GM Blight Resistant Potatoes

[PatrickW]

A new field trial of GM blight resistant potatoes was just started in the UK:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10254905.stm

[Tom Wagner]

Thanks, Patrick.
I clicked on the link you provided and read it. Just so it is not lost I will post it here in the quote feature.

Page last updated at 09:32 GMT, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 10:32 UK

By Mark Kinver

Science and environment reporter, BBC News Researchers say the GM potatoes will drastically cut the use of fungicides
A field trial of a genetically modified (GM) variety of potato resistant to "late blight" - a major threat to the crop - has begun in eastern England.
The global annual cost of crops lost to the disease is estimated to be £3.5bn.
The trial, carried out by scientists from The Sainsbury Laboratory (TSL), will last three years.
Anti-GM campaigners criticised the trials, saying it was possible to grow blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods.
The project's research team said it was necessary to carry out the field trial in order to test the plants' resistance to naturally occuring pathogen Phytophthora infestans - the fungus-like organism that causes late blight in potatoes.
"What we don't know is if we have got a GM potato, which is resistant to laboratory strains of the late blight pathogen, (whether) that will be resistant to the whole spectrum of races that circulate out there in the field," said Jonathan Jones, TSL's senior scientist.
The resistance genes allow the plant to discern a pathogen attack as a cue to activate the host's defences
Professor Jonathan Jones Senior scientist, TSL
The experiment will be conducted on a 1,000-square-metre plot in Norfolk. Each year of the trial, approximately 200 sq m, containing about 400 plants, will be sown with GM potatoes.
Professor Jones said that the team started screening wild gene-banks for sources of resistance to late blight.
"We screened about 100 different species of Sollanum, the genus to which potatoes belong, and identified a few that were resistant," he told BBC News.
"We have isolated genes from two different wild potato species that confer blight resistance."
The genes, taken from inedible wild plants that grow in South America, were used to to produce a genetically modified Desiree variety.
The genes give the Desiree plants the ability to recognise strains of the blight pathogen that it would not otherwise recognise, Professor Jones explained.
"A new race showed up about four or five years ago, but is now about 70% of all (cases) you see in the field. It has overcome previously resistant varieties of potato.
"So you use the pathogen's attack as your defence. The resistance genes allow the plant to discern a pathogen attack as a cue to activate the host's defences."
About 130,000 hectares of land in the UK is used to grow potatoes, yielding in the region of 6m tonnes of potatoes each year.
However, in a typical growing season, farmers can spray fungicides on their crops up 15 times at a cost of about £500/hectare, Professor Jones said.
Therefore a late blight resistance GM potato would reduce a number of environmental impacts, including reducing the amount of chemicals being sprayed on farmland, as well as cutting emissions from using tractors to spray fungicides and from the production of the agrichemicals.
Biosecurity concerns
Dr Helen Wallace, director of campaign group GeneWatch, called the trial a "waste of public money".

Campaigners say GM food could harm the environment
GM food: Monster or saviour?
"It is possible to breed blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods, so there is no need to use GM technology," she told BBC News.
GM Freeze, another group opposed to genetically modified food crops, voiced a number of objections to the trial, which has been approved by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).
"The application from the Sainsbury Laboratory states that potatoes are mainly self-pollinating and that dissemination of pollen 'is usually less than 10 metres' and the role of the wind is 'very limited'," it said in its objections.
"Pollination is also by insects, including bumble bees, pollinated hoverflies and pollen beetles. Long distant cross-pollination events have been found to occur.
"Distances for potato-to-potato cross pollination events of up to 1km have been recorded in which pollen beetles were believed to be the vectors."
They added: "Thus, the justification for very limited separation distances and safeguards against pollen escape are open to question."
Professor Jones said that the trial was well within the biosecurity parameters required in order for permission to be granted.
"The rules are that the field trial has to be at least 20 metres from adjacent conventional potato fields," he said.
"Very hypothetically, if a few pollen grains make it from our GM potatoes to some cultivated potatoes, given that we do not eat the fruit but the tubers, there is absolutely no way that the DNA we use can enter the human food chain."
"There are also no wild relatives of potato in Europe that it could cross (breed) with."
Food for thought
Helen Farrier, the National Union of Farmers' chief science and regulatory affairs adviser, welcomed the start of the field trial.
"We are encouraged that there is research into tackling this problem and it is progressing into field trials, as blight is a major issue for the potato sector," she told BBC News.
However, she added that there would not be any commercial cultivation of GM potatoes in the UK unless there was a market for it.
"At the moment, it is a bit of a leap of imagination for farmers to think that they will be growing this crop.
"But they are always looking for ways to produce more sustainably, so in the future if there is a market, then some farmers will go for it."
Professor Jones said that if there was no public controversy about using technology, then the first GM potatoes could be available to commercial growers within five years.
"However, the wild card is the public mood," he added.
"What will be required in order for this technology to move forward is for supermarkets to say that they are not scared to tell customers that food produced this way will reduce the environmental impact of agriculture and will be better value.
"But we are not at that stage yet."
As a member of the Royal Society panel that produced a report last year examining the role of science in delivering a sustainable global food system, Professor Jones said that GM technology offered a possible solution to delivering food security.
"We do face a 'perfect storm' of needing to produce at least 50% more food by 2030 with no more land, less water, climate change and rising costs of energy and fertilisers.
"This is not a trivial challenge at all, and this technology - I believe - is one of the essential (items) in the toolkit to meet that challenge."
Professor Jones and his team hope to publish initial results of the field trial, funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), in a scientific journal by the end of the year.

--------------------
Anti-GM campaigners criticised the trials, saying it was possible to grow blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods.

That is what I am doing...conventional breeding methods with all sorts of R genes that have Late Blight differentials bred into the lines most resistant here in the States and crossing those with the potatoes that have shown the best resistance in the last few years in Europe. By constantly intermating the potatoes that carry different late blights tolerances and growing seedlings by the untold numbers, an organic breeder as myself would not need GMO potatoes. I would always have a population of segregating lines that would show variable tolerances each year from true seed. But then again, no publication is going to quote me.

My notes here…20 meters = 65.6 ft. Wow, for producing certified seed potatoes the isolation distance is 400 ft.

<"Very hypothetically, if a few pollen grains make it from our GM potatoes to some cultivated potatoes, given that we do not eat the fruit but the tubers, there is absolutely no way that the DNA we use can enter the human food chain." >

Quite an assumption that there is absolutely no way that the DNA they use can enter the human food chain...what if someone like myself who depends on the fruit of potatoes to get new varieties becomes considered an eneny combatant. Yes, Virginia, there is a pollen Clause!

Of all the varieties to get the GMO into...Desiree....one that has lots of pollen that could spread the new genes into any adjacent potatoes, like the British Queen, a male sterile line that would set seed from this pollen. But read it for your self here...

resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=x5r7306w1123k8g8&size=largest
You have to click and enlarge as it won't let me do a copy/paste..
This article demonstrates the concern about Desiree, beings it is a good pollen parent next to a flowering fool like Stina…and the possible crosses from quite a distance.

www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Pollen-Dispersion.htm (This article show scare you a bit....

Papers on OSR Pollen Dispersion

National Pollen Research Unit, University College, Worcester 18may01
Selected papers on pollen dispersal over medium to long distances (>200m). Compiled by The National Pollen Research Unit, University College, Worcester ,WR2 6 AJ 8/3/01
The following selection of papers illustrate the fact that pollen from GM crops will spread far beyond the proposed separation distances. If commercial production takes place this will inevitably lead to an increase in plot size and number. It is reasonable to assume that the background concentrations of the pollen will rise and that the maximum 1% cross pollination guideline will be exceeded regionally.
Dispersal of pollen via Insects
The dynamics of insect foraging behaviour are vital in gaining an understanding of pollen dispersal and ultimately cross- pollination. Until recently it was thought that insects minimize the distance to obtain maximum of energy (optimal foraging) and consequently few studies have addressed the medium scale. Recent studies show that insects can follow complex foraging patterns at great distances.
Ramsey et al. (1999) Honey bees and wild bumble bees are important pollinators of oilseed rape (OSR). Honey bees were found to leave the hive with OSR pollen from different sources indicating that either the individual bees forage on different OSR crops or simply pick up loose pollen in the hive. In either case this would lead to the possibility of cross pollination between crops and the authors conclude that With most honeybee colonies foraging up to 2km from the hive, some pollen transfer and fertilization up to 4km must be expected.
Osborne et al.(1999) Individual Bumble bees have been tracked using harmonic radar. The foraging bees were fitted with lightweight radar trans- ponders and were found to far exceed their expected foraging range. Osborne et al.(1999) have shown, that most bees regularly fly over 200m (range 70-631 m) from the nest to forage. This was observed even when apparently plentiful food was available from an OSR crop adjacent to the bees nest. "The results support the hypothesis that Bumble bees do not necessarily forage close to the nest, and illustrate that studies on a landscape scale are required if we are to evaluate bee foraging ranges fully with respect to resource availability. Such evaluations are required to underpin assessments of gene flow in bee-pollinated crops and wild flowers."
Skogsmyr (1994) The pollen beetle, can play a role in medium range cross- pollination of crops. In potatoes grown for seed the pollen beetle was considered to be responsible for very high levels of cross-pollination between a GM and non-GM potato fields. Gene dispersal from the GM crop was highest (72% ) in the near vicinity of the source, decreasing to 36% at 100m, while at 1000m it had only fallen to 31% (Skogsmyr, 1994). "Thus gene dispersal occurred both over large distances and to a higher extent than had previously been shown ".
Free and Williams, 1978 In oilseed rape the pollen beetle is often very common (Free and Williams, 1978), although its role in cross-pollination between OSR crops has, to our knowledge, not been studied.
Dispersal of pollen by wind
Thompson et al. (1999) This study used male sterile bait oilseed rape plants spaced at 0-4000m from a pollen source to monitor gene flow on a regional basis. Seed set was observed at a rate of 5% at 4km. At one bait site the majority of the pollinated plants (<80%) were shown, by DNA profiling, to have been fertilised by pollen from the nearest crop, 900m distant. A smaller number were found to have been fertilised by pollen 4km from the nearest known source, probably by insects. These results illustrate potential gene flow. The pollination levels for male fertile bait plants are likely to be much lower, although many modern varietal associations have a high proportion of male sterility increasing the likelihood of external pollination. " Despite the predominance of non GM OSR crops in the immediate locality, all sites were pollinated by a mixture of GM and non GM sources. The results suggest that farm to farm spread of OSR transgenes will be widepsread ".
Squire et al. (1999). Many plants with pollen that becomes airborne show a very rapid decline in pollen concentrations near the source followed by a very slow decline with increasing distance. The absolute level of pollen in such a leptokurtic decline is a function of the scale of source emission. It would seem probable, therefore, that source scale is of more significance in cross pollination at the medium scale than is distance. The source scale is determined by size of source fields and also the interaction between such fields on a landscape level ( Squire et al., 1999). " The evidence indicates that large pollen sources, such as crop fields, interacted on a regional scale to increase gene flow".
Timmons et al. (1995) Oil seed rape is commonly both insect and wind pollinated (the relative importance of each is dependant on environmental conditions). In a two year study of pollen dispersal from isolated Rape fields Timmons et al. (1995) used emasculated bait plants and a volumetric pollen trap up to 2.5km from the nearest Rape field.. They found a frequency of pollination of 0.8% at 2.5 km. The petals of the bait plants were removed making insect pollination less likely, possibly explaining the lower levels of cross-pollination compared to Thompson et al. (1999). Airborne pollen concentrations were found to be 10% of those at the field margin at a distance of 360m. This study also highlights the extensive distribution of feral populations of OSR which can act both as additional pollen sources and recipients. " Oil seed rape pollen has greater capacity for long range dispersal than has been suggested by small scale field trials"
Jones and Brooks (1950) Pollination of Maize is by wind, although some insects, including bees, do collect pollen allowing for the possibility of inclusion in honey. According to MAAF (2000), the best body of data for estimating cross-pollination in maize is that of Jones and Brooks (1950). The 3-year means (and range) of cross- pollination at different separation distances are given below:
25m 14.2% (7 - 19.8%) 75m 5.8% (3.6 - 8.6%) 125m 2.3% (.8 - 3.7%) 200m 1.19% (0.4 - 2.5%) 300m 0.48% (0.15 - 0.99%) 400m 0.23% (0.15 - 0.32%) 500m 0.20% (0.12 - 0.32%)
Salamov (1940) A study by Salamov (1940 cf Jones and Brooks, 1950) shows relatively high cross-pollination at 600m and above:
10m 3.3% 50m 0.33% 100m 0.36% 150m 0.25% 200m 0.54% 400m 0.02% 500m 0.08% 600m 0.79% 700m 0.18% 800m 0.21%
The significance of these results is further increased as the recipient field was much larger than the source (effectively leading to a dilution of source pollen) and was in a direction opposite to that of the prevailing wind.
References:
Skogsmyr, I. (1994) Gene dispersal from transgenic potatoes to conspecifics: A field trial. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 88: 770-774
--------

Much of the opposition to GMO's is not new...read this one...

Abstract… available online 8 March 1999.

Gene dispersal through pollen is one of the most difficult parts to control in the use of transgenic plants. This gene flow is affected by traits that have been subject to sexual selection. Pollen dispersal depends on the competitive ability of the plant in attracting pollinators. Further, the pollen grains per se are under sexual selection to fertilise the ovules. Traits expressed by the female also influence the number of offspring a pollen donor can sire. The gene dispersal from a transgenic plant thus depends on interactions with the surrounding plants in the area where it is planted. This means that the risk of unwanted gene dispersal varies in time and space. I argue that it is important to include the effects of sexually selected traits when assessing risks involved with transgenic plants and that closer attention ought to be given to studies of these traits.

I am not done with this article but I have greenhouse and field work to tend to.

Tom Wagner

[DarJones]

As a long time beekeeper, I am highly aware of the distances bees will travel to visit attractive flowers. Fortunately, potato flowers are on average unattractive to bees because they produce little or no nectar. They do produce a decent amount of pollen which is often collected by members of the Mason bee family. The statements re pollen not entering the food chain are legitimate within the context because the tubers do not involve pollen.

Breeding specific genes into closely related plant species can be very difficult. Usually there is some amount of linkage with unbreakable chromosome segments preventing the move of the individual gene in sexual reproduction. This is the problem with a gene controlling Tomato Mottle Virus which breeders in Florida have been working to transfer into a domestic tomato line. If they can't break the linkage, then a GMO transfer may be the only viable way to get the gene into a usable breeding line. From the description, a similar issue was involved in the GMO potato described above.

Consider also that there are several desirable genes in potato that would be useful in a tomato background. At present, there is no way to move these genes into tomato except through GMO methods.

I guess my position re GMO is that most work so far has a high potential to cause problems. An example of this is the use of herbicide tolerant rape seed which can easily cross over via sexual reproduction into various wild brassicas. The tecnology has a lot of potential but we don't know what we are doing.

Consider this as a possibility. What if we could move the gene pathway for nitrogen fixation from cowpeas into potatoes? Then we could grow potatoes that made their own nitrogen potentially reducing the cost of production significantly and removing a serious groundwater contaminant from farming practice. What if we could do the same thing with corn?

[PatrickW]

Jun 8, 2010 20:56:25 GMT -8 DarJones said:

As a long time beekeeper, I am highly aware of the distances bees will travel to visit attractive flowers. Fortunately, potato flowers are on average unattractive to bees because they produce little or no nectar. They do produce a decent amount of pollen which is often collected by members of the Mason bee family. The statements re pollen not entering the food chain are legitimate within the context because the tubers do not involve pollen.

You're talking to a plant breeder here, and the possibility is very real of the pollen entering the food chain. You don't eat the pollen itself, you eat a potato that was contaminated during breeding with GM pollen.

You might be able to make the argument in this limited test trial there won't be anyone breeding potatoes close enough to be an issue, but there are increasing numbers of people in Europe getting involved in potato breeding and once this potato becomes commercially grown the same argument won't hold. Once the environment becomes contaminated in this way, it will all but destroy the possibility for independent plant breeders to develop organic (and thus guaranteed to be free of GM) potato varieties.

Breeding specific genes into closely related plant species can be very difficult. Usually there is some amount of linkage with unbreakable chromosome segments preventing the move of the individual gene in sexual reproduction. This is the problem with a gene controlling Tomato Mottle Virus which breeders in Florida have been working to transfer into a domestic tomato line. If they can't break the linkage, then a GMO transfer may be the only viable way to get the gene into a usable breeding line. From the description, a similar issue was involved in the GMO potato described above.

Consider also that there are several desirable genes in potato that would be useful in a tomato background. At present, there is no way to move these genes into tomato except through GMO methods.

I guess my position re GMO is that most work so far has a high potential to cause problems. An example of this is the use of herbicide tolerant rape seed which can easily cross over via sexual reproduction into various wild brassicas. The tecnology has a lot of potential but we don't know what we are doing.

Then I think the point at issue is considering everything you said here, should GM breeding trials still be allowed to continue. My person position is that these issues need to be addressed first. GMOs are neither good nor bad, they are just science. The science isn't going to go away. The real issue is if it's going to be used in a way that benefits consumers or the environment, or just make somebody rich somewhere without any other concerns being addressed. Until scientists are interested in creating something consumers want to buy, there's little justification in the research and the risks to people's health and environment that go along with it.

At the moment, consumers prefer conventionally bred crops. There are also ways of conventionally breeding blight resistant potatoes. There is no reason therefore for trials of blight resistant GM potatoes.

Consider this as a possibility. What if we could move the gene pathway for nitrogen fixation from cowpeas into potatoes? Then we could grow potatoes that made their own nitrogen potentially reducing the cost of production significantly and removing a serious groundwater contaminant from farming practice. What if we could do the same thing with corn?

This sounds like a really bad idea to me. To much nitrogen fixing by plants can cause the same pollution. Nitrogen is nitrogen. The real problem is mono-cultures. Why not require farmers to make the extra effort to plant cowpeas together with potatoes and corn? I would certainly pay more for food if I know the farmer was using sound growing practices, and be totally unimpressed by nitrogen fixing commodity crops.

This is just me of course...

[tz]

Nitrogen fixing only produces nitrogen for the plant. The crop has to be plowed under as green manure for the nitrogen to get back into the soil. Most of the nitrogen from crops such as soybean is hauled away in the produce, and the crop residues barely break even returning nitrogen to the soil. If there is already nitrogen in the soil then the plant uses that and the nitrogen fixing mechanism isn't activated.


The alternative is petroleum based nitrogen fertilizers, and petrolium based application (tractors etc) with the associated air pollution.


People are not going to stop reproducing before we run out of natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer. It is easy to sit in an affluent country and say I will pay more for food, while children in far away places starve to death.

[thefuture]

what is the goal(s) we are after?

what is causing us not to meet those goals?

If avoiding losses is a goal, traditional breeding is a more than adequate solution. Bear in mind the things causing us not to meet those goals largely have nothing to do with the plants themselves.

It is people that get in the way. Perhaps we should be engineering better people (through culture of course) rather than "better" plants.

To wit, there is currently double the production of food on earth than the consumption. Double! Deliberate waste eats a huge proportion of that which doesn't make it to the needy. Why? Food is grown with profit in mind nowdays, not health, nutrition or survival.

Paying farmers not to farm is widespread as the little that is grown can be sold for more than double the price. I've seen fields as far as the horizon in Europe converted to golf courses under government sponsorship.

Better potatoes don't address that, in an of themselves.

I could go on but you get the points.

Where the better potatoes WILL help is in the hands of the very people who need to eat but don't have the increasingly worthless paper (aka money) to buy food someone else produced.

In fact, ironically, many of the farmers themselves, be they employees or small scale growers, don't have the money to buy what they need. Why? Massive local production used for massive foreign consumption and low buying power (unfair trade) in return. This is as political as it is economic.

Thirst for refined products also ironically mean the same people working all week for 28 cents per hour cutting sugar cane will turn around an buy a soda as a treat....for about 6 hours labour.

Hmmm.

But back to solutions. The beauty of traditional breeder's work is that it ultimately puts the options in the people's hands. With that and a healthy attitude, there will be no hunger problems. I have it in mind to eventually run some projects in Sierra Leone to get them to grow potatoes instead of relying on rice. But I would need to find something that can take the heat or get them to grow in the mountains/hills. Right now they are excited about rice that produces 5 tonnes per hectare. Potatoes could easily do 25 tonnes in a shorter time....

Lastly, it is important to understand that the GOALS are increasingly being defined by the "solution" providers, who again are motivated by profit. In other words they are using marketing to make up needs and convince people they are legitimate when in many cases they are not.

To put it in perspective, it has been estimated by some that 80% of the world's arable land is controlled by multi national corporations.

We need food made with health & nutrition in mind, solutions from people with sincere intent and accurate knowledge and action taken by those closest to the need.

[thefuture]

oh and re the potential usefulness of GM, let's not forget the potentially irreversible unintended consequences.

[lieven]

Has anyone thought about the edibility of those GM spuds? Adding genes from inedible Solanums might just trigger some unexpected irreversible potato allergy in people.

[DarJones]

I think the "might be" issues with GMO are low on the totem pole. The potential serious consequences of GMO far outweigh any concern that something in a GMO might cause an allergy. An example of this is the use of BT genes in corn. Granted the BT genes are effective, but it is already proven that commercial growing of BT corn is causing the corn borer to develop tolerance. The higher the selection pressure, the faster an organism adapts. The end result is that BT will become ineffective for people like me who choose to use organic methods when possible.

The crux of the issue is that all current GMO's are designed with the specific purpose of making a profit for some large corporation. The one exception that I am aware of for this is the Golden Rice that was engineered with a daffodil gene to produce vitamin A. Unfortunately, the amount of vitamin A it produces is insufficient to alleviate vitamin deficiency.

A conventionally bred tomato like 97L97 can produce enough vitamin A in a single ripe fruit to meet the RDA. Why doesn't someone introduce the high vitamin tomato to the people who live on a diet high in rice?

It was recently announced that a synthetic bacterium had been constructed by the company of Craig Venter. The DNA was assembled one piece at a time and includes 4 specific segments that are solely for the purpose of proving that the organism is synthetic. At some point, we will begin to understand not just the individual genes but the entire biochemical pathway involved in a trait. At that point it will be feasible to construct an entirely new organism with a mix of traits. Such would be the case for corn that has genes to support producing nitrogen like cowpeas.

The underlying problem we have is that even with the level of food production we are capable of today, there will be serious food shortages within 20 years unless we significantly increase production. This is caused by a combination of population growth and removal of arable land from agriculture use. We are looking at having to feed up to 12 billion people by 2030.

Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater?

DarJones

[thefuture]

Jun 10, 2010 19:01:57 GMT -8 DarJones said:

Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater?

DarJones

Neither. Plant beans with non-GMO corn and pee where you plant.

[cortona]

the future...newer read a more inteligent thing! realy! the natural way is ever and ever the best!
why use gmo corn or chemy fert? using beans and /or micorryziae is the answer!

[PatrickW]

Jun 11, 2010 3:17:29 GMT -8 thefuture said:

Jun 10, 2010 19:01:57 GMT -8 DarJones said:

Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater?

DarJones

Neither. Plant beans with non-GMO corn and pee where you plant.

I'm in complete agreement with thefuture! It's totally absurd we should make choice like that.

[PatrickW]

Jun 10, 2010 11:38:45 GMT -8 lieven said:

Has anyone thought about the edibility of those GM spuds? Adding genes from inedible Solanums might just trigger some unexpected irreversible potato allergy in people.

More than anything else, this is probably the most important thing. It's not just allergies, but all kinds of other health problems.

You can't prove a negative, so there's no way to ever be completely certain GMOs are safe.

There's all kinds of evidence that the factory farm food we've been eating has been contributing to the health problems of the last few decades. Obesity, diabetes, cancer, stroke, auto immune diseases and many other modern health problems are linked to what we eat. It's proving a huge problem to get the food industry to even acknowledge these issues, not to mention address and take responsibility for them. Who knows what's wrong with GM potatoes that we'll discover in the future, and how are we going to hold those people responsible accountable for this?

The most important thing we can do is research GMOs with a completely open mind together with well funded and independent science. We all need to know everything there is to know about these foods before they are put on the market.

With Árpád Pusztai being an example as what happens to a scientist who dares to offer evidence GM potatoes might harm your health:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

The fact that part of the intellectual property rights of GMOs are that scientists are not allowed to publish research without the permission of the patent holder.

The fact that people involved in the approval and research of GMOs keep coming resigning their work and coming forward with statements that it's all a propaganda exercise food and agriculture industry.

The only funding for this research comes from the industry itself.

Where's the science we are all supposed to believe is true?

[Tom Wagner]

Thanks, Patrick for the mentioning of Pusztai. Here is a link

www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/
and here is a PowerPoint to click on and the link is named….
• -What is the real meaning of the comforting terms in the GM Biotech indusrties' submissions? (Powerpoint presentation)


------------------------
www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Heartbreak-In-The-Heartland21jul02.htm
I read the article and came up with this rather farce-ridden take on the piece.




Warning! Do not read further if you wish not to be insulted.


Tom Wagner has been compared to Percy Schmeiser:

“I've been farming for 57 years, and 57 years of those I spent in developing a natural breeding of potato lines. I was known in the USA as a seed saver and a seed developer.”
“In 2012, without any previous warning or any indication at all, The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL) launched a lawsuit against me. In that lawsuit, they stated that I had illegally obtained The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL)'s genetically altered potato without a license, and that I had infringed on their patent. Before the main trial, The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL) withdrew all their allegations against me that I had ever obtained their seed illegally. They went on to say that it didn't matter how the seed got onto my land, I still infringed on their patent.”

More conjecture to make a point....Instead of Monsanto/Insaneto, I substituted a slightly misspelled Laboratory to protect the possible guilty...yes, I added a "t"....!

Tom Wagner grows potatoes on various Washington farms. His cooperators are also being sued by The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL), who accused them of saving and replanting their patented Desiree GMO potato, a charge Mr. Wagner adamantly denies.
1) It doesn't matter how The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL)'s patented genes got into the wrong field.
2) All cross-pollinated plants become the property of The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL).
3) Use of patented traits is irrelevant Farmers' rights are secondary to The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL)'s patent rights.

1. Cannot save and replant The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL)'s genetically engineered seed.
2. Must use 'The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL)s proprietary protocols.
3. Must comply withThe Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL) 's confidentiality statement.
4. Must pay The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL) of technology fee of $15 per acre every year.
5. Must allow The Stainsbury Laboratory (TSL) to monitor the entire farm for three years after using patented seeds.
6. Property rights vs. patent law.
7. Health and safety
8. Damage to the environment.

"Very hypothetically, if a few pollen grains make it from our GM potatoes to some cultivated potatoes, given that we do not eat the fruit but the tubers, there is absolutely no way that the DNA we use can enter the human food chain."
"There are also no wild relatives of potato in Europe that it could cross (breed) with."

Little did they know but an obscure potato breeder left some TPS (True potato seed) in Oxford and some of the seedlings were transported to an allotment near Wymondham and Norwich , and Wagner’s seedlings were pollinated by the GM Desiree which were planted in a plot only 64 feet away. The Wagner seedling that had natural late blight resistance from Collaican x Northern Can Do had 10 berries that were saved and the true seed was sent to the USA and all over the UK. Since the blight resistance was super, derived from bulbocastanum GM genes and the natural resistant genes from the Toluca Valley of Mexico, Wagner’s seeds were grown out during the 2011 season and even more so in 2012. It was purported that Wagner did not know that the GM potatoes were within pollinating distance since he was not living in the Norwich/Wymondham area and that the allotmentears were unaware of the potential trouble and were told that absolutely no way that the DNA Stainbury uses can enter the human food chain!

Sorry for the humor and make believe.

Tom Wagner

[PatrickW]

You're funny Tom!

I've just made a post, and would like to hear feedback:

www.patnsteph.net/weblog/2010/06/tom-wagner-blight-resistant-potato-trials/

In particular, did I get anything wrong or am I missing any important points?

Tom, do you know anything about the genes the UK scientists are using, and are they already in some of your lines?