pathetic if you think people will stand for that. Of course, they haven't in the past but unfortunately numerous governments have failed to represent the people who elected them and have succumbed to their generous sugar daddies i.e. GMO promoting companies.

And why is this wheat cheaper than the wheat we already have? Are they going to swallow the costs of R&D and the application for the patent?

In fact, why bother with a patent at all, if they aren't going to charge more for the wheat under patent?

So the GMO companies are going to give the seeds away?

No, like any wheat seed there will obviously be a cost.

The farmers will not pass on the additional costs to keep this product segregated from non GMO wheat?

Wheat markets are built to keep different grades of wheat segregated - I'm not convinced that adding GM to the mix will cause issues. So your arguements on farmers, rail companies, millers etc fail.

On bakers etc - it rather depends - if company A sees an opportunity to gain market share by selling low glycemic bread (requiring no extra effort on their part) then selling at parity with the competition makes sense.

Not that this is an inevitability - my next point went on about why exactly I felt that even if there were an increased cost that in my opinion most consumers would be far happier paying a bit extra than making a pretty significant dietary shift. Odd that you decided to omit that bit.

Of course it is the objective of the company you work for to negate all the additional costs

I'm thinking not - this project, afaik, isn't a Monsanto project (at least not from a cursory glance) so I would, given that Monsanto is getting back into wheat, infact have every reason to suggest that this stuff will incur extra costs and shouldn't be released because my desire, shurely, should be that the only wheat seed sold, or traits marketed, be big M.

Good story in Crikey about the political economy of GM wheat trials:

James, do you have a link where I can read the whole piece (I don't feel like signing up for a daily mail from Crikey)?

Ewan R said:

Wheat markets are built to keep different grades of wheat segregated - I'm not convinced that adding GM to the mix will cause issues. So your arguements on farmers, rail companies, millers etc fail.

For someone who professes to work for a GMO company you seem to lack understanding of what happens in the real world.

There is a big difference between various strains of non GMO wheat and GMO wheat (assuming it is ever approved, it seems like Canada is backing away from GM wheat). There are two big reasons why they should be completely segregated. Number one, obviously is contamination. Farmers and buyers of wheat (or other crops) do not want contamination since it will affect their price.

Secondly, since it is illegal for farmers to have any GM plants in their fields without paying the GMO companies exorbitant fees (check out the Supreme Court of Canada ruling where the judge stated that it doesn't matter how the GM material got there, spillage, contamination of seeds, wind blown or whether the farmer actually planted them you are in default of the patent holder's rights and will be guilty). Anyone in the supply chain could be sued by an angry farmer if he can identify where the pollutant seeds came from. This will encourage anyone who handles GMO material to be extremely cautious and will (if they have any sense) ensure costly protocols are implemented.

For someone who professes to work for a GMO company you seem to lack understanding of what happens in the real world.

You are the one who appears to be operating under the assumption that wheat isn't already heavily segregated and that the processes for doing so aren't already implemented pretty much wherever wheat is grown. It appears that you lack any understanding of what happens in the real world vis a vis wheat production, distribution, and utilization - as I haven't the first clue what you do however I can't say whether this is a massive failing on your part or something that shouldn't be expected because you're so removed from Ag that to expect anything other than rhetoric and romanticized notions of what farming should be is near hopeless.

There are two big reasons why they should be completely segregated.

No more so than for any other GM crop - just because you want it to be so doesn't make it a necessity in the real world.

My point is however that unlike corn and soy, wheat is already segregated by variety heavily, therefore there would be no additional burden in segregating if this were required.

Farmers and buyers of wheat (or other crops) do not want contamination since it will affect their price.

As it would if you mixed varieites of wheat designed for different processes (hard red and soft red winter wheat for example - which have overlapping areas of growth) - as stated, the mechanisms for segregation of wheat types already exist within the market for wheat. There is no reason to think that a small amount of possible cross contamination wouldn't be perfectly acceptable - just as it is for other commodity crops - it would infact create a market where a premium could be charged for wheat which was segregated and could be guaranteed non-GMO.

Secondly, since it is illegal for farmers to have any GM plants in their fields without paying the GMO companies exorbitant fees

Firstly GM companies don't go after farmers for accidental presence, secondly to call the fees exorbitant is theatrical for sure but hardly accurate.

Anyone in the supply chain could be sued by an angry farmer if he can identify where the pollutant seeds came from. This will encourage anyone who handles GMO material to be extremely cautious and will (if they have any sense) ensure costly protocols are implemented.

15 years evidence of GM crops in commerce would suggest you're making this up.

No wonder Monsanto is one of the most hated corporations there is. They and their employees have no idea what is happening in the real world concerning their GMO crops.

[Here](http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2011/03/30/us-farmers-sue-monsanto-over-…) is a recent quote concerning farmers' attitudes to exactly what I said in my last post:

The Public Patent Foundation filed suit yesterday against Monsantoâs patents on genetically modified seeds with farmers asking to be protected against the biotechnology giantâs potential lawsuits in case of accidental contamination from plants grown with its seeds.

Now this law suit is just the first step, I'm sure that if the farmers win their next step will to sue GMO companies for polluting their crops if it results in lost business income or loss of markets.

If farmers will sue Monsanto they will sue others who contribute to the mess.

Golden rice was a public relations stunt. Thats hardly surprising, since GMOs require deep PR cover - using hunger as their beating stick - to promote their products. At the same time, the ago-biotech industries have invested a lot of money in PR firms which have spun the GM story using all kinds of mendacious propaganda. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of 'PR Watch' in Wisconsin have authored two startling books, "Toxic Sludge is Good for You" and "Trust Us, We're Experts" which examine the sordid link between the agro-biotech industry and billion dollar Public Relations firms. Of course Ewan hasn't read them - why should he in his position? Just keep those blinkers on, Ewan.

With respect to vitamin A-enhanced golden rice, vitamin A deficiency has never been a problem for people in the far east. The billions invested into it would have been far better off encouraging people in the region to have a more nutritionally diverse, healthier and ecologically more sound diet. Imagine someone telling you to eat rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner - in fact at every meal. They'd tell you to take a running jump.

As economist Tom Athansiou said in his book, "Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor", he would think that things were headed in a better direction if new technologies were shared between the north and south. But of course this is not the case, nor is there any sign that it will ever be. Technologies are monopolized by the rich north and are foisted onto the developing world who have to pay big dollars for access to them. Its a kind of economic imperialism in which there is more concern over who has patent rights to biodiversity than there is concern over protecting it. This is what the stumbling block in getting the United States to ratify the Rio Biodiversity Treaty (1992) was all about: patents and intellectual property rights. And in the U.S. corner big time in Rio were the agro-biotech firms, rubbing their hands together over the prospects of seeing the planet's genetic diversity carved up for profit.

They and their employees have no idea what is happening in the real world concerning their GMO crops.

So you're basing this on what exactly... because there is a lawsuit by one group concerning something that has never happened this somehow means that Monsanto employees don't know what is happening in the real world?

Protection against lawsuits for accidental presence (which, if it eases folks minds, would probably be a good thing (I think I am probably at odds with company policy in this belief)) in no way suggests that therefore if there is accidental presence a lawsuit would be succesful - the two are clearly completely different stories (the first appears to me at least cut and dry - the second would open up a whole slew of potential cross contamination type lawsuits (can a farmer growing field corn sue a farmer growing sweet corn for contamination with pollen, or vice versa, can a grower of heirloom tomatoes sue for presence of pollen from non-heirlooms? (although as these are cases where there would be an actual meaningful change rather than simply presence of a transgene which confers no meaningful change to the end product perhaps there'd actually be some merit there...))

ChrisS asks:

*Jeff, is there a reason you're continually referring us to books & newspaper articles rather than the primary literature?*

That's a rather dumb question, especially considering I have published over 100 articles in the peer-reviewed literature, so I know how important it is. The reason is that I don't have time to do long literature searches whilst doing my day job as a scientist. If you are that frustrated about my comments that I need to cite literature, I will certainly get papers for you showing (1) negative effects of GMOs on non-target insects (e.g predators and parasitoids), and (2) the recently described resistance of insects (e.g. cotton bollworm) to Bt-containing crops. At the same time, I have several times mentioned on this thread that I recently attended an entomological congress in South Africa (where I was one of 3 Plenary Speakers) and listened to several speakers deliver seminars in which they were describing recently observed resistance to Bt crops in *Helicoverpa armigera*, *Heliothis virescens* and *Plutella xylostella*; or is this not good enough for you? In other words do you honestly think I am making this up? I am a professional population ecologist who works in studying insect-plant interactions and I had lengthy talks with people working with bioengineered plants in agriculture in South Africa and these people were very concerned about the short-medium term future because of what they were finding. I should point out that these researchers were not anti-GM (neither am I, for that matter), but, like any good scientist who should understand the fact that cause-and-effect relationships in nature are usually distinctly non-linear, they realize that there are inherent risks with this technology, irrespective as to what the reductionists and manufacturers are telling you.

What you must understand is that there may be significant time lags in the manifestation of a process after an initial perturbation. The GM experiment has barely been running for more than a decade in many parts of the world, and many of the studies even being published now were based on data gathered 5-10 years ago (yes, there is that often that much of delay between data gathering, writing, submission and publication). I published an article in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment in 2008 on the effects of differences in plant species richness and traits on carabid beetles in a biodiversity plot here in Holland even though the experiment was carried out between 2000 and 2002. My point is that its early days yet. Its like the old maxim of the guy who jumps off a 100 story building, falls 50 floors, looks up and yells out, "Everything's fine!". Its the same story with climate change, habitat loss, the effects of invasive species etc, where the effects can take decades or even centuries to manifest themselves.

With respect to vitamin A-enhanced golden rice, vitamin A deficiency has never been a problem for people in the far east.

The WHO would disagree with this statement I think.The document:- Global prevalence of vitamin A deficiency in populations at risk 1995â2005. WHO Global Database
on Vitamin A Deficiency. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2009.

Paints a somewhat less ideal picure than you

Table 11 shows numbers of pre-school children aSoth East Asia estimated to have levels of retinol lower than 0.7umol/L at between 85.6 and 100 million. Although clearly this is not a problem in your eyes.

Globally, which is more pertinent than just focusing (erroneously...) on the far east, of countries with a GDP lower than $15000 only 2 countries had no public health problems with retinol in preschool age children, 32 a mild problem, 49 moderate and 79 severe.

the prevalence of serum retinol <0.70 Î¼mol/l as a public health problem in both preschool-age children and pregnant women is categorized as follows:
<2%, no public health problem;
â¥2â<10%, mild public health problem;
â¥10â<20%, moderate public health problem;
â¥20%, severe public health problem.

The billions invested into it would have been far better off encouraging people in the region to have a more nutritionally diverse, healthier and ecologically more sound diet.

"let them eat cake" essentially (although a more nutritious version thereof)

This rather ignores that in these areas rice is already a staple source of calories, grows well, and that while a diet deficient in vitamin A carries some risks a diet deficient in calories has far higher risks (I'd argue that in most cases in the countries under discussion the notion of empty calories is a laughable one) - fortifying the source of calories rather than expecting the population to shift to lower yielding crops (both in terms of absolute yield and calorific yield) would seem to me a far better approach.

if new technologies were shared between the north and south. But of course this is not the case, nor is there any sign that it will ever be.

Because Monsanto haven't licensed their drought trait to the WEMA project sans fee for any producer making under $10,000 p/a (this figure is ballpark but essentially correct afaik)

Nor do technologies ever go off patent allowing them to be used by whoever wherever.

Plus of course, it will be rather difficult to get any of these technolgies shared if, to return to the gist of the original post rather than continue on this tangent, dubmasses like those who vandalized the CSIRO trial carry on what they are doing - keeping government run & academic run research out of the field is a sure fire way to make sure that only a tiny trickly of useful technology will make it out there sans cash tie in (obviously the regulatory burden, both in initial acceptance and maintenance globally poses problems too - as Pam Ronald discovered with her flood tolerant rice (which last I heard was doing great after the serendipitous discovery of the capacity to breed in the trait from a wild relative))

Ewan R is living in a dream world all right, unfortunately they are all night mares.

There are at least two major law suits where GMO companies have been found liable for contamination.

[Firstly](http://inewp.com/?p=8031) Bayer had to pay out a total of $750 million to over 11,000 farmers when Bayer was found responsible for contaminating rice.

[Secondly](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpolicy/business/2004-08-23-starli…) there is the $110 million payment that Aventis had to make to farmers when Starlink corn (approved for animal use but not human use) was mixed in with human use corn.

Now, can you tell me where that $860 million comes from? I doubt that it will come out of the back pockets of the CEO's or the employees responsible for the problem. Will it be passed on to consumers, farmers and buyers of GMO's?

So in the future we will see one of two options. The first and best would be for GMO companies to be forced into bankruptcy with law suit after law suit. The second option is not so favourable to contemplate. The second option is that our basic food resources will just get more and more expensive to pay off all the lawsuits that will be forthcoming. The only people to benefit will be the lawyers on both sides.

Once again Ewan R shows his lack of knowledge about the real world of farming and use of GM crops:

My point is however that unlike corn and soy, wheat is already segregated by variety

As I just pointed out above, GM crops must be segregated and failure to do so involves huge fines.

Keep it up Ewan, you are doing a great job of showing just how much out of touch with the reality of farming you and your employers are. Is it any wonder why the average person is so against GMO's when they read what you have to say on the topic?

There are at least two major law suits where GMO companies have been found liable for contamination.

Both instances where unregulated (well, one totally unapproved and the otehr only approved for feed) traits contaminated and where the companies were punished - the money, I would guess, came at the expense of the shareholder - big fine payouts like that tend to.

As I just pointed out above, GM crops must be segregated and failure to do so involves huge fines.

GM crops which have not been granted regulatory approval must be segregated (I'm actually unsure why they'd be released in the first place, seems a gambit that came back and bit the company in the ass hard) - releasing GM material which isn't granted regulatory approval is a big no-no and involves huge fines - once regulatory approval has been granted this financial risk goes away. This is why the vast majority of GM corn and GM soy are not segregated at any point past planting into the farmers field (obviously the farmer would do well to make sure if he is planting GM and non-GM to keep his seed segregated, as sparying glyphosate on a non-RR crop may prove a bit of an error) - it is this non-segregation which I was referring to, one would assume of course that wheat genetically modified for a low glycemic index would be approved for hyman consumption and therefore wouldn't carry any of the risk you are assigning.

"That's a rather dumb question, especially considering I have published over 100 articles in the peer-reviewed literature, so I know how important it is."

Jeff, that's why I asked the question in the first place - you know how important the primary lit is but instead you suggest we read books & newspaper articles.

"The reason is that I don't have time to do long literature searches whilst doing my day job as a scientist."

And yet you have the time to write long screeds at Deltoid that go completely unreferenced. The searches don't need to be long, just long enough to back-up the points you make. If you can find & link newspapers articles surely someone with your knowledge of the literature can find the papers that form the foundation for said articles?

"I published an article in Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment in 2008"

And you don't provide a link/citation for your own research even.

Jeff, don't get me wrong I respect your work in the field of ecology (even though I don't agree with your paper on generalism - it's good to see that Hugh retains his impish sense of humour but it can lead to flawed science, I look forward to talking to him and Nicola about soon). But, as I stated earlier in the thread, the apparent reliance of the anti-GM posters on this thread on grey lit and blog posts doesn't do their case any favours, particularly when those who do have access to the literature (and have presumably read a representative sample of it) are apparently unwilling to provide peer-reviewed citations.

"I will certainly get papers for you showing (1) negative effects of GMOs on non-target insects (e.g predators and parasitoids), and (2) the recently described resistance of insects (e.g. cotton bollworm) to Bt-containing crops."

Go for it. Bear in mind I've already provided links to the UK FSEs that cover (1). I try to provide peer-reviewed literature to bolster any argument that I make knowing full well that unreviewed books & articles often have an idealogical slant to them that peer-review should (but sometimes doesn't) counter. I should hope that top scientists with many papers to their names could do the same - hence the question which you dismissed as dumb above. Hopefully I've elucidated here why I don't agree with your assessment of it.

ChrisS,

Thanks for your post.

Yes, I am guilty of writing long screeds here, but if you knew me you'd realize that I could write this up in minutes. And you are indeed correct that newspaper articles and press releases should be read with considerable skepticism. However, you did not address the point I made with respect to time lags in ecology and in the peer-reviewed literature. The thrust of what I am saying is that the potentially negative effects of GMOs on the environment may be yet to be manifested. And of course all of this relates once again to the precautionary principle: should the onus be on the scientific community to prove that a largely untested product is environmentally safe or the other way around? As with climate change and other aspects of anthropogenically mediated global change, the widespread use of GMOs reflects a largely unpredictable experiment that may tkae many years to manifest itself.

With respect to my paper with Hugh, what I liked about our discussion was the fact that generalism IS indeed rare in natural systems - especially where insects are concerned (see Singer's discussion of 'composite specialization') and that Hugh saw this in a similar way as the classical biologists of old would. I was happy to be on board, even if I agree with you that we might have oversimplified the question. Our aim to to stimulate discussion, and that is exactly what we did quite well, I think. My work with parasitoids suggests that there are indeed very few broad generalists, and this is especially true for endoparasitic koinobionts, but I digress.

> As I just pointed out above, GM crops must be segregated and failure to do so involves huge fines.

Especially for the European Union and any other country that decides to inform their customers that GM products are in the food they eat so they can make a choice.

Also remember that the ROI for patents for First World corporations are made at the rate at which the first world wants payment. Whereas the ability to pay in the developing world is set at the rate of pay in the third world.

This discrepancy is another problem with patents being loaded out onto the market: they may be fine in the first world where the wages are set such that the money is available to be paid, but a dollar in Africa is a lot of money, whereas in the USA, it's not even pocket money.

Also remember that the ROI for patents for First World corporations are made at the rate at which the first world wants payment. Whereas the ability to pay in the developing world is set at the rate of pay in the third world.

Trait pricing varies globally, it varies even within the US market - where the trait is deemed to add more value the charge is higher, where less valuable the charge lower - in India the pricing of Bt cotton seed is subject to a governmentally mandated ceiling on a per trait basis - your assertion is incorrect - prices in third world markets are dictated by value of that trait within that market, for projects such as golden rice and WEMA this falls by the wayside as the patented material has been licensed free so long as farmers are under a certain income level.

Jeff Harvey - question regarding the evolution of resistance to Bt (which I would see as an inevitability in the mid to long term, albeit one that can be prolonged by stacked traits, refuge, one would hope in time for new traits down the line) - why would this particularly matter? I mean clearly it's something you have to be aware of, you have to know it's gonna happen, and you should have a contingency plan for when/if it does - but what exactly would you predict the major downside is to this resistance, and how persistent would you guess it to be in a population when it has definite negative fitness effects once Bt is no longer in play.

The only major downside I can see is that the technology itself is rather self defeating in the mid to long term (although I guess it could be argued that if used cyclically it could see a resurgence every decade or so(depending largely on the magnitude of the fitness penalty and length of time for resistance alleles to die off), be used until resistance is an issue, replaced and come back online once natural selection against the resistance alleles brings their frequency down to a certain threshold)

Also, what weight do you give to the potential ecological effects of not utilizing the technology - I'm assuming that for IR products you do not dispute that they go hand in hand with reductions in insecticide useage (not elimination of, but large reductions nontheless) - one wonders what the ecological effects would have been had the initial spraying conditions been kept and no IR products had hit the markets - while it is only possible to speculate on this I'm of the opinion that this would have caused real, measurable in the current time scale, negative effects (its apparent in human populations that the reduction in insecticide use had positive health benefits in China for instance) on ecosystems not just within farm (which for reasons I've alluded to above I think are a restrictive and almost silly set to look at - because any methodology which reduces insect predation of the crop, or weed populations will obviously have a knock on effect which essentially leads to an arguement against agriculture in general rather than any individual process) but on a broader scale (production, transportation, spraying, drift etc of insecticides vs simply being produced in planta - plus different toxicity profiles for insecticides used)

For HT products the story is a little different - while there has not been a reduction in quantities utilized there has been a reduction in the environmental impact of the products used (and, if I remember the literature right, glufosinate tolerance offers an even lower environmental impact than glyphosate) so you are left with the same question - had the technology not been utilized would the environment be in a worse state? Again issues of weed resistance to glyphosate only really make sense if looked at in terms of utilization within a GR system - if you dont have GR plants then glyphosate resistant pigweed is just pigweed, there isn't a thing that is super about it (and one would predict that it actually should fare worse than its non-GR colleagues outside of environments where glyphosate is widely used - although here the fitness differences will depend entirely on the mechanism of GR adopted) - so here one is looking at reduced impact of herbicides used, increased utilization of no-till and reduced till farming (HT traits aren't a necessity for this, but it would be hard to argue that they haven't been instrumental in the spread of the practice), reduced number of sprays etc (even with herbicide mixes now likely having a higher EI than glyphosate spray alone when you compare to the baseline of what was used prior to GR the impacts would still, I assume, be lower - particularly if you go to a Glyphosate/Glufosinate mix (given that glufosinate, from what I remember, has a lower EIQ than Glyphosate)

Ewan,

A point that I have tried to make here is that the onus should have been on the manufacturers to prove the technology is ecologically safe, rather than on scientists to 'prove' its benefits outweigh the risks over a longer time frame. I have witnessed, time and again, people try and downplay the effects of habitat destruction, acid rain, and climate change, arguing in effect what the GMO-advocates are saying, which is essentially that we should continue along the current path until 100% concrete proof comes in that these 'experiments' (for that is what they are, on open systems) are harmful. Certainly one can also claim that clear-cutting forests (in terms of profits from logging and using the land to grow crops), climate change (via the burning of fossil fuels) etc. have benefits as well in terms of short-term economic gains, and that there will of course be short-term economic costs in reducing the scale of the human enterprise in this regard.

Multinational corporations generate technologies aimed at maximizing short-term profits, irrespective as to their ecological soundness or longer term societal implications. The are programmed to focus on investor returns over the next fiscal quarter, half year or two years at the most. In the mind of the corporate manager, the environmental risks of GMOs does not even enter into the equation, and certainly not any 'longer' term risks, meaning those that may play themselves out even over only 5 years ahead and certainly not any longer than that. I am aware that some of the agro-biotech/pesticide firms in the United States fought bitterly against any measures suggested by scientists to impede the speed of evolving resistance in insect populations by increasing the amount of land under which genetically engineered crops would be grown. This was under the premise that predictable threats lead to the rapid evolution of resistance, whereas setting aside land next to crops with conventional varieties slows down the process by varying the exposure of different generations of the insects being targeted to the insecticidal plants. You'd think that the corporations would support any measure at resistance management, but alas, the government and the manufacturers had to reach a 'compromise' on the amount of land that should be set aside with conventional varieties. Why was this? To repeat myself, because the manufacturers do not think about long-term solutions, but only in terms of short-term profit maximization: at most they plan for the next year or two, but certainly anything beyond that is dismissed.

As I have said above, I am not anti-GMO, but unlike the technophiles out there, I realize that most so-called 'miracle' technologies have nasty sting in their tail. The consequences of these technologies are not immediately apparent, but instead can manifest themselves after many years. Most importantly, multinational corporations do not plan very far ahead in evaluating the potential costs of their products. They are adept at hiring the best PR firms in order to 'sell' their wares to the public, and at downplaying any risks, no matter how evident they may be.

A point that I have tried to make here is that the onus should have been on the manufacturers to prove the technology is ecologically safe

How does one do this, for any technology, on a timescale that is not prohibitive? What tests and what timescale would you have proposed (or did you propose)?

Could you perhaps spend some time addressing the questions I raise directly - particularly:-
1. Why is insect resistance to Bt a bad thing (other than for the tech itself)
2. Why is weed resistance to glyphosate a bad thing (other than for the tech itself)
3. Perhaps a comment on the ecological effects of having not adopted GM crops over the past 15 years.
4. Can you define what you think the ecological consequences of IR and HT crops may be (you may have done this already in which case I apologise for missing it, however I don't believe that you have) and comment on whether they are worse than the effects discussed in point 3 above.

I also have a little difficulty fully agreeing with your no longterm view from big business - the group I work in hasn't a chance of getting a product to market until well into next decade (I'm not 100% sure what the timeline is on the trait we recently advanced to phase II testing, but believe it is still 8 years out) - also considering the cost of actually getting a GM product to market, and the lag period between useful GM products, consideration of longevity of the profit life (or however business types classify it) of a product has some bearing - this also then has some bearing on future products - with absolutely zero planning then stacked products (such as smartstax, and the btxRR beans to be released in South America shortly) wouldn't be a feature of long term strategy for biotech companies (and they are, and increasingly will be) would lose viability - I feel perhaps that rather than having no care about emergence of resistance there is simply less conservatism (in the value neutral sense, not the I've got mine f*** you sense - just to be clear) from agri-business driven by the profit motive - the desire here will be to delay resistance while maximizing utility for the farmer and profit for themselves (the two being intertwined to a degree) whereas from a purely academic stance having refuge areas larger than they absolutely must be so as to further delay resistance (or do it with more certaintly) - although on this ground I rather like the USDA (I believe) strategy of airdropping sterile bugs periodically onto Bt in an effort to swamp out resistant bugs - seems a good way to ameliorate emergent resistance should refuge fail.

Ewan,

Bt resistance is a bad thing is it destroys the viability of the insecticidal pathogen on its own. Bt has proven to be a very useful pathogen against chewing herbivores for many years, and resistance to it will render the pathogen as ineffective in future pest management.

Resistance to herbicides alike Roundup Ready mean that farmers will spray more and more of the stuff on their crops to get the same results. This means that more RR will enter the food chain. Of course the agrobiotech firms care diddly squat about the effects of their products on the environment, which should be patently obvious as the case of RR shows (as it did with agent orange, PCBs and dioxin). Sure, they may plan their marketing strategies a few years ahead, but environmental expediency never enters in the equation. IMO most of the biggest firms in the industry have appalling environmental records anyway.

Your defense of golden rice was pretty weak yesterday. My point is that there were many better ways of investing billions of dollars to deal with vitamin deficiency. Investing in helping people in the region grow a wider variety of crops, which would be ecologically sounder than growing one strain of rice, would generate a more balanced diet would be welcomed by the local populations, as Vandana Shiva has explained. The golden rice example was nothing more than a publicity stunt: how would you like it if you were told to eat GM-nutient enhanced potatoes morning, noon and night, especially when other more sustainable options were available? You'd tell those pushing the technology on you to take a hike, I am sure.

I will say it again: GM technology has some utility but is certainly no cure to global hunger and poverty. There is already enough food to feed the planet's population, but the real problems are based on social justice and inequity. In many parts of the south where farmers should be growing sustenance crops, they are instead growing cash crops in order to pay off crippling debts to western financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF (in effect, the US Treasury by proxy) and their structural adjustment programs. I saw emaciated villagers in Cameroon gathering cotton for export. Poverty is driven by huge inequities in wealth and in the chasm between the economic have's and have not's, and by the fact that western planners are well aware that the planet does not have enough resources to support people living like the average American or European. If you were to read declassified US and/or UK planning documents (I have) you'd realize that western foreign policy has little to do with alleviating poverty in the south and everything to with maintaining capital flows and wealth disparity between the first and third world's. Influential planners and politicians like Kissinger, Brezinski, Kennan and Nitze have made this clear over the years. When Samir Amin, Africa's leading economist, said a the World Social Forum in 2003 that western policy towards the third world was simply aimed at the 'looting of resources' rather than economic integration (a point reiterated by economists like Patrick Bond and Tom Athanasiou), he was pointing out what should be obvious. The reason that it isn't is because we in the west like to believe that our leaders are truly interested in creating a sustainable world with social justice, in spite of the volumes of evidence to the contrary. I lecture students on this topic, one in which I have read a great deal of of literature.

So where does GM fit into this? Well, my cynicism of this technology is based on political realities. The technology is controlled by the rich states, requires deep PR cover, and will play only a very minor role (if any) in alleviating hunger. The fat cats promoting the technology of course sell it that way, but the reality is that the answer to poverty lies in the equity dilemma. So long as 16% of the world consumes and monopolizes > 80% of the world's resources, then things are going to go from bad to worse. The planet's natural systems are in terminal decline, and GM technology is not going to stop that. We are forever being led to believe that there are no limits to growth: every time a theoretical limit is approached, that we will pull some technological rabbit out of a hat and forever increase our carrying capacity. Well by now it should be patently obvious that the planet already has a reduced capacity to support man. Instead of dealing with symptoms of the human assault, we ought to be dealing with the disease which is the very scale of the human enterprise. New technologies may temporarily slow the delayed effects of human actions, but they will not stop them. Thus IMO the billions of dollars being thrown at transgenic technology would be far better off spent elsewhere.

Bt resistance is a bad thing is it destroys the viability of the insecticidal pathogen on its own.

So we shouldn't use Bt in transgenics so that we can spray Bt instead? Yes? This seems an odd approach. Don't use something so that in the future using it will be effective - how does one pick when and where to use?

Resistance to herbicides alike Roundup Ready mean that farmers will spray more and more of the stuff on their crops to get the same results.

Well no, resistance to roundup in weeds effectively invalidates roundup as a herbicide option - if you are afraid of roundup then you should be gleeful about the rise of resistant weeds

Your defense of golden rice was pretty weak yesterday

My defense may have been weak - you however outright lied about vitamin A deficiency in Asia - and calling my defense weak isn't a counterarguement against the points raised.

. My point is that there were many better ways of investing billions of dollars to deal with vitamin deficiency.

I'm pretty sure that golden rice has cost nowhere near billions, and once in place it is, not unlike the jelly of the month club, the gift that keeps on giving

as Vandana Shiva has explained

Vandana Shiva, reknowned liar and arson supporter - incapable apparently of telling a field of rice from a field of weeds. She rather illustrates that to be a figurehead in the anti-GM movement all that is required is the capacity to keep a straight face while spewing lies, overinflated claims of ones own scientific prowess (the blurb on one of her books claims she is one of India's leading physicists - this is unsupported, much like most of her claims) - I guess at least she isn't a yoga instructor, but for all the difference it makes she might aswell be.

I will say it again: GM technology has some utility

I'll bite - what, given your general scathing approach, do you feel is the utility of GM technology - specifically within agriculture (as the uses of GM tech are wide and varied and this discussion revolves largely around Ag)

but is certainly no cure to global hunger and poverty

Not by itself, and nobody claims it is - just as a nail gun isn't going to build you a house - it is certainly a useful tool in the process however. Increased yields and reduced insecticide use of Bt crops in developing world countries illustrate this point (as do reduced insecticide poisonings in India (recent paper Kouser & Qaim)).

I lecture students on this topic, one in which I have read a great deal of of literature.

One wonders then why you have to stoop to outright lies about Vitamin A deficiency.

I'd still like some input on your thoughts on the ecological impacts of not having utilized either HT or IR (individually, or paired, your choice) GM tech in the past 15 years - possibly the IR thing takes on a new light to some extent - if as the above mentioned paper states several million cases of pesticide poisoning have been avoided in India presumably this is a negative as there are all those pesky extra humans out there impacting the ecosystem.

The GM-supporter castigates an opponent:

"...she illustrates that to be a figurehead in the anti-GM movement all that is required is the capacity to keep a straight face while spewing lies, overinflated claims..."

Ooh, the irony.

The anti-GM movement has *some* way to go to catch up with the lies and over-inflated claims of the GM corporations who clothe their planet-raping antics with mock-concern for the world's poor.

Jeff writes:

>*the point I made with respect to time lags in ecology and in the peer-reviewed literature. The thrust of what I am saying is that the potentially negative effects of GMOs on the environment may be yet to be manifested.*

Not to mention that at this initial phase biotech corporations [block access to seed for independent trials](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/13/opinion/la-oe-guriansherman-see…)

>Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.

"the blurb on one of her books claims she is one of India's leading physicists - this is unsupported, much like most of her claims"

Does she claim to be a member of the House of Lords too?

Jeff #305. I refer you to my earlier post (#234) and repeat my query as to your thoughts on the use of GM tech to improve the nutrition quality of foodstuffs.

Hugh has a talent for producing papers that invoke discussion - his "Do aphids migrate?" paper was a classic of the art. But this is digression & I'll leave it there. Now, where are those papers on non-target insects and Bt resistance?

I'd like to see if Ewan has backup for his libellous-appearing smear of Vandama Shiva, whom he calls: "reknowned liar and arson supporter".

Others have a different opinion of her and she has received many awards:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandana_Shiva#Recognition

Probably Ewan hates her because she founded this organization:

"Navdanya means ânine seedsâ (symbolizing protection of biological and cultural diversity) and also the ânew giftâ (for seed as commons, based on the right to save and share seeds In todayâs context of biological and ecological destruction, seed savers are the true givers of seed. This gift or âdanaâ of Navadhanyas (nine seeds) is the ultimate gift â it is a gift of life, of heritage and continuity. Conserving seed is conserving biodiversity, conserving knowledge of the seed and its utilization, conserving culture, conserving sustainability..."

http://www.navdanya.org/

http://www.ucalgary.ca/peacestudies/2011_PeacePrize

ChrisS,

A few studies:

Fitness Cost of Resistance to Bt Cotton Linked with Increased Gossypol Content in Pink Bollworm Larvae
PLOS ONE Volume: 6 Issue: 6 Article Number: e21863

Reduced Levels of Membrane-Bound Alkaline Phosphatase Are Common to Lepidopteran Strains Resistant to Cry Toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis PLOS ONE Volume: 6 Issue: 3 Article Number: e17606

Survival and reproduction of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India
CURRENT SCIENCE Volume: 99 Issue: 11 Pages: 1602-1606

Effects of infection with Nosema pyrausta on survival and development of offspring of laboratory selected Bt-resistant and Bt-susceptible European corn borers
JOURNAL OF INVERTEBRATE PATHOLOGY Volume: 105 Issue: 3 Pages: 248-253

Cotton bollworm resistance to Bt transgenic cotton: A case analysis SCIENCE CHINA-LIFE SCIENCES Volume: 53 Issue: 8 Pages: 934-941

Chris, I am sure that you are able to search for more papers in this area. Why do I have to do it for you? Is this some kind of exercise? Furthermore, I must point out that I never mentioned non-target insects and resistance. I was referring to the pests themselves - my concern is more based on the results of studies like Losey's which suggested that Bt pollen could contaminate non-crop food plants and harm non-target herbivores.

Your still have not addressed my points with respect to (1) time lags in the evolution of resistance, (2) why you apparently disregard the talks I attended in Sotuh Africa and (3) the precuationary principle. I'd also be interested in knowing what you think about the economic and political aspects of the technology. Ewan's responses in this regard have been dismissive and superficial (as expected of someone who clearly doesn't know a whole lot about foreign policy agendas and economic programs that have more to do with wealth concentration that poverty elimination). As I said yesterday, this technology will hardly dent the vast social, wealth and economic divisions in the world - in fact, it will more liekly exacerbate them by making poor nations more beholden to the whim of the elites than ever. Transgenic technology has nix to do in my opinion with creating food security for the poor but everything to do with profit maximization for the rich. The reason that 1 in 8 people are malnourished is not a technological problem but a political one. Trust Ewan to have a large memory hole where this is concerned. The global economy has grown by a factor of 15 since 1950, yet extreme poverty has not been reduced but has increased since then. In 1983 Africa contributed to 4% of the global economy - by 2000 this had shrunk to a miniscule 1.3%. In 1970 for every 1 dollar that went from the rich north to the poor south, 3 dollars went the other way. By 1997 this had increased to a ratio of 7:1. This is the Washington Consensus folks, and trangenic technology is very much a part of it because it is a multi-billion dollar industry. And it explains why the US maintains ~1,000 military bases in 140 foreign nations (gunboat diplomacy), and why it has recently expanded Afri-com, SouthCom, Centcom etc. The whole 'Grand Chessboard' (to coin a term first coined by Zbignieuw Brezinski) is about control of resource-rich areas and about outright expansionism, subjegation of other countires assets and nullification of alternatives to the 'Washington Consensus' and its attendant nakedly predatory capitalism. The resource wars in Africa and the middle east are all part of the mix, and in there tucked nicely away is the technology Ewan claims will be a 'useful tool' in reducing hunger. But of course that's pure nonsense.

Holly and Jeff, thank you for ensuring that honesty and integrity are active in this thread. I just don't understand how certain people who can see through the dishonest tactics used by the AGW deniers to support their multi-national friends cannot see that very similar tactics are being used by the GMO promoters.

Chris S, you keep hounding Jeff to produce "peer reviewed" literature and scold him when he produces honest information which is not peer reviewed. Why do you not complain about the "peer reviewed papers" listed by Ewan R?

Many of his cites come from "Agbioforum" which is just a tarted up piece of PR propaganda made to look like a real journal. It is financed and supported by the Biotechnology Industries. It is neither peer reviewed in the normal sense or real science. It serves the same function as wattsup blog, to spread disinformation and cherry picked information to naive readers.

For anyone to try and smear Dr. Vandama Shiva just shows how low the GMO promoters will go to try and keep their dysfunctional technology alive. If anyone really wants to see a real nasty piece of work in GM PR and promotion just check out C. S. Prakash. He is the Antony Watts figure for the GMO industry.

As I said yesterday, this technology will hardly dent the vast social, wealth and economic divisions in the world

It demonstrably increases the income of Indian cotton farmers. It demonstrably increases the income of farmers in Africa who use the technology. Does it address all the many global political issues which also keep developing nations in poverty? No, but then nobody has claimed that it will - personally I'm happy if farmer incomes are raised and less toxic insecticides are sprayed because this is a real tangible benefit - whereas all the hand wringing in the world about the awful political scenario essentially equates to sitting on your hands not doing a bloody thing - which helps absolutely nobody.

and in there tucked nicely away is the technology Ewan claims will be a 'useful tool' in reducing hunger. But of course that's pure nonsense.

The technology demonstrably increases yields in developing nations, for subsistence farmers how would this not be a useful tool in reducing hunger - don't farmers who can produce more of their own food have less likelihood of, I dunno, going hungry? Won't farmers who utilize GM cotton and make 50-150% more per season have reduced levels of poverty?

I'd like to see if Ewan has backup for his libellous-appearing smear of Vandama Shiva, whom he calls: "reknowned liar and arson supporter".

http://www.houstonpress.com/2000-11-23/news/ricetec-paddy-whack/ - Vandana incapable of distinguishing field of rice from field of weeds

http://www.amazon.com/Vandana-Shiva/e/B001JO49BM - Vandana (or a representative, I don't believe however that she's recanted this claim) claims to have been a leading Indian physicist - google scholar turns up 2 references - one is her pHD thesis http://search.proquest.com/docview/302922089 which interestingly is philosophy, not physics (perhaps someone could chime in on the level of dishonesty required to claim to be a leading Indian physicist when infact you are a philosopher of science, and not an actual, y'know, physicist?)

Shiva repeatedly claims that there is a link between Bt cotton and increased suicides amongst Indian farmers - such a link is not present (suicide amongst Indian farmers is largely unaltered since the adoption of Bt cotton - the rate has neither gone up nor down - the focus on Bt is erroneous and takes the focus away from the real issues of predatory loan interest, lack of social safety net for a risky profession etc)

She makes other insane claims about Bt cotton killing 1000's of cows - something which you'd think would have been spotted

http://vimeo.com/23099099 link to Shiva endorsing Arson of university property as a means of protesting GM crops (far more serious than weed-whacking a GM wheat trial) and going so far as to claim that the legal action taken against the arsonist is itself criminal.

I repeat what I said yesterday: transgenic technology will hardly dent the vast social, wealth and economic divisions in the world. It is not aimed at doing so - it is solely aimed at maximizing short-term profits for investors in the north.

Ewan, if you knew one iota about US foreign policy agendas towards Africa, Asia and South America you'd finally get it through your head that poverty eradication is nowhere on the agenda. I can only smile when I read the snippets you respond to - its the larger volume of political material that you rotuinely ignore that is significant. Again, your brain has a large hole in it where this is concerned. Try reading Tom Athanasiou's or Patrick Bond's books, or Greg Grandin's 'Empire's Workshop'. Pepe Escobar's 'Globalistan' might also wake your up out of your current stupor. But as I said its impossible to separate policy agendas of the wealthy governments from the agendas of corporate elites. As I also said yesterday, I have read a lot of declassified planning documents (one benefit of living in a superficially democratic environment) and western planners are essentially unconcerned about poverty and hunger eradication, but are terrified of indigeonous nationalism - that countries worth the trouble will embrace nationalistic governments that will attempt to redirect the benefits of their own resources and raw materials towards internal development. Why are our government planners opposed to this? Because it will conflict with the business interests of western corporations. So they do all they can to maintain influence in the internal decision making processes in these countries. With all that I have read, this is as clear to me as the difference between day and night.

So in the end the alleged benefits of GMOs are going to be rammed down the throats of people here because our governments are promoting the interests of the corporate elites that get them into power in the first place and sustain them thereafter. It doesn't mean a jot whether this is good for society or not, its just the way that it is. Farmers in many countries in the south should not be growing cotton anyway, given the grinding poverty and starvation, but would be far better off growing sustenance food crops. In Argentina, crop diversity has been greatly reduced since the advent of transgenic soybean, which has certainly not been good to the health of the people in the nation as a whole.

With respect to Ewan, I might as well be debating a brick wall when it comes to the real policy agendas of the agro-biotech industry and its backers in government. His arguments appear to mimic those of Bjorn Lomborg, in that he thinks that the aim of his 'wonder technology' and of those promoting it is to help those poverty stricken farmers in the south, whilst ignoring all of the other evidence suggesting that our leaders and their corporate paymasters couldn't give a rat's ass about eliminating poverty and hunger. It's about the money, stupid (to partially paraphrase Bill Clinton), and about expanding another form of economic imperialism through what we grow and eat.

Jeff - you state you may as well be debating a brick wall, I feel the same - I've asked questions abotu specific applications, what your experimental plan around demonstrating ecological effects or lack thereof, your assessment of the ecological effects of not utilizing the technology - real tangible stuff.

You come back, repeatedly, with the same rants about economic imperialism and such - I acknowledge fully that there are numerous political problems which need to be solved - I don't buy fully into your whole schtick that because Western governments are dicks, and have been dicks, that every action by every Western company, government, NGO and scientist must therefore also be an act of dickitude. I have no expertise in the area of foreign policy, but you repeatedly fail to demonstrate why on the specifics of increased incomes (which one would assume would counter grinding poverty to an extent for the effected group at least, although not for society as a whole) this can't be part of a wider fix, or how, with technologies donated freely (golden rice, WEMA maize, potentially the Pioneer N efficient corn if it is actually efficacious) any sort of monetary gain is to be had from the developing world. Less broad generalization and more specifics is what I'm asking for (rather than simply grandstanding I asked specific questions the bulk of which you avoided, and those you answered you failed to do so with anything near clarity), but each time you trot out broad generalizations and the oft repeated phrase "I've read declassified documents"

Ewan,

My point is that, as much as you try, you cannot separate politics, economics and technology. Its the nature of the beast that needs examination, not some superficial idealistic idea of a technology stripped of its economic and political components. Technology cannot address social inequalities - it never has and never will. The solutions to poverty and starvation do not lie in the science but in the political economy. Until you get that through your head we are done talking. You apparently do not understand much about the horrific realities of the world except for the little utopian bubble in which you live. Since you cannot connect the dots, you doggedly stay in your own little corner and thrash it out from there. Its hardly surprising that people whose ignorance is exposed in crucial areas resort to calling the arguments of their opponents, 'rants'.

I never said that evert scientist or NGO in the west are 'dicks' - those are your words, not mine. Heck, I am a scientist who for sure has published a lot more in the empirical literature than you ever will. Whether you like it or not, a huge number of scientists have strong misgivings about GMOs. You seem to be referring to molecular biologists when you refer to scientists, and even many in this field are skeptical. Moreover, I am not against new technologies but believe that they should be strongly regulated, something that appears to be lacking in the case of many GMOs. Since the cat is already out of the bag, so to speak, we are not going to be able to do anything until problems arise, as they are likely to in the future. Previous 'miracle' technologies - CFCs, pesticides, fossil fuels, and others have all been proven in time to have seriously deleterious effects on the environment. Will it be any different with GMOs? Time will tell. But it certainly is likely.

Finally, golden rice was 'donated freely' as a public relations ploy. People in the region need a balanced diet, not Vitamin A enhanced rice on its own. If you seriously think that its been a boon to people in the far east, then you need to do open up your eyes a little bit more than you do.

And for you to bitterly criticize an esteemed scientist and humanitarian like Dr. Vandana Shiva, given the wretched environmental record of your employer, takes remarkable hubris. Talk about blind devotion to duty.

And for you to bitterly criticize an esteemed scientist and humanitarian like Dr. Vandana Shiva

Shiva is no more a scientist than she is a Triceratops. As detailed above.

Technology cannot address social inequalities

Have I claimed that it can in a vacuum? (one might argue that given the recent social media based revolutions around and about that claiming technology cannot at least help to address social inequalities is bunk, although that's entirely tangential to the present discussion) Would you deny that a farmer making 50-150% more net profit per season is better off than had they not used the tech that brought them to this level. Is there a certain level of social equalizing attached to preventing pesticide deaths as a result of global economics having farmers spray cotton 12+ times a season (or the freeing of their kids to go to school rather than backpack up and spray class Is to control bugs so that the loan sharks can be paid at the end of the year?)

I never said that evert scientist or NGO in the west are 'dicks' - those are your words, not mine.

Just the ones trying to implement changes you don't like

Heck, I am a scientist who for sure has published a lot more in the empirical literature than you ever will.

Congratulations, I guess. I make no claim to being a scientist, nor do I have aspirations to publish (thankfully I guess given that getting anything into the literature is nigh on impossible given the lovely folk at legal here!) One still wonders when you'll address your reasons for flat out lying about vitamin A deficiencies in the far East then - one hopes reviewers caught similar howlers in your published work.

Will it be any different with GMOs? Time will tell. But it certainly is likely.

Likely how - again a question I've repeatedly asked of you and one you haven't addressed. I'm not asking for peer reviewed data here, I'm simply asking how, exactly do you forsee GMO technology itself will have deleterious effects - what mechanism do you propose, lets skip away from the nebulous unnamed threat and get specific.

People in the region need a balanced diet, not Vitamin A enhanced rice on its own.

I don't think anyone is arguing that they don't - but when people aren't getting a balanced diet and are instead being supplemented with pills etc at yearly cost (and threat of discontinuation, and perpetually being therefore under the thumb of the west who supplies the pills - at least where they aren't being flat out ignored) are you seriously arguing that it is better to maintain the status quo rather than to supplement the diet that they have? Do I think it's been a boon to people? No... because it hasnt been released yet. Do I think it will be? Yes... because Vitamin A deficiency is a serious problem which kills people. Do I think it is a replacement for a balanced diet? Not at all - but given the choice between the status quo, and an improvement in the right direction, I know which side I'll choose. (I can't help but think your whole "but people should just get a balanced diet" bit is a little (probably not enough to warrant mention, for which I anticipate some flak that I likely have no defence of) along the lines of abstinence only education - great in theory but given that it ain't happening rather pointless - it'd work great if it had a good chance of being implemented, but given the massive social inequality, the shitty state of infrastructure, corrupt governments and the whole shebang it appears about as useful a piece of advice as telling bored teenagers to not bump uglies.

Again I post a link from the blog of a scientist who studies agriculture in India, and says India has 30 million ton of buffer stocks of wheat and grain:

"...So who is it who keeps telling us that Indiaâs problem is an imbalance between population and agriculture? Mostly 2 groups, I believe: 1) those who donât really follow Indian agriculture, and 2) those who have a vested interest in selling things to Indian agriculturalists (biotechnology interests spring to mind).

For group 1, give them this blog and suggest they follow some of the links.

For group 2, ask them a simple question: Just exactly how are their technologies going to feed hungry Indians when over 30 million tons of excess grain canât?"

http://fieldquestions.com/2011/06/16/feeding-hungry-indians/

Drop into the Ocean

grrlscientist — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 04:59:24 +0000

Drop into the Ocean

tags: Drop into the Ocean, Greenpeace, documentary, whaling, overfishing, fish farming, mining, oil drilling, climate change, underwater marine parks, endangered species, conservation, marine biology, streaming video

Take a deep breath and imagine the oceans.... This disturbing video is a short Greenpeace documentary outlining the threats that humans pose to our oceans and a proposal for what we ALL can do to help restore their health. [In short, if you haven't stopped eating all fish -- and most especially shrimp -- yet, this video will make you think seriously about this decision]

grrlscientist Wed, 06/16/2010 - 00:59

Did Greenpeace lie about arctic ice?

illconsidered — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 07:53:24 +0000

Did Greenpeace lie about arctic ice?

A commenter here brought up the controversy du jour for the denialosphere, how Greenpeace alledgedly admitted lying in a press release. Of course that stretch, (well, it's a stretch to call it a stretch), was further stretched to "Greenpeace just admitted that much of the human-caused global warming hype is also a fraud." Talk about extrapolation!

Anyway, as usual it is not what they would have us believe it is. Michael Tobis has all the details, worth reading. The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase "arctic ice", very commonly used to really mean "arctic sea ice".

The cherry on top of the whole bogus controversy is BBC's own usage of the same phrase in their headlines, for example: Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'. The story is, of course, about sea ice.

Kind of like damning with faint praise, the fact that the best evidence of Greenpeace lying is this twisted farce of a scandal rather suggests they may not be that bad.

illconsidered Sun, 08/23/2009 - 03:53

Tags

Why do you warmies have this instant reflex for misery? This is the end of the world that we are talking about here with the CO2 theory.
-1: It's been 23 years of climate crisis predictions.
-2: La Nina kicked it's a$$ and it's cooling!
-3: It's cooling right in front of our eyes yet the fear mongering misery lovers of globull warming jump at the chance of doom with every corporate media hysteria story about Polar Bears and some ice melting somewhere.
How about you warmies make a promise with yourselves:
*If you truly believe in global warming, get a sign that says THE END IS NEAR and start marching.
*If not, get up and dance and celebrate the end of the world's longest emergency; globull warming.
Life is good, stop the fear. Preserve, not rescue our world.
Learn to love nature and experience it as much as you can instead of throwing it on the operating table all the time like cave men fearing the unknown.

Cave Men....well know for there operating tables.

*raised eyebrow of confusion*

*sigh* La Nina (like its inverse, El Nino) is a short-term exchange of heat between the oceans and the atmosphere. Neither has much long-term impact upon temperature trends. La Nina could no more stop global warming than turning on the AC in your house.

None of this has anything to do with the science. Until the advocates of radical change understand this, the skeptics will win most battles, fighting as an insurgent force against a staid and slow establishment. Globull Warmers are now the fat establishment and flat earthers that history will both curse and laugh at. The first thing that AGW proponents could do is change their attitude. Public opinion will move (slowly) towards whatever truth there is to be seen on this issue, but high-handed dismissals don't work as well in the court of public opinion as admissions of uncertainty, pleas for cooperation and assistance, and going overboard in pursuit of transparency.We canât keep up this public climate anxiety for another 23 years as scientists would rather be right than victorious, but there's no excuse for the army of consultants and politicians (and green technologists) lined up at their side. They should have known better. Leading us to war like the neocons did with their WMD scam will not go unpunished this time. Itâs called treason and deniers will have he last word and the last laugh. Preserve our world, not save it with needless fear from a CO2 mistake that confuses life itself with pollution.

The whole thing rests on the imprecision of the phrase "arctic ice", very commonly used to really mean "arctic sea ice".

Coby, it's worse. Tim Lambert has the entire press release, which I'll copy below. There's no way in the world it could've been honestly misunderstood as talking about the Greenland ice sheet, not sea ice. I had guessed earlier that perhaps the confusion was due to sloppy wording in the PR, but was wrong.

Here's an excerpt from the news story/PR:

A recent NASA study has shown that the ice cap is not only getting smaller, it's getting thinner and younger. Sea ice has dramatically thinned between 2004 and 2008. Old ice (over 2 years old) takes longer to melt, and is also much harder to replace. As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030.

They say you can't be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn't apply to the Arctic sea ice. Polar bears are the first to suffer from it, but many other species could be affected as well.

The "misunderstanding" is due to a blatant quote mine, which in context is perfectly clear.

Gwynne Dyer's prediction of 10 thousand dead American soldiers from the first Gulf War is legendary. Carl Sagonâs prediction of a nuclear winter from the first Gulf War oil fires is a huge joke and a sad joke too. The only bigger jokes are you misery loving doomers that like to scare our kids.
HEAT ALERTS FOR LONDON ONTARIO :
Aug./09 first heat alert in two years and the first smog warning of 2009.
Previous years' heat alerts:
2005: July 12
2006: May 29, July 16-17, July 31-Aug. 1
2007: June 26-27, July 9, Aug. 1-3
2008: none
2009: 1, so far
You warmies are like bible thumpers trying to prove god exists and I promise this invisible enemy of Climate Change (formally known as weather, climate variation or the great unknown) you hysterical fear mongers are getting us into will not go unpunished like the neoconâs WMD scam.
Polar Bears were at one time before North American settlement indigenous to as far south as Minnesota but called Yellow Bears because of the summer coat they retained longer but still the same bear.
The doomers canât sustain the promise of the end of the world for another 23 years.
And why do you wish for this misery to happen and why would you be so anxious for it to be true? Itâs sick what you people are doing.
Get ahead of the curve because history will curse all of you fear mongers.
Preserve, respect, love and enjoy our planet, not save and rescue it with needless fear from a myth.

I get the feeling that Mememine69 is not the slightest bit interested in what anyone else has to say.

Carl Sagonâs prediction of a nuclear winter from the first Gulf War oil fires is a huge joke and a sad joke too.

This one's particularly funny? The oil fires were going to cause a nuclear holocaust?

I ove GP, having worked for them and with them, and would again if the stars align, but really this is a story of how GP uses the techniques of mass media to bring the question to the forum with very little pretense of solving the problem at the same time...and where the media, whether its the BBC or Pravda or National Geographic, its modus operandi is not so much to inform us completely but to get us interested enough to have the issue even penetrate the dense foglike atmosphere of doubt and resentment that pervades the world around us, unless we just like looking at the commercials which are always crystal clear.
Is GP lying? Are people listening?

Do we really want to have these pirates (greenpeace) in our corner (science)?

Coby,

The point of my earlier post was to highlight the fact that a scary story does not imply scientific fact, no matter who tells the story nor how scary it is.

[coby here: I understand that was your point but you picked a bad instance to make it. The"scary story" was in fact scientifically accurate. NASA was saying arctic sea ice might be gone in the summer by 2030. GP said exactly the same thing in the same way.]

The bottom line with all this is that GP made claims that did not have any scientific foundation. They made claims that were proven to be false by there own admission.

[coby: This is either an outright lie crakar, or you have not even read any of the linked material. They made claims about arctic sea ice, the BBC reporter cherry picked a single sentence that gave the impression they were talking about the greenland ice sheet, Leipold said "if" that is what the press release said "then" it was inaccurate. Please have the integrity to admit this clear reality, crakar.]

On one hand he claims it was but a mere "mistake" he then goes on to state that there is nothing wrong with "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

AKA a scary story teller and nothing more.

To be fair to GP, they are not the only ones guilty of this attempt to decieve the public, this type of activity has been around for many many years and still thrives today as an alternative to the truth.

[coby: As evidenced by this very comment of yours, ironic isn't it?]

In my previous post I also mentioned the fact that no attempt has been made to educate the public on even the most basic issues of AGW, to this day the only attempt by the Australian Gov. has been to film black balloons filled with helium floating up into the sky.

[coby: 0.20 seconds with The Goggle puts the lie to this statement: http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&q=climate+change+FAQ#hl=en&q=climate+…
There are FAQ's and primers everywhere.]

I then stated this obvious and deliberate attempt to dupe the public will come back to haunt them, as Leipold said "emotionalizing issues" in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.

A good example of scary story telling was seen last week with Senator Stabenow reciting the well worn out story that AGW will cause more hurricanes and tornadoes.

[coby: this is not a scientifically unsupportable statement.]

She even went on to say that "global warming creates volativity", "i feel it when i'm flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes". Mind you Stabenow's version of flying is in a Gulfstream V private jet.

But how true is her statement?

[coby: It is ridiculous. Perhaps we should get the science from actual scientific sources]

It is well known that tropical cyclones require certain preconditions for their formation, cyclones do not occur within 5 degrees of the equator and they require a differential in temps between ocean and air to form. Therefore a warming world will see less and a cooling world will see more even the IPCC gets this fact right.

[coby: False. Please provide the passage in the IPCC report that states a warmer world will have fewer storms]

So where does she get her scary story from? Not based on scientific fact that is for sure. Mind you she is not Robinson Caruso when it comes to telling this lie, Senator Kerry, Al Gore and i believe Hansen himself? have also told similar lies.

[coby: crakar, you are the one lying here. Now either back up your assertion about the IPCC and fewer storms or retract this crap.]

The truth is the number of cyclones that reach land have not changed in the last 150 years. The number of severe tornadoes has in fact fallen throughout the past 30 years.

Now why will statements like this and from GP come back to haunt them? Well it is quite simple as a vast majority of the masses only knowledge of AGW is known via the consumption of scary stories, when not if these scary stories do not come to pass the masses will see them for the liars they are.

All that can be done, and can be seen today already happening is to simply make the scary stories even more scarier than before.

While i am here i would like to ask a question to everybody to answer if they wish.

More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed to papers over the past 20 years providing evidence of the medieval warm period. Now according to Dr Micheal "hockey stick" Mann this did not exist.

[coby: crakar, the MWP is real. What MBH98 showed, and numberous subsequent studies have shown, is that it was not global. Please provide a study of *global* temperatures that indicate more warming in the MWP than we are seeing today.]

However his latest work seems to be in contradiction with this. Manns latest work shows a strong peak in tropical cyclone activity in the middle ages. One of two consequences follows. Either his original hockey stick graph that attempted to abolish the medieval warm period was wrong, or there was no connection between temperatures and the frequency, intensity and duration of tropical cyclones in the middle ages, in which event, even if hurricanes had become more prevalent in recent times, there is plainly no compelling connection between them and global temperatures.

Any thoughts on what the answer is to Micheals conundrum?

[coby: as you yourself stated above, cyclones are a regional phenomenon, it does not require global climate change to affect regional climate. You are quite simply trying to force your own wishful thinking out of a very limited finding. But let me ask you a couple of questions:
1. do you now find Mann's research to be reliable, now that it seemingly lends support to your view of the MWP? If so, why?
2. if Michael Mann is the fraud you continually claim, why is he publishing results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies?]

mememine69 is pretty funny. I like the bit about yellow bears - woven so beautifully into the main point.

The bottom line with all this is that GP made claims that did not have any scientific foundation. They made claims that were proven to be false by there own admission.

Gerd said it was false IF the reporter was properly conveying the meaning of the GP piece.

I've posted it above. You can see the reporter cherry-picked one sentence out of context, and that the entire piece is very clear that it is Arctic sea ice being talked about, not the Greenland ice sheet.

Therefore the conditional "false if" is itself falsefied, and no, Greenpiece did not "lie" in their piece. In fact, they're just reporting on a NASA piece and linked to it.

And, no, there's nothing wrong with emotionalizing issues, that's basic politics. You lay your scientific foundation, then you try to get folks emotionally involved with what that scientific information means for their lives, in order to push action in the desired foundation.

In this case, the scientific foundation - increasingly scientists are warning us of an sea ice free Arctic in the 2030 timeframe - isn't wrong. Greenpeace is correctly reporting this scientific concern. Greenpeace is not lying, nor are the scientists making the claims.

It is amusing watching denialists like crakar (and others, elsewhere) hold on to this notion that Greenpeace lied because careful quote-mining of their piece - quote-mining being a form of lying in the first place - makes it appear that they're talking about all of the ice in the arctic rather than sea ice in the arctic.

It's amusing, and telling, because it speaks to the basic dishonesty of those making such statements.

crakar, I have in lined some replies to your previous comment.

I need some help.

I am not a scientist, and have only been interested in this issue for a few years. I'm fine to point people in the right direction for broad concepts. But I don't even know any calculus yet.

I have a commenter who knows a heck of a lot about Steve McIntyre and the Hockey Stick controversy. He's got a complicated chain of logic and citations which supposedly show that every 1000-year temperature graph ever used by the IPCC is flawed, when the flaws are taken out (specifically bristlecone pine data) the conclusion falls apart, and this has been suppressed by the IPCC which proves they have an agenda.

I've been holding up okay until now. But now I really need someone who knows their climate science well - either to help me out or to (preferrably) take over. I'm not the right person to be taking part in this debate. I'm not a scientist.

The thread starts here - http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#co… - and really gets into the specifics around here - http://climatesight.org/2009/08/13/by-your-own-logic/comment-page-1/#co….

Any takers?

Thanks for the detailed response Coby. Here is my response

You said

Which bit is scientifically accurate? sea ice MIGHT be gone by 2030 or sea ice might be gone by 2030 or some other year?

Or do we have to wait for the next model run to find out? Scientific accuracy and the word "might" should not be in the same sentence.

You said

I have read/watched it Coby, from what i see Stephen Sackur asked a question and Gerd Leipold answered it begrudgingly. GP then back peddled like Fred Flinstone reversing his rock car.

The problem is GP never stipulate the difference between Greenland ice and sea ice this make the scary story even scarier, when Sackur called him on it he froze like a rabbit caught in the headlights of an oncoming car. Lets not forget its ok for GP to âWe as a pressure group have to emotionalise issues and weâre not ashamed of emotionalising issues.â

This link explains the stupidity of the whole issue quite well I believe

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100007009/redfaced-gr…

[coby: 0.20 seconds with The Goggle puts the lie to this statement:

Yes Coby and the internet is the number 1 source of info for the dullards isnt it? No you misunderstood or ignored what i said. Have another read ok.

You said

Here is a site which highlights the many studies that you have asked for.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Last point.

You once again seem to have misunderstood or ignored the point entirely, Mann claims that the MWP did not exist this can be seen clearly in the hockey stick shaped temp graph he produced. See above link.

His recent study on Hurricanes shows that hurricane activity peaked during the medieval period he also goes on to claim that GW is causing more hurricanes. So to explain it down to the finer detail so you can understand either his hockey stick was wrong and the MWP was warmer than today (as per mainstream scientific opinion) and there is a correlation between warmer weather and hurricane frequency as he espouses.

Or, the MWP was not warm at all as per the hockey stick which shows that hurricanes peaked during a period cooler than today which means there is no correlation between hurricane frequency and warmer weather like today and a much cooler period in time like the Medieval period.

Which one is it?

You asked two questions

1. do you now find Mann's research to be reliable, now that it seemingly lends support to your view of the MWP? If so, why?
2. if Michael Mann is the fraud you continually claim, why is he publishing results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies?]

Answer to 1, No I do not find Manns research to be reliable, he has produced two items of research which appear to be in contradiction how could this be considered reliable?

Answer to 2, Mann publishes results that are possibly at odds with his earlier studies, therefore he is either incompetent or is purely promoting himself and his own agenda.

Sorry Coby i did forget to answer one of your questions,

You said

[coby: crakar, you are the one lying here. Now either back up your assertion about the IPCC and fewer storms or retract this crap.]

Here is the link for you to read

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf Please refer to page 751

Actually i will quote it here for all to see, the first section is titled Tropical Cyclones (Hurricanes and Typhoons)

Which reads

"Results from embedded high-resolution models and
global models, ranging in grid spacing from 100 km to 9 km,
project a likely increase of peak wind intensities and notably, where analysed, increased near-storm precipitation
in future tropical cyclones. Most recent published modelling studies investigating tropical storm frequency simulate a decrease in the overall number of storms, though
there is less confidence in these projections and in the projected decrease of relatively weak storms in most basins, with an increase in the numbers of the most intense tropical cyclones."

And then we have this on the same page

Mid-latitude Storms

Which reads

"Model projections show fewer mid-latitude storms averaged
over each hemisphere, associated with the poleward shift of
the storm tracks that is particularly notable in the Southern Hemisphere, with lower central pressures for these
polewardshifted storms. The increased wind speeds result
in more extreme wave heights in those regions."

Page 786 goes into more detail but the end result is that there is no evidence (model evidence that is) that the frequency of storms/hurricanes will increase.

So in summary the IPCC predicts the frequency of hurricanes and storms to decrease which is exactly what i said, mind you the paragraphs are worded very badly like everything the IPCC writes.

Now at this point i could ask for an appology from you Coby but i doubt i will get one so i wont bother.

It's simple. CO2 is less than 1% of the air. Water is greater than 50% of the "green house gasses". Man contributes less than 5% of CO2 at worst. Conclude warming is NOT man made at least not with CO2. Thank You Mike L.

The problem is GP never stipulate the difference between Greenland ice and sea ice ...

Please keep lying, crakar. It helps our cause. Anyone can read the excerpt I posted above and can see that you're lying.

MikeL54,

Please see these articles:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/natural-emissions-dwarf-h…
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/03/co2-rise-is-natural.php
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all…
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2009/06/revisiting_the_source_of_…
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/10/what_is_the_evidence_that…

Not nearly as simple as you apparently think, Mike L, and some of what you think is just plain wrong.

*All* greenhouse gasses combined, including water vapour, comprise less than 0.5% of the atmosphere.

Yet that less than 0.5% of the atmosphere makes Earth's average surface temperature some 33C warmer than it would be if those greenhouse gases were not present.

Water vapour accounts for aprox 80% of that 33C, CO2 aprox 20%. Now, humans are not directly increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere -- we couldn't even if we wanted to, but we *are* increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and not by a paultry 5%, but by around 37% so far (280 ppm to 387 ppm). And then there are methane (up over 150%), nitrous oxide (up 16%), and CFCs, which didn't even exist before the 1920s.

Given that humans have directly increased the gas that accounts for aprox 20% of the greenhouse effect by over a third, to conclude that humans have not caused a major portion of the observed warming -- unintentionally, mind you -- makes one question your grasp of reality.

Dhogaza,

This is a religion to you not a cause, and yes GP often blurr the line when it comes to sea ice and just ice, which is why their fearless leader mumbled and fumbled his way through the questions asked of him.

Jim,

Yes Jim it is not nearly as simple as you apparently think, I am not sure of the accuracy of the 80% figure but lets assume it is correct a majority of this 80% comes from the hydrologic cycle, the rest via the process of slowing IR as it travels through the atmosphere. You seem to have forgotten that Oxygen and Nitrogen make up over 90% of the atmosphere both these elements slow the IR as well and of course how could we forget about Methane and Ozone, so 0.0385% of the atmosphere of which CO2 resides in is very little as MikeL54 suggests.

Coby,

The next time you jump in boots and all i suggest you take the time to check your facts first, this way you dont have to suddenly go quite when you are proved wrong.

Coby,

Here is an additional (in fact better) site which finally puts to rest the fallacy that the MWP was a regional phenomenom and shows the hockey stick to be a complete and utter fabrication.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Oh, Craker, are you really that ignorant, or are you just playing dumb for sympathy?

The hydrologic cycle transports heat *within* the atmosphere, it transmits none of it to space.
Fully 100% of water vapour's contribution to the greenhouse effect is through radiation of infrared energy.
Of course, airborne liquid water has both positive (warming) and negative (cooling effects) quite apart from the greenhouse effect.

Oxygen (O2) and Nitrogen (N2)in fact make up over 98% of the atmosphere, but neither gas is capable of absorbing infrared energy under Earth conditions of temperature and pressure, so neither of them have anything to do with the greenhouse effect, at least not until it comes to converting absorbed infrared energy into kinetic energy through collision with excited greenhouse gas molecules, thereby warming the atmosphere.

Ozone (O3) is both a strong absorber of UV and a minor absorber of infrared. In any case it's concentration in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion, while CO2 is measured in parts per million, or .070 ppmv vs 387 ppmv.

Mehtane (CH4), while a much stronger IR absorber than CO2, also makes up a much smaller portion of the atmosphere than CO2 at 1.745 ppmv. Moreover, it oxidizes in the atmosphere fairly rapidly to CO2 and water vapour, making it the greenhouse gift that keeps on giving.

What Mile L and you are using is the "dilution" argument, and it is one of the easiest in the denier lexicon to debunk.

crakar, score one for you and thanks for providing the IPCC reference. Current, very uncertain projections are for fewer cyclones. But they are also for stronger, more intense cyclones. I was aware of that but mistated things in my reply to you, my apologies.

As for the co2 science citation, I did not see more than one or two of the 33 references there that were global studies. Please find a specific paper and let's see what it really says. CO2 science is well know for cherry picking findings and misrepresenting conclusions of the papers they cite.

As for the GP issue, you continue to be obtuse and I don't know what else to tell you. But for one thing watching the interview is not how to understand the point. The interview was about the press release and the press release was not a lie. Ergo GP did not lie even if the interviewer tricked Liepold into saying that they might have been wrong in what it said (something he said not knowing what exactly they were talking about.)

Thats exactly right Jim, the hydrologic cycle transports heat from the surface to the atmosphere and then to all parts as rain this process plays a major role in the so called greenhouse effect.

Here is a good simple explanation of how it works

http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/home.rxml

Now this has nothing to do with IR or CO2 of course

Here is a more detailed explanation of the climatic effects of Water Vapor in regards to IR absorption

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402

Now after reading the above document you can clearly see how important water vapor is to the whole process, now lets look at the atmospheric makeup of GHG's and how big a role they play

First and foremost the most important GHG is water vapor which contributes about 95% to the temp, then CO2 comes in a distant second at about 3.6% then Methane at 0.36% then NO2 at 0.95%.

Now if we look at the absorption spectra in the IR bandwidth it is easy to see why WV is the dominant GHG.

Also you will note that one of the 3 peaks in which CO2 absorbs IR falls within the same region as H2O. Now this would suggest that this peak at least is saturated or close to it which of course reduces even more CO2's effectiveness. Especially pertaining to the idea that adding more CO2 will cause more warming.

crakar, your numbers (95, 3.6, .36%)are fabrications. Did you get them from a scientific paper or text book, or from some random unsourced denier website?

Please see this article: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/01/water-vapor-is-almost-all…

I will do you a deal when big Jim here comes up with a scientific source for his figures (80/20)i will produce mine hows that sound.

Whilst on the subject of sources it is interesting to see how the alarmist websites bend the truth to support their own ideas, take this site for example it goes to all the trouble to tell you that water vapor is a GHG but yet when they do their nice little graph telling you what has the most effect on climate they tell you CO2 contributes 76% of the 100% to global warming poor old water vapor does not get a mention.

Well somebody better tell the IPCC about this discovery because if WV does not contribute to GW then they need to re jig all their models and predictions.

In other words this site is a joke just another bunch of scary story tellers.

http://www.co2-research.ca/index.php?id=27

Here is another really good site i found

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-an…

This one tells you that CO2 is the cause of most GW and even shows you the IPCC 2007 graph, once again minus water vapor? Are they inferring that WV does not trap heat? and yet they then say this

"What about water vapor? Water vapor is the most abundant heat-trapping gas, but rarely discussed when considering human-induced climate change. The principal reason is that water vapor has a short cycle in the atmosphere (a few days) before it is incorporated into weather events and falls to Earth, so it cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way as carbon dioxide does.[1, 2]"

(But WV has such a short cycle and cannot build up in the atmosphere in the same way that CO2 does, then how can the IPCC claim that WV is a very strong +ve feedback? Maybe you can enlighten me on this Coby with your own theory of how AGW works.)

Ok so WV does trap heat so why is it not shown in the above graph? It is not shown because no matter what happens with CO2 and global warming the amount of WV in the atmosphere will not increase therefore it will not contribute to GW and so it does not appear on the graph.

But then they say this

"If all of the energy emitted from the Earthâs surface escaped into space, the planet would be too cold to sustain human life. Fortunately, as depicted in Figure 2, some of this energy does stay in the atmosphere, where it is sent back toward Earth by clouds, released by clouds as they condense to form rain or snow, or absorbed by atmospheric gases composed of three or more atoms, such as water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4)."

and this

"Long-wave radiation absorbed by these gases in turn is re-emitted in all directions, including back toward Earth, and some of this re-emitted energy is absorbed again by these gases and re-emitted in all directions. The net effect is that most of the outgoing radiation is kept within the atmosphere instead of escaping into space. Heat-trapping gases, in balanced proportions, act like a blanket surrounding Earth, keeping temperatures within a range that enables life to thrive on a planet with liquid water. Unfortunately, these gasesâespecially carbon dioxideâare accumulating in the atmosphere at increasing concentrations due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuel in cars and power plants, the clearing of forests for agriculture or development, and agricultural practices.[4] As a result, the insulating blanket is getting too thick and overheating the Earth as less energy (heat) escapes into space."

So WV does play a part in increasing the global temp (GW) so why does it not appear in the graph?

Link: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/CO2-an…

Anyway you will notice that none of these sites not even the IPCC can produce a graph with any validity with regards to showing which gas contributes what to the green house effect.

Crakar's highjacking this thread, which is supposed to be about the GP press release, not the CO2-spectrum-saturation denialist lie.

Well, duh, Craker. That's why radiative-convective models are used to describe the atmosphere. But the question was specifically about the relative effectiveness of H2O vs CO2 as greenhouse gases.

Here are my sources for the roughly 80/20 split:

See Table 3, Kiehl & Trenberth, "Earthâs Annual Global Mean Energy Budget," Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78, 1997 http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/…

Also see the table from NASA GISS at "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feed…

As Coby said, your 95/3.6 figures are pure fantasy. As is your saturation argument, because of pressure broadening and the fact that water vapour is not evenly distributed within the atmosphere while CO2 is.

I repeat: humans are not directly increasing the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere--we can't, but we are directly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. At our peril.

Please use the new open thread for continued digressions about GHG absorption etc.

I am packing for a move and for a 2 month trip at the same time, so I won't be watching very much...

Thanks.

Hijacking? Dhogaza, GP lied through their teeth and got caught, plain and simple.