Agmates welcomes David Tribe, Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne as our regular GM in Agriculture columnist.
Agmates strives to bring you totally independent news and comment and David is widely acknowledged as Australia’s leading commentator / blogger on Genetically Modified Crops (GM) - Visit Davids blog GMO Pundit - Here
Over to David (pictured below)
Keep the door open to drought tolerant crops
Recent media stories about wheat varieties giving up to 20% better yield performance when hit by drought are just the tip of the iceberg of a vast amount of modern plant science directed at understanding and better managing water stressed plants.
Yes, water stress, and plant responses to it are complicated topics.
And yes too, the idea of using modern genetic tricks to improve on nature as far as drought tolerance is concerned is a really big ask.
So why on earth should growers give any credence to these latest results, announced by Premier John Brumby and plant scientist German Spangenberg in Victoria just this last month?
Well for a start, the GM based insect protection trait Bt-protein already insulate US maize growers from drought damage. This practical experience of many US corn-growers with rootworm protected maize planted in the US for several seasons now is well documented. Root development and drought protection are intimately linked, worm damage to roots means, unsurprisingly, worse corn performance, and Bt stops that damage.
But many other benefits leading to drought protection have been obvious to the plant science community for since at least 1996, which was when Xu and colleagues reported good results from transformation of rice with HVA1 drought tolerance genes from barley.
There’s been a treasure trove of highly exciting plant science on the topic since them. By about 2004, plant scientists (e.g. Chaves and Oliviera) were saying that practical drought protection breakthroughs were almost certain.
It’s just taken about 5 years for scientific progress in the lab and greenhouse — to turn this basic science into field trials which are needed to demonstrate practical effectiveness of greenhouse discoveries in farming practice.
Perhaps the most exciting of these basic science discoveries some ten years back was identification of genetic switches controlling whole sets of genes, for instance genes turned on by water stress having a drought-responsive-element nicknamed by biologists DRE.
These discoveries of switches and water stress signaling system and the genes controlling them have given breeders ways of orchestrating whole sets of genes that are needed for drought protection with a only small number of genetic changes. It this that’s enabled German Spangenberg and his co-workers in Vic-DPI to be successful with wheat in Victoria.
With coordinated orchestration of plant stress management, deliberate breeding for drought tolerance has at last became achievable in practice. That’s exactly why GM-technology detractors in Australia are in full-on denial mode about these breakthroughs.
And now Drought-tolerance genes have been trialed successfully in several crops, including both wheat and corn, they are worth paying serious attention to as a future farmer’s option. If the climate change-doomsayers are right, these events will a Godsend for Ozzie growers.
The whole GM debate up till now has not been simply about getting GM canola varieties on the market. It’s been about keeping the door open to the numerous technological flow-ons that can only occur if there is a clear path to market for seed-company innovators.
If the GM canola bans had continued in the Southern States, Ozzie farmers would have seen drought-tolerant crops years, if not decades, after their competitors in North and South America had been growing them in their paddocks and earning good dollars from them. Now they’ve at least got an even break, provided that the keep their local political reps informed of how they feel about grower freedom to choose the best technology for themselves.
Agmates readers can help each other by working hard to keeping the door open for grower choice. They need to keep on pushing and shoving to preserve farmer choice about which seeds they can sow, and what types of technology they can try out.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Have your say! Leave a comment or ask David a question.
To David Tribe, RE:- GM CROPS.
How about all these sick waccos that call themselves “scientists” stop playing around modifying this and that, getting their own over inflated egos under control would be a good start.
Our good lord above set up this world perfectly, it is only the intervention of money grabbing individuals that has stuffed it all up.
ALL this GM garbage is (if not stopped now) going to come back and bite us somewhere in the future.The way into the future is not to go ahead with this GM CRAP, but to pull back from it and go back to the basics of looking after our land and keeping the soil healthy, that way the soil will look after us. Stop injecting artificial garbage (fertilizers) into the ground and poisoning the soil.
I was brought up in a traditional farming way (3rd generation). Some years ago, I meet a lady (now my wife), her family are farming totally chemical free and GM free. The crops and food they produce are outstanding with far superior taste that standard crops.
Most farmers that are looking at these GM crops are that far in debt to the banks they have to keep screwing the soil to get the almighty dollars to keep the banks off their backs, but it seems they have little thought for the health of the soil and future generations to come.
SO HOW ABOUT THE WORLD WAKE UP TO ITSELF BEFORE IT’S TO LATE.
John
Why do you call fertilisers garbage, and why do you regard the GM stuff as crap?. I can see you feel strongly, but you need to explain the reasons for you opinions for me to give reply and face up to concerns you have.
Also I can understand why you want to look after soil, and I would advocate that too. But can you explain why can’t genetics be used as a tool to do that, by allowing carbon build-up in the soil, reducing tillage, and reducing use of toxic chemicals such as Atrazine and Endosulfan?
I’m glad to hear your friends food tastes good. Good on her.
David,
You ask why I call fertilizers garbage, I did say Artificial fertilizers in my previous comments. Lets look at one of the most commonly used fertilizers,urea-artificial nitrogen. It is nothing more than a chemical dope or drug,when applied it gives a quick flush of growth. I liken it to someone taking drugs,it gives them a quick fix or burst of energy. But the ramification’s of using it are very bad.
The use of chemical fertilizers does the same to the soil. If people took far more interest in natural health of the soil our land would be far better off. Like the use of or the maintaining of mineral and trace element levels is very much under rated but is so important to the overall health of the soil.
Perhaps you should do some reading of the publications of the BIO-DYNAMICS AGRICULTURAL ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA, and the addresses by Alex Podolinsky.
The biggest reason why some farmers do not go down the organics or the bio-dynamics track is simple, they are too damned lazy to put in the bit of extra effort. It is easer to hand over a fist full of money and get a ute load of chemicals.
You ask why I call GM CRAP:- Once again I would remind you, our good lord above setup this world perfectly. It is human intervention that has stuffed things up. So the way forward is actually to go back, back to the basics and then leave things alone. The way the lord set things up was basically simple but it worked.
GM along with other things like cloning in the livestock sector is nothing more than Frankensteins monster laying in wait, and it will all come crashing back and bite us all in the future if it is not stopped now. I agree with Judy in her comments in particular what she has raised in the first paragraph of her comments.
I have from childhood drank raw cows milk straight from the cow, (my family owned a dairy farm from 1946 to 1995) but I don’t seem to have contracted any TB or other deadly diseases you so quote. Your quoted lines in reply to Judy which said :- “we are better off not dying, than being allergy free and dead before the age of 30 from dangerous infections” unquote, is nothing more than scare mongering.
Once again, I will say GO BACK TO THE BASICS,and we and the world will be far better off.
John,
I’m happy to hear that your believe in Biodynamics, and I know that there are many good aspects of that way of farming. But I certainly don’t try and stop the Biodynamics enthusiasts from operating farms how they see fit. That’s where we seem to differ.
I don’t try and ban things without very clearly knowing why they are bad, and you don’t seem to be able to put you finger on why GM is crap. What’s wrong with live and let live as a rule for behavior?
And the Good Lord gave us brains. How do you know we are not doing the Lord’s work when, for example, we develop more nutritious foods that save lives using genetics. That what I think is basics - helping the disadvantaged live better, and I would say the Good Lord would approve.
As far as TB, I was using it as a convenient germ for discussion to be less vague. I do know we have largely wiped out bovine TB, and brucella. I should know because I made the TB tests for cows in the 60s when I worked at CSL. And the Brucella tests too.
It’s that kind of health basics that has made the herds more disease free. That’s health basics in my view.
We’re still better off on pasteurized milk to protect us against the occasional sick cow and diverse other germs like pathogenic E coli , leptospires, Listeria, streps, various fevers, and Salmonella. And Brucella and TB
I will not knowingly consume anything GM modified.
We already have a huge health problem in the western world caused by what? Is it processed food containing additives and colours (in other words chemicals), is it processed milk, is it modern wheat varieties or one of many other modern creations?
I no longer consume dairy foods or wheat and my health has improved enormously. When I was a child (I am in my 60’s) allergies to milk, peanuts, wheat etc were extremely rare. A dairy farmer recently told me they wouldn’t drink processed milk and they are trying to get the government to allow unprocessed milk to be sold.
We need to be VERY VERY careful with GM or we may open another can of worms which we will regret.
NOT FOR ME!!
The problem of allergies in modern society, and food allergy, is pretty important, I agree.
I’ve discussed it a bit at GMO Pundit. It’s a very interesting immunology problem.
Families with a pet dog have less allergy than families without a dog. Two dogs are even better than one, probably because they lick the babies more and give them germs and parasites. There a great book explaining the topic by Marlene Zuk called “Riddled with life” that I have on my desk now.
Germs, dirt, and parasite infections seem to drive away allergies. But they have a down side. They also spread disease.
eg. GMOs and allergy
Allergies started rising before GMOs came on the scene. They correlate with cleaner and healthier living conditions. There is lots of information on this.
You mention processed milk as a cause of allergies. In a sense, there’s some truth about that - as medical science tells us that the cleanliness of modern society may be a cause of allergy, and processed milk is germ free.
Allergy specialists tell us — in modern society — that we may not be getting enough exposure to dirt and germs, and our immune systems are not being tuned properly, and as a consequence it’s over reacting to harmless allergens.
The problem though, is unprocessed milk is dangerous - you could get TB or other nasty, deadly infections.
So we’re damned if we do and dammed if we don’t.
Overall all we are better off not dying, than being allergy free and dead before the age of 30 from dangerous infections.
It seems ludicrous to me that the science is out there to show that we have no idea as to what we are dealing with concerning GMO’s and yet you choose to ignore this??
Have you got vested interests in these technologies?? eg
1. Prof Arpad Pusztai, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen
“Rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered damage to their immune systems and major organs resulting in high cancer rates. Verified by 20 top British scientists. See report here.
2. Swiss Federal research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture:
Monitored green lacewing predator insects feeding on corn borers. 50% more lacewings died eating GM Bt corn fed caterpillars than if fed Bt directly themselves. See report here.
3 Australian CSIRO abandoned research on GM peas
Because they caused inflammation in the lung tissues of mice who subsequently died.
4. Post harvest effects of proteinase inhibitor I insecticidal protein in GE tobacco residues alters soil biota and subsequently organic matter digestion. (Donegan et al 1997)
5. Ladybugs eating aphids from GE potatoes had 30% fewer progeny and lived half the normal expected lifespan. (Birch et al 1997 - Scotland)
I don’t think I need to continue but I can if you want me to. Every study on GM crops find the genetic sequences to be different than reported by the biotech companies. That has been found within plant, field and season.
They tell us it’s safe. Every chemical and drug that has been banned by EPA or FDA were originally declared “safe” for human use.
Stop them now before they ruin this wonderful land we have that has so many natural and healthy attributes.
Thanks for your questions Eric. No, I do not have vested interest in these
technologies.
I’m glad you asked those questions, and raised those issues. I will address each below -
1. “Prof Arpad Pusztai, Rowett Research Institute, Aberdeen
Rats fed genetically modified potatoes suffered damage to their immune systems and major organs resulting in high cancer rates. Verified by 20 top British scientists. http://www.rowett.ac.uk/gmo/ajp.htm“
………………………………………………..
I have read and carefully re-read the Pusztai observations and they make no sense. His work is flawed and was published with a disclaimer by other specialist’s (Harry A Kuiper, Hub P J M Noteborn, and A C M Peijnenburg, Wageningen University and Research Centre,Netherlands) who detail its weaknesses, including bad diets fed to the rats which make them sick because they have two much potato and not enough protein.
The disclaimer is Adequacy of methods for testing the safety of genetically modified foods. Kuiper HA, Noteborn HP, Peijnenburg AA. Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1315-6, commenting on Pusztai’s work Lancet. 1999 Oct 16;354(9187):1353-4.
It says in part:
Quote
Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai report that, when fed to rats, GM potatoes containing the GNA lectin have proliferative and anti-proliferative effects on the gut. They suggest that several of these effects are due to alterations in the composition of the transgenic potatoes, rather than to the newly expressed gene product. However data on the composition of the different diets are not reported in the letter. Pusztai has released some of these details on the internet. See here
These details indicate that the content of starch, glucose polymers, lectin[GNA], and trypsin and chymotrypsin inhibitors in GM potatoes differed from that of the parental line.
Unfortunately, these differences have not been examined further by analysis of an extended range of lines, for evidence on whether these differences are attributable to the genetic modification or to natural variations.
Another shortcoming of the study is that the diets were protein deficient; they contained only 6% protein by weight.
There is convincing evidence that short-term protein stress and starvation impair the growth rate, development, hepatic metabolism, and immune function of rats. Ewen and Pusztai say that the significant differences between diet groups invariables such as mucosal thickness or crypt length are evidence of the biological effects of the GM foods.
Such a claim is easy to make but difficult to prove, because no consistent patterns of changes were observed in the study.
Ingestion of potatoes may be associated with several adaptive changes in the gut because of the low digestibility of raw or partly refined potato starch. In rats caecal hypertrophy is a common response to short-term feeding of various poorly digestible carbohydrates, such as raw potato starch. A physiological response of this nature is probably of little toxicological significance. Dose -response studies would have helped in the assessment of consistency of response.
END OF QUOTE FROM Kuiper and others
They Pusztai are discussed extremely well here:
Analysis of Pusztai Study on GM Potatoes and their effect on Rats by Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff Willaman Professor of Life Sciences and Evan Pugh Professor Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences http://www.lsc.psu.edu/ 201 Life Sciences Building Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802, who is an eminent American scientist.
and here
Rats fed bad diets have lots of changes to their guts which gives the scientific details of these meaningless experiments.
In short Pusztai’ s interpretation is regarded as wrong by the medical science community and they say so.
Strangely, the Puszati experiments are repeatedly cited by detractors of the technology without mention of Kuiper. Frankly speaking, this is scientifically unethical.
……………………………………….
2. “Australian CSIRO abandoned research on GM peas because they caused inflammation in the lung tissues of mice who subsequently died.”
The protein used in the peas belongs to a known allergenic class of proteins. Allergenicity turned up during testing. The project was discontinued.
………………………………………..
3. ” Every study on GM crops find the genetic sequences to be different than reported by the biotech companies. That has been found within plant, field and season.”
You’ll have to tell me exactly which studies you mean because the studies I have don’t say this, so not every study is as you are saying.
I’ll return to your other points when I locate and check the statements. Eric if I cannot locate the primary references I may need your help to supply them.
Further to some of your other question, Eric, I have to say they contain a few red-herrings.
They turn out to be not -UNEXPECTED TOXICITY - but observations on crops which are deliberately engineered to resist insect damage. Uniformly it is found that only insect that are naturally susceptible to these insect protection Bt proteins - happily used by the organic industry, by the way– are affected.
But here you go - some more recent extensive data than what you mention:
Eric 5. Ladybugs eating aphids from GE potatoes had 30% fewer progeny and lived half the normal expected lifespan. (Birch et al 1997 - Scotland)
TRIBE: I noticed these are GE potatoes deliberately engineered to have an insect toxic component (lectin) as an investigation into crop protection.
I expect such experiments will give results like this. Its not really an unexpected finding, and the GM crop is not commercialised.
ERIC 2. Swiss Federal research Station for Agroecology and Agriculture:
Monitored green lacewing predator insects feeding on corn borers. 50% more lacewings died eating GM Bt corn fed caterpillars than if fed Bt directly themselves. See report here.
TRIBE :These are very old papers. The up to date stories –which are very detailed and fascinating, can be found here:
Romeis J, Meissle M, Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat Biotechnol 24: 63–71.
Who say
QUOTE
“Laboratory and glasshouse studies have revealed effects on natural enemies only when Bt-susceptible, sublethally damaged herbivores were used as prey or host, with no indication of direct toxic effects.
Field studies have confirmed that the abundance and activity of parasitoids and predators are similar in Bt and non-Bt crops.
In contrast, applications of conventional insecticides have usually resulted in negative impacts on biological control organisms. Because Bt-transgenic varieties can lead to substantial reductions in insecticide use in some crops, they can contribute to integrated pest management systems with a strong biological control component….
Eleven studies have investigated the effects of Bt plants on predators in a plant-herbivore-predator (tritrophic) system (Table 1). Deleterious effects on mortality, longevity or development of the predator have only been reported in studies using lepidopteran larvae as prey that ingested the toxin and were susceptible to it. Such effects are expected (Fig. 1)….
The effects of Bt plants on hymenopteran parasitoids developing in herbivores reared on transgenic plants have been investigated in ten studies (Table 1). As expected from the decision tree (Fig. 1), effects on mortality, development, weight or longevity were observed in all cases where Bt-susceptible lepidopteran herbivores were used as hosts.
This is not surprising, given that host-parasitoid relationships are usually tight and parasitoids are very sensitive to changes in host quality42. Parasitoids developing in Bt-fed larvae of a resistant strain of Plutella xylostella (diamondback moth) were not affected 43, 44. This confirms that host quality was most likely the cause of effect in the other studies. To date, two studies suggest that toxin uptake by parasitoid larvae can differ among species because certain larvae may avoid the gut, where most of the toxin is concentrated45, 46.”
END OF QUOTES
and here
A Critical Assessment of the Effects of Bt Transgenic Plants on Parasitoids
Mao Chen, Jian-Zhou Zhao, Hilda L. Collins, Elizabeth D. Earle, Jun Cao, Anthony M. Shelton
In any case the big picture is this::
You are referring to experiments where crops are being protected angaonst insect attack, and the general finding is remarkable specificity to the insect targeted, and vastly superior properties over conventional insecticides. None of these issues is unexpected toxicity connected to GM- its related to the insect-protection proteins DELIBERATELY introduced.
So the short answer is SO WHAT?
I have to say that I disagree with your comments re allergies.
I have a grandson who had had a reaction to heaps of additives and most colours, and was allergic to milk. These reactions surfaced as soon as he started eating solids and was weaned off the breast, mostly being unable to sleep and being hyperactive. He is now 18 but still has a lot of these reactions to a lot of food and drink. Living out west on a large grazing property and eating good fresh food he is fine, but fast food, processed food, packaged food he is a problem.
My youngest child was also hyperactive, and I later developed Irritable Bowel Syndrome. I feel that there is a fair chance that people of my generation and my children’s generation who have consumed (in good faith) these chemicals, additives and colours are passing on to our children a sensitivity where they react to all this stuff.
Then we get ADD, ADHD, autism etc which was extremely rare during my childhood. I have controlled the IBS (when medical science could not) by eating NO processed foods or food with additives and colours, and removing dairy and wheat from my diet.
I also must differ with the unprocessed milk. Living in the bush all of my childhood (and a lot of my adult life) we drank milk from our own bush cows. When TB testing came into being one of our cows was found to have a positive reaction. We five children were tested and found to have developed an immunity to TB.
Queensland is TB free now, and all dairy cows are tested for all sorts of diseases regularly, so diseases are kept out of the herds.
Unprocessed milk is available for human consumption in the USA (check Dr Mercloa’s web site). I buy imported butter from Europe, made from organic milk which is not pastuerised, and I will never drink homogenized milk. If I must consume a milk product, such as in baking, I use pastuerised, a great improvement on homogenized.
I use spelt flour for cooking - durham wheat is a problem.
Thanks interesting Judy.
My own daughter has a similar story to tell. Apart from agreeing that pasteurisation is a must do, I don’t have a strong opinion on this, but I did do a search of the medical literature and came up with these summaries of articles about milk homogenization and allergy.
Maybe they are of interest to you and others.
I was surprised to find that cow milk protein appears in the breast milk of mothers who drink cows milk!
Br J Nutr. 2007 Apr;97(4):598-610.
On the supposed influence of milk homogenization on the risk of CVD, diabetes and allergy.
Commercial milk is homogenized for the purpose of physical stability, thereby reducing fat droplet size and including caseins and some whey proteins at the droplet interface. This seems to result in a better digestibility than untreated milk. Various casein peptides and milk fat globule membrane (MFGM) proteins are reported to present either harmful (e.g. atherogenic) or beneficial bioactivity (e.g. hypotensive, anticarcinogenic and others).
Homogenization might enhance either of these effects, but this remains controversial. The effect of homogenization has not been studied regarding the link between early cow’s milk consumption and occurrence of type I diabetes in children prone to the disease and no link appears in the general population.
Homogenization does not influence milk allergy and intolerance in allergic children and lactose-intolerant or milk-hypersensitive adults. The impact of homogenization, as well as heating and other treatments such as cheesemaking processes, on the health properties of milk and dairy products remains to be fully elucidated.
2: J Dairy Res. 2003 May;70(2):175-9.
No difference in symptoms during challenges with homogenized and unhomogenized cow’s milk in subjects with subjective hypersensitivity to homogenized milk.
It has been hypothesized that certain consumers tolerate untreated cow’s milk, but react to processed (i.e. homogenized and pasteurized) cow’s milk although they do not suffer from IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy or lactose intolerance.
The aim of the study was to compare the tolerance of unhomogenized and homogenized cow’s milk in lactose tolerant adults who had repeatedly experienced better tolerance of unhomogenized than homogenized milk. Forty-four subjects were challenged with homogenized and unhomogenized cow’s milk for five days in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over study.
No differences in the symptoms during the challenges were found. Roughly half the subjects tolerated the homogenized milk better and the other half tolerated the unhomogenized milk better. The results of this study show no difference in the tolerance of homogenized and unhomogenized milk in adults with self-reported symptoms suggestive of hypersensitivity to homogenized milk.
3: Clin Exp Allergy. 1990 Jul;20(4):383-7.
Bovine beta-lactoglobulin in human milk from atopic and non-atopic mothers. Relationship to maternal intake of homogenized and unhomogenized milk.
Human milk samples (n = 300) were collected during a 3-week period from 10 healthy mothers and from 10 atopic [=allergic] mothers, all with healthy, solely breast-fed infants…Detectable amounts of BLG (0.9-150 micrograms/l, median value 4.2 micrograms/l) were measured in 19/20 of the mothers (95%), in 9 of 10 atopic mothers and in all 10 of 10 non-atopic mothers.
No correlation was found between the type of milk preparation (homogenized or unhomogenized) and the presence of BLG or the level of BLG in human milk. A great intra-individual and inter-individual variation of BLG level was found, and no relationship was observed between BLG levels and atopic status of the mothers.
The interval between ingestion of 500 ml of milk and the maximal concentration of BLG on milk-free diet varied between 4 and 24 hr, median value 8 hr. The presence of BLG in human milk is a common finding in both atopic and non-atopic mothers.
I find the study on reactions to homogenised milk interesting as I personally know a family who has a daughter who can happily drink the milk from their cow but cannot tolerate processed milk.
Also when deregulation began in Qld a friend’s milkman changed brands and he became physically ill from the new brand of milk so now he does not consume dairy.
Many people I know have given away processed milk for similar reasons. If I drink processed milk the glands under my chin swell and I develop stomach cramps. But I lived on milk direct from the cow for many years.