Canola, Pushed by Genetics, Moves Into Uncharted Territories

[groovedaddy]

(I can't wait to hear from the GMO apologists on this one! g.d.)

Genetically engineered versions of the canola plant are flourishing in the form of roadside weeds in North Dakota, scientists say, in one of the first instances of a genetically modified crop establishing itself in the wild.

How much of a problem this might be is subject to debate. But critics of biotech crops have long warned that it is hard to keep genes — in this case, genes conferring resistance to common herbicides — from spreading with unwanted consequences.

“If there’s a problem in North Dakota, it’s that these crop plants are becoming weeds,” said Cynthia L. Sagers, a biology professor at the University of Arkansas, who led the study. Results were presented Friday at the annual meeting of the Ecological Society of America.

Canola, whose seeds are pressed to make the popular cooking oil, is a type of oilseed rape developed by breeders in Canada. In the United States, it is grown mainly in North Dakota and Minnesota, though cultivation is spreading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/10canola.html?th&emc=th

[NoNothing]

1. I thought most GMO crops were sterile

Both for spread prevention reasons and for profitability reasons. Is this not the case with Canola?

[groovedaddy]

2. GMOs have been billed that way but this obviously proves that this isn't the case. n.t

[damntexdem]

4. "Life will find a way."

Jurassic Park -- 1997.

[damntexdem]

3. Well, maybe it will do away with herbicides.

I mean, who will pay for them once they're totally ineffective?

;-)

[Igel]

5. My defense.

1. They're RoundUp resistant. Which means that the people trying to control roadside weeds are simply back where they were before they had glyphosate as an herbicide. Unless we want to say that there were no weeds prior to the escape of the canola-oil variety of rape. This is a tech problem, muted by the fact that weeds are already slowly becoming glyphosate resistant.

2. It's also not the first crop to become a weed. Just one of many. It's not a GMO problem.

3. Rape isn't native to North America. It's not going to interbreed with any native species, even if it's possible that somehow the gene might jump species. Which is true with any number of RoundUp-ready GMO species, and will be increasingly irrelevant as weeds "evolve" to be RU-resistant.

Note that my "defense" isn't an apology. It's merely pointing out that the GMO status of this problem is pretty much irrelevant.

That said, now let's all run and hide under the bed.

[tinrobot]

7. I'm sure Monsanto is developing another herbicide...

...to kill the herbicide-resistant plants they created that are now in the wild.

And they will surely profit from it as well.

[groovedaddy]

8. "GMO status of this problem is pretty much irrelevant" and your basing this on?

The problem with GMOs all along has been the LACK of scientific research to prove their safety for human consumption and their potential impact on the environment. As you pointed out in this particular instance, this plant is a non-native in most areas of the U.S. Non-native plants, in and of themselves, have produced havoc in many areas of the U.S. Now we have the element of gmo thrown into the mix.
If you are aware of and have access to INDEPENDENT studies demonstrating the safety of gmo plants, please share links, etc.
I have yet to get a satisfactory answer on the issue of food allergies and the resistance of this industry in labeling what, exactly, is spliced into to various gmo food stuffs. Big agri-business really doesn't care if we know or not. But if you're extremely allergic to, say, peanuts, you might have an interest in knowing if peanut genes are spliced into some other food you commonly eat, thinking it's safe.

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm

[TZ]

10. Would you PLEASE cite peer revied UNBIASED data

This is the SCIENCE forum...NOT THE FEAR MONGERING CAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCARY GENETICS THINGS Forum.
There has been plenty of data on the safety. Most of it however, is propriatary to the Biotechs which lead the uneducated to scream CONSPIRACY.
Your link is a very very very biased site that I've seen posted over and over again by genetic fear mongerers...
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/
Wait let me guess. Monsanto runs the World Health Organization..:sarcasm:
As you see, non-GM food actually has LESS studies done on them...

[groovedaddy]

11. You call it fear mongering, I call it a "healthy distrust." I think the European Union shares my

distrust.
I could provide a substantial listing of corporate malfeasance when it comes to protecting public health. The bottom line matters far more. The well documented revolving door between "industry" and government agencies tasked with protecting the public interest presents serious breeches of trust. One can certainly hope that most scientists value the integrity of the scientific method over the advancement of their own careers (and, absolutely, they are not mutually exclusive) but there are far too many instances of scientists willing to turn a blind eye when their career is on the line.
The position of industry seems to be (and maybe you agree?): consumers are too ignorant to make informed decisions on their own and have no right to know whether or not they are eating gmo foods.
This was blatantly obvious when they were using pig genes in tomatoes. If you were a vegetarian/vegan, wouldn't you want to know that this was the case?
It makes sense that non-gmo food would have less studies performed on them because gmo foods represents an un-natural change to food stuffs, which would (or SHOULD rather) necessitate indepth study of such practices. But, who needs lab rats when there are so many human guinea pigs?

[TheMadMonk]

15. 1. Not quite. We no longer have all those highly toxic alternatives Roundup replaced.

2. No, it's just one of the first batch of such plants that comes preconfigured to resist our attempts at control.

3. "concluded that canola can cross-breed with relatives such as Chinese mustard (Brassica juncea), wild turnip (Brassica rapa), and wild radish (Raphanus ..." (first hit on "canola crossbreeds") don't know what members of the brassica family (if any) are native to the US, but there's certainly a shitton grown there commercially.

Additionally, WRT non-GM canola crops, (unless something has changed radically in the law recently) if those crops do get pollinated by a a GM crop, the the owner owes Monsanto royalties if he saves seed to plant the following year. He may not even know that he owes Monsanto until he goes to sell his crop and testing at the collection point shows what he thought to be GM free is anything but, and his choices are destroy the crop or cough up to Monsanto. And of course lose any price premium non-GM (and possibly organic) produce might have attracted.

The GMO status IS a problem, when it is used to extort payment from, or force ruination on innocent victims.
The GMO status IS a problem, when no proper effort is expended to prevent the genetic "enhancement" escaping into the wild.

What is also a very major problem is the bloody Frankenfooders diluting the real and valid arguments against the very real environmental damage that the irresponsible release of GMOs can do, with highly emotional, but evidentially baseless speculation about unknown, long term physiological effects on consumers.

Sugar is chemically sugar. Canola oil is chemically canola oil. Cotton is chemically nice useful chains of celulose. The source does not impart some permanent "imprint of genetic evil" on output products.

[Thor_MN]

6. How is the headline NOT "Monsanto raping the environment"?

Just saying...

[TZ]

9. Pardon me while I go back to raping the environment

with my GMO/DNA vaccines...Here's the dish, GM technology ISN'T the monster that people make it out to be..most of the stuff can be and has been replicated with selective breeding. These plants aren't SUPER TOXIC GIANT MUTANT invaders.
Fact is, you know whats more of a PROVEN danger to the environment? Non native INTRODUCED plants and animals actually. And while I hope they get a control of these plants, the dangers of GMO is waaay overblown. But what the hell does this biolgist know about biology. I'm obviously a Monsanto shill...:sarcasm:

[Meldread]

12. What I find funny...

...is that many of the same people who complain about GMO safety would likely praise a small local farmer for selectively breeding - say a strain of wheat - to be resistant to its natural pests. They'd praise him for the fact that, because of the farmers actions, millions of starving people will be able to have food to eat. They'd never see the irony or the hypocrisy in the two stances.

The fact of the matter is, we've been selectively breeding plants and animals since we've been domesticating them for human use, consumption, and enjoyment / pleasure.

[groovedaddy]

13. So you're saying that hybrids/selective breeding are no different than gmos? n.t

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. GM is better.

With GM you get exactly the trait that you want, when you want it.

With selective breeding it's all trial and error for who knows how many years, until you get the same trait that you wanted all along, and there's always the chance that you might create some horrible unexpected supermutant, that will be the apocalypse of all life on earth. Given that it's much more random than GM, it's much more dangerous than GM.

I think your problem is that you posted this in the science forum. Maybe you want the astrology forum.

[BridgeTheGap]

14. Argue with this guy

Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/anniversary-of-a-whistleb_b_675817.html

[BridgeTheGap]

16. RELIEF AS MONSANTO ABANDONS GM CANOLA IN SOUTH AFRICA

The ACB objected to Monsanto’s field trial application in September 2009 when the ACB raised serious concerns that the field trials would pose unacceptable environmental risks, including gene flow into wild populations. The South African biosafety authorities were of a similar opinion, and twice requested that Monsanto provide additional biosafety information. Monsanto’s decision to withdraw its application clearly indicates it could not provide sufficient safety assurances.

http://www.biosafetyafrica.org.za/index.php/20100811326/RELIEF-AS-MONSANTO-ABANDONS-GM-CANOLA-IN-SOUTH-AFRICA/menu-id-100026.html

[jailthecrooks]

18. Let's hope they don't come out with GM kudzu

Or some other invasive plant.

[BridgeTheGap]

19. Most "invasive" plants are exactly that, being taken out of their native environs. The problem with

gmos, is that a plant (such as mentioned in the article) that wasn't an invasive may become one with genetic manipulation, even if unintended.
This is one of the problems I have yet to see addressed, particularly among those who view anyone opposed to gmo as Luddites: there is no accounting for the other possibilities generated by genetic manipulation only intended to generate several specific chacteristics. There can be thousands of uninteded changes. How will THOSE changes effect human/animal consumption of gmos? The truth is, we just don't know. I challenge anyone on this board to provide evidence that: 1. Utilizing the scientific method, it can be determined with certainty what changes will be generated through genetic manipulation. 2. Provide PROOF that these changes pose no significant threat to humans/animals that consume them -OR- pose no significant threat to the environment.
I would assert that there is no way to predict what changes will occur via genetic manipulation (other than the few characteristics they are aiming for). Given this, it becomes nearly impossible to determine their safety for human/animal consumption or their pontential impact on the environment (this article is proof enough of that).