Comments on: The GE crop Battlefield http://www.biofortified.org/2009/09/the-ge-crop-battlefield/ Stronger plants, stronger science, and stronger communication. Wed, 08 Feb 2012 17:17:15 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Alex http://www.biofortified.org/2009/09/the-ge-crop-battlefield/#comment-1320 Alex Tue, 10 Nov 2009 02:59:05 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=455#comment-1320 want to play Battlefield :[ want to play Battlefield :[

]]> By: Anastasia http://www.biofortified.org/2009/09/the-ge-crop-battlefield/#comment-889 Anastasia Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:36:00 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=455#comment-889 I would add that they should also test a variety of non-GM controls. What we should be looking for is whether or not a GM variety falls within "natural" variability found in commonly used varieties of the crop species. I would add that they should also test a variety of non-GM controls. What we should be looking for is whether or not a GM variety falls within “natural” variability found in commonly used varieties of the crop species.

]]> By: Karl Haro von Mogel http://www.biofortified.org/2009/09/the-ge-crop-battlefield/#comment-805 Karl Haro von Mogel Sun, 06 Sep 2009 15:52:37 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=455#comment-805 All scientists want some attention for their work, and I often see University press releases that go a little farther in their pronouncements than the actual research does. But you may be right that they made statements in interviews about how far-reaching the paper is, without realizing its shortcomings. I'm simply surprised that they didn't present any evidence that the lignin was normalized. And considering that the ground up the pollen (And anther sacs, apparently) what prevented them from measuring the lignin content, and adding powdered lignin to normalize it? Not to pick on Ecologists, but there is a sizable number of scientists that don't work in plant genetics that assume that there really isn't much of a difference between one variety and the next. There are tons of differences in the content of different vitamins, minerals, matbolites and other compounds between different varieties of corn, for instance. Their assumption that the only meaningful difference between the two non-isoline corn pollens is troublesome. A basic necessity of scientific research is proper controls, so that you know that your result is due to the single difference you are trying to study (Bt in this case). Yet, I see plenty of feeding studies finding differences between a GE and non-GE food, where they just picked any ol' 'wild type' as a control. And guess what, there were differences! But without comparing isolgenic lines, that differ only by the presence or absence of the transgene, they cannot draw any conclusions about what caused those differences. All scientists want some attention for their work, and I often see University press releases that go a little farther in their pronouncements than the actual research does. But you may be right that they made statements in interviews about how far-reaching the paper is, without realizing its shortcomings. I’m simply surprised that they didn’t present any evidence that the lignin was normalized. And considering that the ground up the pollen (And anther sacs, apparently) what prevented them from measuring the lignin content, and adding powdered lignin to normalize it?

Not to pick on Ecologists, but there is a sizable number of scientists that don’t work in plant genetics that assume that there really isn’t much of a difference between one variety and the next. There are tons of differences in the content of different vitamins, minerals, matbolites and other compounds between different varieties of corn, for instance. Their assumption that the only meaningful difference between the two non-isoline corn pollens is troublesome. A basic necessity of scientific research is proper controls, so that you know that your result is due to the single difference you are trying to study (Bt in this case). Yet, I see plenty of feeding studies finding differences between a GE and non-GE food, where they just picked any ol’ ‘wild type’ as a control. And guess what, there were differences!

But without comparing isolgenic lines, that differ only by the presence or absence of the transgene, they cannot draw any conclusions about what caused those differences.

]]> By: Rod Herman http://www.biofortified.org/2009/09/the-ge-crop-battlefield/#comment-804 Rod Herman Sun, 06 Sep 2009 11:10:37 +0000 http://www.biofortified.org/?p=455#comment-804 One seeming omition in the recent commentary, is the fact that Dr. Rosi-Marshall and co-authors issued several press-releases anouncing their paper and its over-reaching conclusions (now admitted by the authors to be unfortunate). I may be mistaken, but this seems to be a tactic designed to get attention. The commentary states that Dr. Rosi-Marshall and co-authors were surprised by the attention (both positive and negative) that they received in response to their paper. However, these press-release seem to have been aimed to get attention. There were critical flaws in their study. The most serious (in my opinion) was the use of a genetically unrelated control (in an attempt to normalize lignin content). Corn contains thousands of compounds in addition to lignin, and as ecologists, the authors should know that different varieties of any crop can vary dramatically and affect any animal that is fed soly on them. It seems predictable that highly publicized research with critical flaws will get criticised publically. Remember cold fusion? One seeming omition in the recent commentary, is the fact that Dr. Rosi-Marshall and co-authors issued several press-releases anouncing their paper and its over-reaching conclusions (now admitted by the authors to be unfortunate). I may be mistaken, but this seems to be a tactic designed to get attention. The commentary states that Dr. Rosi-Marshall and co-authors were surprised by the attention (both positive and negative) that they received in response to their paper. However, these press-release seem to have been aimed to get attention. There were critical flaws in their study. The most serious (in my opinion) was the use of a genetically unrelated control (in an attempt to normalize lignin content). Corn contains thousands of compounds in addition to lignin, and as ecologists, the authors should know that different varieties of any crop can vary dramatically and affect any animal that is fed soly on them. It seems predictable that highly publicized research with critical flaws will get criticised publically. Remember cold fusion?

]]>