GMO Mosquitoes to be released in Florida ?

Recent Forum Topics Forums The Public House GMO Mosquitoes to be released in Florida ?

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #18493
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    I assume, given the profit motive that drives corporate-capitalism,
    that this kind of thing will become more and more common.

    And i assume for the most part these experiments will turn
    out ok.

    But I assume, sooner or later, one of them will be…
    …bad. Very, very bad.

    w
    v

    ————————————————-
    http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/02/12/plan-release-gmo-mosquitoes-science-experiment-run-amok
    Plan to Release GMO Mosquitoes ‘A Science Experiment Run Amok’
    Effort by biotechnology firm meant to stop tropical diseases in Florida could have risky impacts, critics say.

    A biotechnology company’s plan to release millions of genetically engineered mosquitoes the Florida Keys to combat tropical diseases has been criticized as “a science experiment run amok” by a watchdog organization.

    The plan, which local officials hope to get underway this spring, is meant to control the population of Aedes aegypti, which spreads dengue fever and chikungunya.

    The state of Florida reported (pdf) six cases of locally acquired dengue and 11 of chikungunya in 2014.

    The release of the genetically modified (GMO) Aedes aegypti would be run by British company Oxitec, which states that it would be an “environmentally friendly” and safe approach.

    Keysnews.com sums up how the plan would work: “Oxitec, founded in 2002, found a way to genetically modify male mosquitoes to make them ‘sterile,’ so when they are released and mate with female mosquitoes in the wild, the offspring die in the larval stage.”

    The company has admitted that some female GMO mosquitoes would be released as well.

    The plan is in order, local officials say, because spraying programs have caused the mosquitoes to develop resistance to the pesticides, rendering them useless.

    The organization Food and Water Watch, however, says the plan is risky, and on Thursday submitted a letter (pdf) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the agency not to approve the release and to require Oxitec to submit a New Animal Drug Application (“NADA”) as the agency’s own Guidance requires. From their letter:

    …for FDA not to halt the release of the Oxitec mosquitoes — at least to subject the genetically engineered organism to review as a new animal drug — on the grounds that the agency has insufficient information on the animal’s safety would be to violate Congress’s clear instructions that new animal drugs are to be presumed unsafe unless they are approved by the agency through the NADA process.

    The organization’s letter also points to lingering questions about effects on humans from bites by the female GMO mosquitoes, potential for the GMO mosquitoes to “thriv[e in the wild,” and for tetracycline (used in Oxitec’s process) as potentially contaminating nearby waterways.

    Additionally, Food and Water Watch researcher Genna Reed pointed last month to anew study showing other possible unintended side effects of the release of the GMO mosquitoes:

    Research published in the peer-reviewed journal “PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases” looked at the spread of populations of a different species of mosquito, the Asian Tiger Mosquito, in Panama. This species only just arrived in the country in 2002 and has spread quickly throughout the region in just over a decade. Asian Tiger mosquitoes are considered one of the most invasive species in the world and carry many diseases including dengue fever and West Nile virus. Since Oxitec’s GMO mosquitoes are supposed to wipe out populations of yellow fever mosquitoes, it is very likely that Asian Tiger mosquitoes would rapidly step up to fill the void, negating any benefits of the GMO mosquitoes.

    Not only is there the chance that Asian Tiger mosquitoes will fill the niche left behind from lowered yellow fever mosquito populations, but the GMO mosquitoes could actually make a quick comeback. The scientists predict that because “…Ae. aegypti (yellow fever mosquitoes) ha[ve] similar demographic and dispersal patterns as Ae. Albopictus [Asian Tiger mosquitoes], Ae. aegypti populations may quickly rebound via recolonization after cessation of GM programs.” This scenario would ensure the irrelevance of Oxitec’s mosquito trials, since “GM strategies might have only short-term effects on vector population size and may commit Panama to a repeated and costly program for long-term [arthropod-borne virus] control.”

    “GMO mosquitoes are nothing but a science experiment run amok,” Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter stated Thursday. “Releasing them into the environment will not be worth the effort, expense or potential risk.”

    Hauter’s organization has not been alone in questioning the release of the Oxitec mosquitoes.

    At a town hall meeting in December held by Oxitec and the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District, for example, residents also expressed concern with the plan, including Beth Kirwin, who said, “We don’t want to be guinea pigs.”

    A Change.org petition stating “We need to make sure the FDA does not approve Oxitec’s patent” has also gathered nearly 150,000 signatures so far.

    The Florida Keys Mosquito Control District is set to hold another public meeting on the release this month.

    #18965
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/anti-gmo-propaganda/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Published by Steven Novella under General Science
    Comments: 1
    There is so much anti-science propaganda out there I often feel like I am emptying the ocean with a spoon. Just today I was faced with an array of choices for my post – should I take on anti-vaccine, anti-GMO, or anti-AGW propaganda? For today, anyway, anti-GMO won. I’ll get to the others eventually.

    This was sent to me by a reader – 5 reasons to avoid GMOs. The content is mostly tired anti-GMO tropes (lies, really) that have been thoroughly debunked, but it is good to address such propaganda in a concise way. Also, it is a useful demonstration of the intellectual dishonesty of the anti-GMO movement. I may not get through all of them today – each one is so densely packed with wrong, and it takes longer to correct a misconception than to create one. Here is point #1 – GMOs are not healthy:

    GMOs are unhealthy: Since the introduction of GMOs in the mid-1990s, the number of food allergies has sky-rocketed, and health issues such as autism, digestive problems and reproductive disorders are on the rise. Animal testing with GMOs has resulted in cases of organ failure, digestive disorders, infertility and accelerated aging. Despite an announcement in 2012 by the American Medical Association stating they saw no reason for labeling genetically modified foods, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine has urged doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for their patients.

    The author begins with an assumption of causation from correlation. The increase in food allergies actually does not correlate well with the introduction of GMOs. The correlation between organic food and autism is much more impressive. In fact, the organic food industry has been rising steadily over this same time period, and so one could make the even stronger point that organic food causes all the listed ills.

    Food allergies is a particularly bad target for fear mongering, however. There has yet to be a single case of food allergy linked to a GMO. Not one. Further, GMOs are tested for the allergic potential. Allergenic foods have features in common. For example, the proteins that provoke and allergic response are able to survive stomach acids sufficiently intact that they can still produce a reaction. Scientists can therefore test any new proteins against known allergens and look for homology. (The same is true for known toxins.) This, of course, is not an absolute guarantee, but it is a very good safety net, and it has worked so far.

    What about the animal studies? Well, 19 years of animal feeding with GMO has not resulted in any detectable increase in negative health outcomes of livestock. Further, systematic reviews of animal feeding studies have shown no harm. The author here is cherry picking a couple of poor quality outliers. They don’t give specific references, but the same few studies (such as the retracted Seralini study) always crop up on such lists.

    They finish with an odd argument from authority. They mention that the AMA says GMOs are safe, but fail to mention the dozens of other medical and scientific organizations that have also reviewed the evidence and found current GMO crops to be safe. Instead they cherry pick another outlier, an anti-GMO environmental group.

    They increase herbicide use: When Monsanto came up with the idea for Round-up Ready crops, the theory was to make the crops resistant to the pesticide that would normally kill them. This meant the farmers could spray the crops, killing the surrounding weeds and pests without doing any harm to the crops themselves. However, after a number of years have passed, many weeds and pests have themselves become resistant to the spray, and herbicide-use increased (both in amount and strength) by 11% between 1996 and 2011. Which translates to – lots more pesticide residue in our foods – yum!

    The story is more complex than this cartoon. First, the introduction of Bt GMO varieties has clearly reduced the use of insecticide (pesticides include insecticides and herbicides). The introduction of glyphosate resistant crops has increased the use of glyphosate (an herbicide), but decreased the use of other herbicides. Total herbicide use has actually decreased. Further, glyphosate is among the least toxic herbicides, and so the trend has been to replace more toxic herbicides with a less toxic herbicide.

    Therefore, the bottom line conclusion of the author – more pesticides in our food – is the opposite of the truth.

    Herbicide resistant crops has also allowed the reduction in tilling, which harms the soil and releases CO2 into the atmosphere.

    It is true that overreliance on any single strategy for weed control will lead to resistance. This is a generic problem with any strategy that we use. This is a problem of the massive farming needed to feed the world, and is not unique to GMO. Therefore, of course we need to use technology carefully and thoughtfully to optimize sustainability. Some form of integrated pest management is therefore probably a good idea, but this is not incompatible with GMO technology.

    They are everywhere! GMOs make up about 70-80% of our foods in the United States. Most foods that contain GMOs are processed foods. But they also exist in the form of fresh vegetables such as corn on the cob, papaya and squash. The prize for the top two most genetically modified crops in the United States goes to corn and soy. Think about how many foods in your pantry or refrigerator contain corn or its byproducts (high fructose corn syrup) or soy and its byproducts (partially hydrogenated soybean oil).

    So what? GMO are safe to eat. They are good for the environment. I would be happy if 100% of our crops were genetically modified in order to optimize their traits. In fact, 100% of our crops have been extensively genetically modified through breeding over centuries and even millennia. You would hardly recognize the pre-modified versions of the food you eat every day.

    GM technology is faster and more precise. It can also introduce genes from distant branches of life, but again – so what? All life on earth shares a common genetic code and basic biochemistry. We share genes with peas. There is no such thing as a “fish gene” really. There are just genes that are found in fish, most of which are also found in vegetables but some that aren’t. As long as we know what the genes are doing, and test their net effects on the crop, who cares where they came from?

    GM crops don’t ensure larger harvests. As it turns out, GMO crop yields are not as promising as some projections implied. In fact, in some instances, they have been out-yielded by their non-GMO counterparts. This conclusion was reached in a 20 year study carried out by the University of Wisconsin and funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Thus negating one of the main arguments in favor of GMOs.

    This is one of those – sort of true, but very misleading – factoids that are common in propaganda. The currently available GM crop traits are not specifically designed to increase yield. They are designed to make yield more predictable, by reducing loss through pests, drought, or disease. Higher yielding traits are in the pipeline, however.

    What about that University of Wisconsin study the author specifically cites (it’s nice when they give a specific reference to check their sources)? It concludes:

    Their analysis, published online in a Nature Biotechnology correspondence article on Feb. 7, confirms the general understanding that the major benefit of genetically modified (GM) corn doesn’t come from increasing yields in average or good years, but from reducing losses during bad ones.

    That’s a little different than what the author implied. It reduces losses in bad years – which mean overall yields are increased. This also only referred to corn. Bt cotton has increased yields by an average of 24%, increasing profit and quality of life for cotton farmers in India.

    A 2014 meta-analysis concluded:

    On average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37%, increased crop yields by 22%, and increased farmer profits by 68%. Yield gains and pesticide reductions are larger for insect-resistant crops than for herbicide-tolerant crops. Yield and profit gains are higher in developing countries than in developed countries.

    Still, anti-GMO activists continue to lie about the data, claiming the exact opposite of what the scientific evidence shows.

    And finally:

    U.S. Labeling suppression: Many of the companies who have an interest in keeping GMOs on the market don’t want you to know which foods contain them. For this reason, they have suppressed recent attempts by states such as California and Washington to require labeling of GMO products. And since they have deep pockets, they were successful – for now. The companies who spent the most on these campaigns are Monsanto (who produces the GMO seeds), and Pepsi, Coca Cola, Nestle and General Mills, who produce some of the most processed foods in existence. Incidentally, most other developed countries such as the nations of the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, and China have mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. Food for thought!

    They somehow fail to mention that the multi-billion dollar organic food industry lobbies for labeling. But again I say, so what? The fact that there is a political argument about labeling does not directly imply anything about the safety of GMO or whether or not it is a good thing for people and the planet. In fact – that is the very reason that many people (the corporations aside) oppose labeling.

    Mandatory labels imply that there is something for the consumer to worry about. It is a transparent attempt to demonize a safe and effective technology, so that anti-GMO propaganda will have a target. This is also an attempt by a competitor – the organic food industry – to create a negative marketing halo around its competition.

    Conclusion

    This is only a small sampling of the anti-GMO propaganda that is out there. I am all for a vigorous evidence-based discussion about the true risks and benefits of a new technology. This includes how to optimally regulate such technologies. I believe in the need for thoughtful and effective regulations of any technology that has health or environmental impacts. We have seen what happens when an industry, like the supplement industry, is not effectively regulated.

    GMOs are highly regulated. They are the most tested food that we eat. Cultivars that resulting from hybridizing plants and mutation farming, using chemicals or radiation to speed up the process of DNA mutation, are not tested and are even considered organic. This is a double standard, but fine. Let’s test the hell out of GMOs to make sure there are no surprises. This is already happening – and GMOs currently on the market are safe.

    The anti-GMO campaign is largely an anti-science campaign. This one article is not an outlier – it is squarely in the mainstream of anti-GMO rhetoric.

    #18973
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Yeah, its a fascinating issue. I am always perplexed by it.

    But I’ll say this — I would put the ‘burden of proof’ on
    the GMO Corporations to PROVE its safe. I would
    not put the burden on the consumers.

    I’d also make the GMO Corps stop fighting honest,
    open and accurate Labeling of their products.
    Why are they fighting that? Let consumers have
    a choice and decide for themselves.

    Personally, like i say, I doubt if there is a problem
    with most GMO food. But i do think, sooner or later
    there will be a problem. Just a guess though.

    One of the things i’d discuss with that Pro-GMO-writer
    is — he makes it seem like this is a debate about “science”.
    But there is no “pure food science,”
    there’s only science-mixed-with-mega-Corporations.
    And the Corporations have a long record
    of lying about…um….everything.

    w
    v

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    #18984
    Avatar photoZooey
    Moderator

    The problem for me is that the GMOs will be designed for profitability: shelf life, appearance, resistance to fungus/pests/temperatures etc.

    Nutrition and taste will be subordinated to profitability concerns. And safety concerns.

    Plus. You get food patented by corporations. That’s a terrible idea.

    #19024
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    But I’ll say this — I would put the ‘burden of proof’ on
    the GMO Corporations to PROVE its safe. I would
    not put the burden on the consumers.

    True. And as the article says, GMO foods are the most highly tested food there is.

    I’d also make the GMO Corps stop fighting honest,
    open and accurate Labeling of their products.
    Why are they fighting that? Let consumers have
    a choice and decide for themselves.

    Here’s my problem with that. Then all food has to be labled GMO. That’s even true for so-called organic food because it’s all been genetically modified. It’s been modified through artificial selection. And the unavoidable byproduct of life is genetic modification. It’s going to happen whether it occurs naturally or artificially. Someone might say, “but that isn’t the same” but any geneticist will tell you that “yes indeed, it is the same”.

    Personally, like i say, I doubt if there is a problem
    with most GMO food. But i do think, sooner or later
    there will be a problem. Just a guess though.

    Well, I don’t think there will be but that’s why all this stuff is tested so thoroughly.

    One of the things i’d discuss with that Pro-GMO-writer
    is — he makes it seem like this is a debate about “science”.
    But there is no “pure food science,”
    there’s only science-mixed-with-mega-Corporations.
    And the Corporations have a long record
    of lying about…um….everything.

    True, but the safety of GMO foods has been verified by plenty of independent laboratories as well.

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photonittany ram.
    #19033
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    Well, i agree with Pollan that we haven’t had
    “a real debate” in this country about GMOs.

    Anyway, whats your reaction to Pollan’s thots
    in this vid, Nittany?

    • This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by Avatar photowv.
    #19078
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    A few thoughts…

    Well I’m all for having the debate. Let’s have it. The vaccination debate is finally happening and perhaps it’s way past time that it happens for GMOs.

    About monocultures. This method of farming existed long before GMOs came on the scene. It’s driven by economics. In places like Iowa corn is typically planted because it produces a higher yield with a smaller risk than other crops. So it’s planted over and over again with little crop rotation. But this didn’t happen as a result of GMOs. It was already happening and GMO corn was just thrown into the mix.

    My take away from that video is that Pollan seems like a thoughtful and reasonable guy but he still doesn’t understand the science. Granted he says he isn’t convinced that GMOs represent a health hazard but he also doesn’t seem to see the benefits. He dismisses the environmental benefits out of hand. To me that’s not something to be glossed over. It’s estimated that there will be 10 billion people on this planet by 2050. We need a way to drastically improve crop yields if we are to save any of the remaining wild areas on the earth, or risk it being all plowed under. Improved farming methods can only take you so far. At some point you need to improve the crop itself. Put it this way, if GMOs are harmful then we better figure out a way to make them not so because our future depends on them.

    BTW, my interest in GMOs is limited and has little to do with food production anyway. It has more to do with disease eradicaton and saving wild species. See examples of this in the links below…

    http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2014/12/20/gmo-trees-saving-the-american-chestnut-tree/

    http://scienceblogs.com/erv/2014/12/09/gmo-hiv-still-helping-kids/

    #19083
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    Nittany, have you read The Omnivore’s Dilemma?

    #19099
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Nittany, have you read The Omnivore’s Dilemma?

    No I haven’t. It was written by Pollan, right?

    #19186
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    Scientific consensus on the safety of GMO foods higher than that for global warming…

    http://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/29/pewaaas-study-scientific-consensus-on-gmo-safety-stronger-than-for-global-warming/

    #19195
    Avatar photozn
    Moderator

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>zn wrote:</div>
    Nittany, have you read The Omnivore’s Dilemma?

    No I haven’t. It was written by Pollan, right?

    And it’s good. The first section is about corn, and demystifies a lot of things. For example, those seeds that were developed to allow high yields of corn were (1) patented, and (2) designed so the corn that grows from them cannot produce viable seeds capable of growth. They also require massive amounts of fertilizer, which washes down the Mississippi and produces a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Plus of course, being so cheap (because it’s subsidized), corn gets fed to mass-produced cattle, which can’t digest corn properly…and the result is, corn-fed cattle is constantly on anti-biotics.

    It’s all one big mess.

    #19248
    Avatar photonittany ram
    Moderator

    And it’s good. The first section is about corn, and demystifies a lot of things. For example, those seeds that were developed to allow high yields of corn were (1) patented, and (2) designed so the corn that grows from them cannot produce viable seeds capable of growth. They also require massive amounts of fertilizer, which washes down the Mississippi and produces a huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Plus of course, being so cheap (because it’s subsidized), corn gets fed to mass-produced cattle, which can’t digest corn properly…and the result is, corn-fed cattle is constantly on anti-biotics.

    It’s all one big mess.

    Sounds like an interesting book. I may have to read it. I could not find anything that supports the idea that GMO corn requires more fertilizer than any other corn, but I have no doubt that excessive amounts of fertilizer is being used. A lot less fertilizer would be required if crops were rotated but because corn is so profitable, risk free and subsidized, crop rotations do not happen. But this isn’t a GMO thing, this is a ‘disregard what’s best for the environment to increase profits thing’.

    Keep in mind through all of this I am no fan of Monsanto or of the huge agribusiness corporations. I have mixed feelings about being able to patent these crops. Afterall, Monsanto didn’t invent the genes they are inserting into these crops’ genomes. They were around long before Monsanto existed. They are just stealing them from existing organisms. However, the processes involved in identifying the gene, isolating it, figuring out the proper place to put it, inserting it, etc. and then doing all the testing to make sure it’s safe and doing what you want it to do must be time-consuming and expensive. And the result is a variety of corn that is unique. In that sense I can understand them being allowed to patent the corn, but like I said, I have mixed feelings about it.

    As far as the nongerminating seeds go, Monsanto placed a terminator gene in their GMOs. Now, they may have done this in response to the concern that GMO crops could lead to a lack of genetic diversity because they could spread to neighboring non-GMO fields. This makes the GMO pollen nonviable and it won’t produce a seed. In reality that just may be a convenient maneuver to force farmers to buy seeds every year but farmers have had to buy seeds every year for hybrids since they came on the scene in the early 20th century so it’s nothing new for them.

    But, my main point in this thread that there is nothing inherently evil about GMOs although the companies that control them may follow the same ‘profits above everything’ mantra that all other major corporations follow. But GMOs themselves are a good thing and the available data would back that up.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.