Biological control of knotweed in EU (no, not the smoking kind of weed)

[jverne]

Europe is about to release its first non-native "biological control" species to curb the spread of Japanese knotweed, and about time too, says scientist Dr Matthew Cock. In this week's Green Room, he sets out the case in favour of introducing natural predators to halt the march of invasive species.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8555559.stm

This might turn very ugly. Biological control can be so unpredictable.
If the thing starts chewing on "native" agricultural crops, it will suck big time.

This is a very relevant issue for home gardeners. Major farms can't afford to weed out manually whole crop fields, like gardeners usually do. So they turn to either herbicides or bio control.
With herbicides they pollute the soil, water and food...with biological control they can destroy whole ecosystems.
In both cases the home gardener gets to pull out the short stick because big farmers need to feed the non farming population, therefore having the the final word.
And those who are not in the business don't really care about it...such a shame.

Side note: i talked to my grandfather about pests and diseases of his time...70 ago and he said they knew about 2 or 3 major illnesses/pests, nowadays there are a myriad of them.
I hope you realize that there is a limit on how much we can stretch the productivity of nature and technology won't help us as quickly as we'd like.
Not even GM plants...think of it this way, GM developers have a few laboratories working on making new plants 40hours a week, nature has the whole world and 24/7/365.
By my information the best GM producers, only made crops that resist their branded herbicide/pesticide so you can spray more of in on the crop. This is not the solution being advertised, the manufactured GM crops with integrated poisons failed big time.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

It will probably work temporarily. Which is all crop growers can do until/if/when technology improves enough to protect crops with near 100% effectiveness.

What can be done? Our populations are too vast the food can't stop being grown. Interim measures are all that can be done at the moment.

No easy solutions! No easy solutions! No solutions!

 

[sinkoman]

Jverne, do you smoke meth?

I'd imagine that big farmers need to feed everybody, not just people without gardens.

 

[Warped]

what the world really needs is in-vetro meat and vertical farms.

 

[jverne]

Jverne, do you smoke meth?

I'd imagine that big farmers need to feed everybody, not just people without gardens.

You think i don't realize that...i've mentioned it in the text.
Never i have said we should kill off big farmers!

People need to die off so we don't have to grow more and more stuff (and by die off i don't mean murder, but natural death).
And we should make use of robotics. Governments should subsidize/tax breaks for advanced agricultural technology.
Pesticides need to be minimized to the bare possible minimum.
Europe-wide agricultural network should be established to monitor outbreaks of pests and control their spread.
Pesticides DO NOT work if sprayed on at an inappropriate time. It best works if you catch the pest with his pants down.

Our local big wine company bought a vine harvesting machine...they saved 10 THOUSAND workers per year. Sure it sucks to be that worker, but that's the point. Machines allow people the same standard without the human workforce.
I'm not sure if you know, but those 10000 workers are only sessional workers that come and go and do some crime while they're at it.
Machines will allow people to live a green life without much social consequences.


edit: my grandad who is a professional farmer bought a mechanical olive harvester...earlier by hand you needed up to 10 people to do the job, now with the machine only 2-3 are needed.

 

[MuToiD_MaN]

It's worth mentioning that the article was written by one Dr. Cock.

 

[jverne]

It's worth mentioning that the article was written by one Dr. Cock.

:|


wtfchar

 

[The Monkey]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8555559.stm

This might turn very ugly. Biological control can be so unpredictable.
If the thing starts chewing on "native" agricultural crops, it will suck big time.

This is a very relevant issue for home gardeners. Major farms can't afford to weed out manually whole crop fields, like gardeners usually do. So they turn to either herbicides or bio control.
With herbicides they pollute the soil, water and food...with biological control they can destroy whole ecosystems.
In both cases the home gardener gets to pull out the short stick because big farmers need to feed the non farming population, therefore having the the final word.
And those who are not in the business don't really care about it...such a shame.

Side note: i talked to my grandfather about pests and diseases of his time...70 ago and he said they knew about 2 or 3 major illnesses/pests, nowadays there are a myriad of them.
I hope you realize that there is a limit on how much we can stretch the productivity of nature and technology won't help us as quickly as we'd like.
Not even GM plants...think of it this way, GM developers have a few laboratories working on making new plants 40hours a week, nature has the whole world and 24/7/365.
By my information the best GM producers, only made crops that resist their branded herbicide/pesticide so you can spray more of in on the crop. This is not the solution being advertised, the manufactured GM crops with integrated poisons failed big time.

What makes you think you know more about this shit than the legions of scientists that must've been consulted before this law became a reality?

 

[63]

What makes you think you know more about this shit than the legions of scientists that must've been consulted before this law became a reality?

Simple:

He is from the internets.

 

[Mr-Fusion]

It's worth mentioning that the article was written by one Dr. Cock.

Once new a prostate specialist who was Dr Cocks.
...
**** you i think the linkage is close enough to be funny. No **** you all. :frown:

 

[sinkoman]

You think i don't realize that...i've mentioned it in the text.
Never i have said we should kill off big farmers!

People need to die off so we don't have to grow more and more stuff (and by die off i don't mean murder, but natural death).
And we should make use of robotics. Governments should subsidize/tax breaks for advanced agricultural technology.
Pesticides need to be minimized to the bare possible minimum.
Europe-wide agricultural network should be established to monitor outbreaks of pests and control their spread.
Pesticides DO NOT work if sprayed on at an inappropriate time. It best works if you catch the pest with his pants down.

Our local big wine company bought a vine harvesting machine...they saved 10 THOUSAND workers per year. Sure it sucks to be that worker, but that's the point. Machines allow people the same standard without the human workforce.
I'm not sure if you know, but those 10000 workers are only sessional workers that come and go and do some crime while they're at it.
Machines will allow people to live a green life without much social consequences.


edit: my grandad who is a professional farmer bought a mechanical olive harvester...earlier by hand you needed up to 10 people to do the job, now with the machine only 2-3 are needed.

I'm not hearing a no.

 

[jverne]

What makes you think you know more about this shit than the legions of scientists that must've been consulted before this law became a reality?

Legion of scientists...heh. I bet only a small group is working on it since it's not the number one issue in the world. Besides we have examples from the past.

But it's a choice between two evils, i choose the lesser one...that's biological control.

Oh and meet some scientists...you'll see that those truly dedicated are actually fanatical about their believes. Which means they might push it forward without really thinking about it. Picture this, you work on some research for your whole active career and you think you'd trash it just because somebody tells you there's a chance you can't control it, no way in hell you'll take that person seriously. Scientists are not the alfa and omega, they are just humans.
Have you ever read a scientific paper in the field of biology/toxicology? You wouldn't believe how much improvisation and interpretation there is.
Biology is not math!
Ok this is another story better left for another time.


@sinkoman...no i'm not against big farmers, but strict regulation should be upheld.


Side note: This is the major problem of our culture...we're the shoot first ask questions later type.
Maybe we should make laws in advance of a technology. Might be useful in the field of genetics. Harvesting organs from sentient clones is illegal. lol
Ok maybe a less corrupt regulatory system might suffice for now.
It's not really surprising that GM companies conduct their live tests in less developed countries, abusing their ignorance.
GM foods might go the way of white flour/refined sugar. The availability of ordinary products will be diminished and costly. People will become more reliant on GM companies providing them with seeds and such.
I stand by my earlier position...GM food is not inherently evil, but we as a culture are far, far too young to deal with shit like that.
And as a argument for this we can just use leaded gasoline...it was well known that it's poisonous even then, but people didn't really care about it, because..."oh these stupid environmentalists". You have to take science with a grain of salt also, because the last time i've checked science is still done by imperfect humans who have agendas and misguided beliefs.
Proof? Didn'tthe guy who mapped the human genome, demand patents on machinery, genes and other stuff...he is a greedy ****.

 

[sinkoman]

@sinkoman...no i'm not against big farmers, but strict regulation should be upheld.

I never asked you if you were against big farmers, I asked if you were smoking meth.

 

[jverne]

I never asked you if you were against big farmers, I asked if you were smoking meth.

And you base that on?

It increases alertness and energy, and in high doses, can induce euphoria, enhance self-esteem, and increase sexual pleasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

Let's see...

alertness...i don't really feel alerted, it's just a field i like to educate myself on.
energy...actually i don't have any more energy than i usually did, i like to be lazy, sometimes too often

euphoria...nah, i'm quite bored lately

enhance self-esteem...oh lol

increase sexual pleasure...i've always liked sex

So no, you must be mistaken sir.

 

[Eejit]

Someone called?

I'll get to this later jverne. Sigh.

 

[Danimal]

And you base that on?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine

Let's see...

alertness...i don't really feel alerted, it's just a field i like to educate myself on.
energy...actually i don't have any more energy than i usually did, i like to be lazy, sometimes too often

euphoria...nah, i'm quite bored lately

enhance self-esteem...oh lol

increase sexual pleasure...i've always liked sex

So no, you must be mistaken sir.

Quit living in Squaresville, man.

 

[<RJMC>]

 

[Eejit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8555559.stm

This might turn very ugly. Biological control can be so unpredictable.
If the thing starts chewing on "native" agricultural crops, it will suck big time.

I am an environmental scientist. The first question I ask before proposing to import a new organism is: "Is it safe?"

The introduction of cane toads in Australia show the risks of biocontrol
Worldwide, there have been more than 7,000 introductions of biological control agents to date, about 1,300 of which were for weed biological control. The remainder was for control of invertebrate pests, mostly insects.
Of the 1,300 releases against weeds, more than 400 different agents have been released against more than 150 different target weeds over the last 110 years. Of these, only nine produced any collateral damage such as feeding on native species.

Not even GM plants...think of it this way, GM developers have a few laboratories working on making new plants 40hours a week, nature has the whole world and 24/7/365.
By my information the best GM producers, only made crops that resist their branded herbicide/pesticide so you can spray more of in on the crop. This is not the solution being advertised, the manufactured GM crops with integrated poisons failed big time.

GM is still a rather new technology. It has far more potential than has yet been realised, partly due to the massive costs involved making it the preserve of the giant multinational corporations, and squeezing out the ability for academic or startup company teams to develop and bring to market.
GM can be much more effective than it has been so far, particularly if it isn't simply developed solely for profit. For example, the companies making pest resistant crops do it in such a way that the pests can eventually evolve resistance (and have started to), whereas with a bit more initial work you can 'pyramid' different pest resistant genes, making it effectively impossible for the bug to overcome.

 

[jverne]

GM is still a rather new technology. It has far more potential than has yet been realised, partly due to the massive costs involved making it the preserve of the giant multinational corporations, and squeezing out the ability for academic or startup company teams to develop and bring to market.
GM can be much more effective than it has been so far, particularly if it isn't simply developed solely for profit. For example, the companies making pest resistant crops do it in such a way that the pests can eventually evolve resistance (and have started to), whereas with a bit more initial work you can 'pyramid' different pest resistant genes, making it effectively impossible for the bug to overcome.

I'm not totally against GM food, from a purely technological POV. But the reality is that multinationals do most of the researching and with all the patenting going on i doubt others will be able to jump into it easily. The multinationals have taken interest in all the essential bulk crops (corn, potato, wheat, beans,...). So no, until we change this corporate/for profit attitude i don't want such a potentially dangerous self replicating organism in my environment. I will find other means of controlling pests, if not anything...fast biodegradable pesticides.
Politics aside, there's still the issue of food allergies, poisoning, destroying beneficial insects, insect adaptability, mixing with non GM plants,...

GM food are at least 30-50 years away to becoming a true alternative in the mean time keep them in closed and controlled environments for further R&D.
Don't give me the "pyramid" shit, this is complex stuff...you can't just do stuff and expect it to work.

And why the hell don't you think the same poisons that affect bugs don't affect us? All that GM food does is secrete known poisons. They might not affect acutely human beings, but they sure do chronically.
There's a reason why creatures die if eating pesticides...it's because it's poisonous for their body mass.

The feed the world argument is lacking as well. The developed world produces enough food to feed it's population and even export it. So much food get's wasted it's unbelievable.

Also the myth of GM food producing more is incorrect. To produce more you need more nutrients, nutrients are either in the soil or added. The soil becomes depleted more rapidly and you also need more water.
YOU CAN'T GET MORE FOOD FROM NOTHING!

You also keep forgetting that the human body need micro-elements and different compounds. A friend who studies Foods at uni told me that the artificial vitamin supplements are less effective at absorbing than natural variations, because in nature they are bound to other compounds that enable the body to better process it. Science is not that far ahead in this field, please take this into account.


Side note (a bit off topic): People like to brag how pharmaceuticals decreased mortality dramatically. This argument is lacking. The major factor in keeping someone healthy is clean water, hygiene, varied food and low stress.
Mark Antony lived 53 years and that was 2000 years ago! They didn't even know modern water filtration, food was probably still slaughtered in non clean environments by peasants, hygiene was in is infancy. And he still lived 53 years and he spent the later years being the emperor, just think how much stress he had.
People in the third world die not because they don't have penicillin, but they don't have anything...they drink water from the local polluted pool. Sanitation trough the middle/modern ages only became widespread not even 150 years ago. (Athenes and Rome in their golden years had sewers).
The human immune system is very good at doing it's job if you keep it healthy. Penicillin was primarily used in the military...guess why? Wars are not tidy. Malnourishment, cold,...
The civil population that really needed antibiotics was fairly small.
I'M NOT SAYING ANTIBIOTICS ARE THE DEVIL! I just want to say that there are alot of other things that helped probably even more that pharmaceuticals.
Antibiotics today are spread everywhere: animal food, plants, people, if you overdo it it's bound to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

 

[Eejit]

I'm not totally against GM food, from a purely technological POV. But the reality is that multinationals do most of the researching and with all the patenting going on i doubt others will be able to jump into it easily. The multinationals have taken interest in all the essential bulk crops (corn, potato, wheat, beans,...). So no, until we change this corporate/for profit attitude i don't want such a potentially dangerous self replicating organism in my environment. I will find other means of controlling pests, if not anything...fast biodegradable pesticides.

Except that the Indian and Chinese governments are now investing heavily in GM research. Of course, that'll benefit crops better suited for their climates than helping us directly, but with the amount of EU green hysteria over GM I think it'll be a while before we start getting comparable investment in research here.

Politics aside, there's still the issue of food allergies, poisoning, destroying beneficial insects, insect adaptability, mixing with non GM plants,...

Food allergies - GM crops are no more likely to produce an allergic reaction than any new conventional crop cultivar. One can also engineer crops to be hypo-allergenic - such work has been carried out on soy for example.
Poisoning - you've either pulled this one out of your ass or are being stupidly vague.
Destroying beneficial insects - Cry proteins as used in BT Cotton are highly specific to particular species of lepidoptera. There can be a small effect on non-specific insects at very high dosages, as the 'butterfly paper' showed, but far, far lower than if a pesticide was sprayed on.
Insect adaptability - as I said, pyramiding insecticide genes will solve this effectively. That is, if you introduce one insecticidal protein the bug can eventually adapt and become resistant. If you introduce three or four at once it's so improbable for resistance to ever evolve against all three simultaneously that it becomes essentially impossible.
Mixing with non-GM plants - unlikely in the vast majority of agricultural regions of the world in terms of hybridisation, will of course happen at minute frequencies through natural mechanisms such as retroviruses, transposons. I fail to see how this is automatically a bad thing though.

GM food are at least 30-50 years away to becoming a true alternative in the mean time keep them in closed and controlled environments for further R&D..
Don't give me the "pyramid" shit, this is complex stuff...you can't just do stuff and expect it to work.

It's funny how you pretend to know what you're talking about

And why the hell don't you think the same poisons that affect bugs don't affect us? All that GM food does is secrete known poisons. They might not affect acutely human beings, but they sure do chronically.
There's a reason why creatures die if eating pesticides...it's because it's poisonous for their body mass.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Cry proteins don't affect mammals. The only time they have ever been shown to do so was when a mammalian cell line was transfected with the insect protein target of the crystallin insecticide. This family of insecticidal proteins is so specific that each only affects a couple of insect species even within closely related families. They have evolved, by the work of your god, nature, to be very highly specific.

The feed the world argument is lacking as well. The developed world produces enough food to feed it's population and even export it. So much food get's wasted it's unbelievable.

Really? I haven't answered this point enough times in previous threads?
From a purely calorific point of view, you're right. We produce enough calories to feed the world. Man cannot live on carbohydrate alone however - giving rice to the world will do nothing for marasmus, rickets, scurvy, and various other conditions caused by lack of essential vitamins and minerals.

Also the myth of GM food producing more is incorrect.

So far.

To produce more you need more nutrients, nutrients are either in the soil or added. The soil becomes depleted more rapidly and you also need more water.
YOU CAN'T GET MORE FOOD FROM NOTHING!

Oh, so photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation don't exist? Right, I'll go inform the scientific community that they've been wrong this entire time.
There are teams trying to engineer components of the C4 carbon cycle found in maize and a few other species into other important crops which use the much less efficient C3 cycle. This would drastically increase yields and reduce growing time.
Other groups are attempting to allow crops such as rice to carry out nitrogen fixation through the same method that many legumes, such as peas, use. This would greatly reduce the need of nitrogen in fertilizers, often the biggest component, and one which relies on fossil fuels.

You also keep forgetting that the human body need micro-elements and different compounds. A friend who studies Foods at uni told me that the artificial vitamin supplements are less effective at absorbing than natural variations, because in nature they are bound to other compounds that enable the body to better process it. Science is not that far ahead in this field, please take this into account.

Is your memory that bad that you've forgotten this being my exact point in several posts, and is the entire basis of the Golden Rice Project I've brought up numerous times?
Apparently. Or, Strawman.

rabblerabblerabble

Yes, we need more types of antibiotics, and quickly. You're undervaluing benefits because of perceived downsides though. As usual.

 

[jverne]

Except that the Indian and Chinese governments are now investing heavily in GM research. Of course, that'll benefit crops better suited for their climates than helping us directly, but with the amount of EU green hysteria over GM I think it'll be a while before we start getting comparable investment in research here.

China and India still use DDT and lead based paint. nuff said!

Food allergies - GM crops are no more likely to produce an allergic reaction than any new conventional crop cultivar. One can also engineer crops to be hypo-allergenic - such work has been carried out on soy for example.
Poisoning - you've either pulled this one out of your ass or are being stupidly vague.

The allergen was transferred unintentionally from the Brazil nut into genetically engineered soybeans, in a bid to improve soybean nutritional quality for animal feed use. This new protein increased the levels in the GM soybean of the natural essential amino acid methionine, which is commonly added to poultry feed. Investigation of the GM soybeans revealed that they produced immune reactions in people with Brazil nut allergies, since the methionine rich protein chosen by Pioneer Hi-Bred happened to be a major source of Brazil nut allergy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies

Fair enough, allergies are not the major issue but they sure do complicate things.

In 2007 Andreas Lang, Éva Lauber and Béla Darvas criticized these studies, arguing that there can be a great difference in the effects between the acute exposure tested for and chronic exposure. Moreover, they stated that the "worst case conditions" performed were not in fact worst case scenarios, as laboratory conditions with ample food supply and a favorable climate ensure healthy subjects. They instead believe that in the wild, low temperatures, rain and parasites and disease might exacerbate a Bt effect on butterfly larvae. Their own experiments suggested that some butterfly species were negatively affected by such chronic exposure. Jörg Romeis, who conducted the original studies, replied that if species of Butterfly are affected as Darvas claims that a "more comprehensive assessment will be needed and, depending on the degree and nature of concern, this may extend to field testing"

There is so little data available nobody can say anything for certain.

Destroying beneficial insects - Cry proteins as used in BT Cotton are highly specific to particular species of lepidoptera. There can be a small effect on non-specific insects at very high dosages, as the 'butterfly paper' showed, but far, far lower than if a pesticide was sprayed on.
Insect adaptability - as I said, pyramiding insecticide genes will solve this effectively. That is, if you introduce one insecticidal protein the bug can eventually adapt and become resistant. If you introduce three or four at once it's so improbable for resistance to ever evolve against all three simultaneously that it becomes essentially impossible.

Ok, the technology might (stress on might) work, but as of now there is no actual data to confirm it.

Mixing with non-GM plants - unlikely in the vast majority of agricultural regions of the world in terms of hybridisation, will of course happen at minute frequencies through natural mechanisms such as retroviruses, transposons. I fail to see how this is automatically a bad thing though.

If that particular gene might be patented you're in for trouble.

There is also a risk that for example, transgenic maize will crossbreed with wild grass variants, and that the Bt-gene will end up in a natural environment, retaining its toxicity. An event like this would have ecological implications. However, there is no evidence of crossbreeding between maize and wild grasses.

In 2009 it was reported that 82,000 hectares (200,000 acres) of Bt corn in South Africa failed to produce seeds. Monsanto offered compensation and claims that the corn varieties affected were "insufficiently fertilised in the laboratory". Marian Mayet an environmental activitist and director of the Africa-centre for biosecurity in Johannesburg called for a government investigation and asserts that the biotechnology is at fault, "You cannot make a 'mistake' with three different varieties of corn"

It's funny how you pretend to know what you're talking about

Your knowledge is sketchy at best too.

Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Cry proteins don't affect mammals. The only time they have ever been shown to do so was when a mammalian cell line was transfected with the insect protein target of the crystallin insecticide. This family of insecticidal proteins is so specific that each only affects a couple of insect species even within closely related families. They have evolved, by the work of your god, nature, to be very highly specific.

Until we start to make more broad ranged proteins. And again, they might evolve to resits the harmful protein.
Nobody can say for sure.

Really? I haven't answered this point enough times in previous threads?
From a purely calorific point of view, you're right. We produce enough calories to feed the world. Man cannot live on carbohydrate alone however - giving rice to the world will do nothing for marasmus, rickets, scurvy, and various other conditions caused by lack of essential vitamins and minerals.

Most of our energy comes from carbohydrates. An average human uses verry little protein daily. 70g/day.
And you're preaching about a super food that will contain everything, i don't believe in such stuff. Those nutrition problems you mentioned come from the fact that poor people don't get enough of anything. And the super food would also require specific nutrients and environmental parameters. (acidic/alkaline soil, micro elements that might not be native to the particular soil,...)

Oh, so photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation don't exist? Right, I'll go inform the scientific community that they've been wrong this entire time.
There are teams trying to engineer components of the C4 carbon cycle found in maize and a few other species into other important crops which use the much less efficient C3 cycle. This would drastically increase yields and reduce growing time.
Other groups are attempting to allow crops such as rice to carry out nitrogen fixation through the same method that many legumes, such as peas, use. This would greatly reduce the need of nitrogen in fertilizers, often the biggest component, and one which relies on fossil fuels.

C4 needs dry and hot environments, some plants need specific temperatures, more moisture. Everything has it's purpose. You can't just boldly say C4 is much better than C3. Plus there are different anatomical differences in plants that have different cycles.

As for nitrogen fixation, sounds nice but i'm skeptical about it. Again, it's not just putting some enzymes there, there is alot of different changes is the anatomy that are required. Different roots,...
Mostly legumes have this ability...i wonder why?! But...i'm not denying any option, i'm just very skeptical about it.

I'm not totally against GM food, but considering there is so little data on safety i suggest they spend more time in R&D rather than throwing them out in the field and pray they will work as planned.
And not until this patenting, extortion issue is dealt with.


I stress this out! There is so little data that hardly any conclusions can be made.

 

[Eejit]

China and India still use DDT and lead based paint. nuff said!

What do you call an 'ad hominem' when it's directed at a country?

Fair enough, allergies are not the major issue but they sure do complicate things.

Not really, it's just one of the myriad of things to be careful of when designing genetic modifications of a crop.

There is so little data available nobody can say anything for certain.

If there was a large effect it would be obvious given how much BT cotton has been grown and for so long. I think we can say that for certain.

Ok, the technology might (stress on might) work, but as of now there is no actual data to confirm it.

What are you talking about? There was extensive research done on cry proteins before they were ever used in GM. They were chosen partly because they were well characterised.

If that particular gene might be patented you're in for trouble.

Again, a problem with corporate GM and corporatism in general rather than the actual technology.

Your knowledge is sketchy at best too.

Not particularly, I just have different sources than foe.co.uk

Until we start to make more broad ranged proteins. And again, they might evolve to resits the harmful protein.
Nobody can say for sure.

Unless evolutionary theory is wrong then they will evolve to resist any single insecticidal measure, but cannot develop resistance to pyramided ones.

Most of our energy comes from carbohydrates. An average human uses verry little protein daily. 70g/day.

Average human sure, children have higher needs for protein, calcium, vitamins etc. as they're still growing. It's them who are affected most by these deficiencies.

And you're preaching about a super food that will contain everything, i don't believe in such stuff. Those nutrition problems you mentioned come from the fact that poor people don't get enough of anything. And the super food would also require specific nutrients and environmental parameters. (acidic/alkaline soil, micro elements that might not be native to the particular soil,...)

You're putting words in my mouth. And no, kwashiorkor is the result of not getting enough food full stop, marasmus, rickets etc. are a result of missing specific nutrients.
And no, the plants don't need different elements in the soil to produce different vitamins (or whatever), they're a result of branching metabolic pathways so increasing amounts of one end product will not necessarily need any additional starting materials.

C4 needs dry and hot environments, some plants need specific temperatures, more moisture. Everything has it's purpose. You can't just boldly say C4 is much better than C3. Plus there are different anatomical differences in plants that have different cycles.

I never said C4 is better than C3, it's more efficient. It would increase yields across massive tracts of land if introduced into, say, wheat.
Our plants evolved in places with rather different climates to where we often grow them, hence the need to adapt them. We have been changing them slowly over the milennia through selective breeding, GM is just a far more powerful tool for continuing the process.

As for nitrogen fixation, sounds nice but i'm skeptical about it. Again, it's not just putting some enzymes there, there is alot of different changes is the anatomy that are required. Different roots,...
Mostly legumes have this ability...i wonder why?! But...i'm not denying any option, i'm just very skeptical about it.

I never said it was easy, but there are groups of very talented scientists dedicated to trying to solve the problems.

I'm not totally against GM food, but considering there is so little data on safety i suggest they spend more time in R&D rather than throwing them out in the field and pray they will work as planned.
And not until this patenting, extortion issue is dealt with.

You don't seem to have much grasp of the amount of time it takes and the number of safety requirements to be satisfied in order to bring a GM crop to field trial, let alone growing for market.
I had a 'guest lecture' a couple of years ago from one of the Golden Rice team according to him it takes over a decade for each crop, millions of dollars for applications and years of controlled growth and testing for each country the crop needs to be certified in.

 

[jverne]

What do you call an 'ad hominem' when it's directed at a country?

No, it's a valid argument, because these countries are apparently aiming for the short term benefit and neglecting the long term effects.

If there was a large effect it would be obvious given how much BT cotton has been grown and for so long. I think we can say that for certain.

What are you talking about? There was extensive research done on cry proteins before they were ever used in GM. They were chosen partly because they were well characterised.

Aside from the fact that insects gained immunity, it's not such a bad substance. I give you that.

Again, a problem with corporate GM and corporatism in general rather than the actual technology.

Yep, that's my main beef and until those corporations are appropriately dealt with, GM food is sadly the inescapable casualty of war. The world should not be their test ground.
I bet...they might introduce some plant in the wild, then if by accident the plant evolved to be better than the original, they will claim ownership over it.
Hypothetical scenario, bu NO...such things need to be regulated before live tests are done.

Unless evolutionary theory is wrong then they will evolve to resist any single insecticidal measure, but cannot develop resistance to pyramided ones.

I wouldn't bet on that anytime soon. You keep forgetting that bugs are part of the same genetic origins as we are. They might learn to neglect the poison just as some other species do. Bt works on specific bug receptors, what if the bug evolved a different metabolism.

Average human sure, children have higher needs for protein, calcium, vitamins etc. as they're still growing. It's them who are affected most by these deficiencies.

Even poor families in the developed world are not in danger of such malnourishment diseases. The problem lies elsewhere.
The problem is not superfoods, the problem is that the corrupt leaders strangle the population there. Just look at African countries that are politically stable and organized... the standard of living improved dramatically.
Giving them better food will result in no change.

You're putting words in my mouth. And no, kwashiorkor is the result of not getting enough food full stop, marasmus, rickets etc. are a result of missing specific nutrients.
And no, the plants don't need different elements in the soil to produce different vitamins (or whatever), they're a result of branching metabolic pathways so increasing amounts of one end product will not necessarily need any additional starting materials.

Most plants require similar nutrients, the difference is whether is they are getting it enough in proper concentrations.

I never said C4 is better than C3, it's more efficient. It would increase yields across massive tracts of land if introduced into, say, wheat.
Our plants evolved in places with rather different climates to where we often grow them, hence the need to adapt them. We have been changing them slowly over the milennia through selective breeding, GM is just a far more powerful tool for continuing the process.

True yes, but you can't just make such dramatic changes to expect a water Mellon to grow in the sahara with no other provisions.

I never said it was easy, but there are groups of very talented scientists dedicated to trying to solve the problems.

Very talented scientists, yes...with agendas, also yes.

You don't seem to have much grasp of the amount of time it takes and the number of safety requirements to be satisfied in order to bring a GM crop to field trial, let alone growing for market.
I had a 'guest lecture' a couple of years ago from one of the Golden Rice team according to him it takes over a decade for each crop, millions of dollars for applications and years of controlled growth and testing for each country the crop needs to be certified in.

Aspartame has been on the market for 60 years and experts still cant come to a consensus. Especially if the scientist is from the very group whom is at trial.
10 years is nothing for plants that grow slowly and their effects are even slower.


Look it's obvious that i'm more against the politics side of the issue rather than the technological. But like i've said, until measures are taken to prevent abuse, to increase safety and knowledge...keep GM food under close inspection in controlled environments.

 

[sinkoman]

 

[Naph]

tl;dr