I’m not familiar with DDT still affecting raptors, but it is continuing to be detected as a residue on produce according to the USDA residue testing program.

The risk of resistance developing from transgenic crops is about the same as resistance developing to other pest control methods. Given time, you can pretty much bet on resistance developing to any pest control methodology if you don’t take measures to reduce the risk, such as method rotations or providing untreated refugia so that you are not only selecting for resistance.

Thanks for a really interesting blog post and some really good comments. Like most here probably I am trying to hack my way through the swamp of pseudo-science and figure this thing out.

I try to buy organic food where possible, not because of ‘health issues’ or nutritional value more because I am concerned about what broad spectrum pesticides are doing to invertebrate populations and the effects of bioaccumulation on other species (I read the other day that DDT is still affecting eagles in some areas of the states, despite having been banned for many years). I figure that humans pump our bodies full of that much rubbish by choice we don’t really have the right to claim health concerns about this stuff.

My question, and only real concern with GMO, would be the potential to create incredibly resistent invasive species (I am thinking an imported crop with the resiliance of japanese knotweed) and affect invertebrate populations – although I imagine that GMO is better than pesticides for wildlife?

Any input on either of these points?

The fear of contamination is mostly based on what I call “B-movie genetics” that imagines the GE traits spreading quickly and widely until it dominates the gene pool. Instead, the gene frequency of any biotech trait that reaches a conventional or organic crop will change in accordance to a Hardy-Weinberg equilibria. If the trait provides a competitive advantage, it could increase. If it doesn’t provide a competitive advantage, it will remain at the same level and if it provides even a slight disadvantage in the wild, it will decrease. Traits like Bt might provide an advantage, but if the crop is otherwise being treated for Lepidoptera larvae, it could easily be masked. Meanwhile, glyphosate resistance would provide and advantage only in crops treated with that herbicide. Next, since the vast majority of farmers purchase seeds instead of harvesting their own, it would only be an issue if the seed crops are crossed with a transgenic trait.

Next, you would need to show that the transgenic traits are a health risk, which numerous studies have indicated is not the case (see the listing in Genera provided at this site).

Finally, this is really only an issue for the zero tolerance camp who really are not concerned about real risks, but are instead using it as s tool to stop biotech crops from being planted.

Monopolization is a potential issue, but it really has nothing to do with biotechnology. It is simply a classic case of corporate maneuvering that the big capitalists of the 19th century would recognize.

Thanks so much for your help

…this term is mostly being used by pro-GM folks, trying to make a fool of the case of their opponents.

That’s because it is a foolish term, as I make fun of above.

When my computer is back on the university network tomorrow, I’ll fetch the paper – thanks for the reference! There appears to be more good stuff than you mentioned in there.

There may be a shift away from referencing this term by anti-GE groups because of how bad it is, but Greenpeace and others are STILL making good use of it.

That’s funny because actually, this term is mostly being used by pro-GM folks, trying to make a fool of the case of their opponents. See Cook et al. (January 2006). “words of mass destruction”: British newspaper coverage of the genetically modified food debate, expert and non-expert reactions. Public Understanding of Science 15 (1), 5-29 : “contrary to our expectation, the phrase “Frankenstein food” is used more often by proponents of GM to characterize the opposition (“so-called Frankenstein foods,” “lurid warnings about Frankenstein foods”) than by the opposition itself”.

In all seriousness, where did you get this information? 50,000 species is a lot… that would make front page news in Science AND Nature, if it were even true.