41 Swedish plant scientists speak out against harmful EU regulation of modern plant genetics

posted in: Science & Society | 32

Quasi-science prevents an environmentally friendly agriculture and forestry

(see original blog post here)

European legislation in the field of genetic engineering is so narrow that it blocks the ability of researchers to take progress from publicly funded basic research on plants through to practical applications. We, 41 scientists who have received funding for basic research on plants from the Swedish Research Council, urge politicians and environmental groups to take the necessary steps to change the relevant legislation so that all available knowledge can be used to develop sustainable agricultural and forest industries.
One of the “Grand Challenges” facing mankind is to find ways to provide food, fuel and clean water to a burgeoning population using agricultural and forestry practices that are environmentally and economically sustainable. Research on plants has made tremendous progress and we now understand well how plants grow, how they protect themselves against disease and environmental stress and what factors limit production in agriculture and forestry. The prerequisite for progress has been basic research, especially studies of plant genes.

The application of this basic knowledge with the goal of making agriculture and forestry sustainable and environmentally friendly has been hindered by European gene technology legislation. These regulations impose very strict controls on the use of plant varieties developed by genetic engineering, while varieties developed via traditional breeding are released with no checks whatsoever. Some environmental groups leading opinion against GM plants criticise the use of genetic engineering by arguing that developments are linked to large multinational companies, that there is uncertainty about the risks, that they cannot be used in an agri-environment without increasing the use of chemicals and that only multinational companies benefit from GM plants. Let us examine these arguments.

Firstly: Genetic modification has revolutionized basic research on plants. For most of us; working in Swedish Universities with grants from the Swedish Research Council for basic research on processes such as photosynthesis, plant growth and biomass allocation, the function and role of plant hormones, the regulation of daily and annual growth rhythms, disease resistance and speciation etc., the use of GM plants is both standard practice and necessary. To draw clear conclusions requires that we are able to work with plants that demonstrate controlled changes in specified properties and such plants are produced more precisely and more quickly by genetic engineering than by traditional plant breeding.
Thousands of GM plants are grown each day in Swedish universities.

Second: There is no scientific uncertainty on the issue of whether GM crops pose more risk to consumers or the environment than conventionally produced crops varieties. The legislation was formulated when there was not yet sufficient data on this but now we know better. 500 independent research groups have received 300 million € from the EU to study the risks. The conclusion in a summary of the results (“A decade of EU-funded GM research”) is that “GMOs are not per se more risky than conventional plant breeding technologies”. We are basic research scientists and we know that the changes produced by genetic engineering are easier to control than those produced in other ways. The legislation argues the opposite, and imposes controls only on GM plants. To put this in other terms; the logic of the current legislation would suggest that only drugs produced by genetic engineering should be evaluated for side effects.
One of the main arguments against GM crops has been that varieties providing for a more sustainable agricultural sector have not yet been launched. The problem is that this is unlikely to happen with the current legislation. While plants resistant to disease – developed in the traditional way – can be grown at once, it takes many years to get a GM variety with the same properties approved for cultivation. The process from basic research – through applied research – to the finished seed marketed by a company is not only time consuming but also very expensive for GM crops: it costs an estimated minimum of 100 million SEK. Publicly funded researchers or small businesses will never have such resources and thus cannot translate advances made in basic research into a product for consumers. Only a few multinational companies are able to take these costs and therefore give the impression of a monopoly.

The regulatory framework is contributing to the lack of competition and the appearance of monopolies; it is not simply patent rights or unsound business practices, as is often claimed.

The environmental movement’s opposition to genetically modified plants runs counter not only to a transition to sustainable agriculture but also, paradoxically, to their “fight against the major chemical companies.” The costs associated with the introduction of GM varieties give these companies a monopoly on a huge market; 10% of the world’s agricultural land is planted with GM crops today. In addition, companies that have as one part of their business the production of agrochemicals get “revenue insurance” from GM varieties because the use of GM crops often leads to a reduced demand for their agricultural chemicals.

Ultra-right religious groups in the U.S. are trying to raise a quasi-scientific version of creationism as an alternative to evolution. In Europe we look at this public debate with amazement, as if it went against the notion that the Earth is round. However, in Europe we have instead much quasi-scientific scaremongering about the risks of GMOs, and this is fuelled by some groups within the environmental movement. The Swedish environmental movement has a proud tradition of working from a sound scientific basis. For many of us, an early involvement in the non-profit environmental movement was an essential element in choosing our current careers; we wanted to contribute to a better world. The environmental movement should view it as a warning that many of us, with sadness, abandoned it when we felt we could no longer belong to organizations that sided with anti-science and populist forces – without subverting our scientific principles. We urge the Swedish environmental movement to unite with science and act as a rational, informed voice to influence their more vocal foreign counterparts.

Changing the genetic engineering legislation is not only a very important issue for Europe. Poorly funded plant breeding researchers and organisations in many third world countries are also being deprived of one of their best tools to provide better local crops because of the obvious risk of being excluded from the GM-hostile European market.

We therefore urge our politicians to change this outdated law. It should be the characteristics of a plant that determines whether it should be checked, not the technology used to produce it. We do not believe that all checks on the cultivation of GM plants should be removed. Varieties that are toxic or could cause allergies or environmental problems must be subjected to governmental control and independent evaluation – but these same controls should apply to ALL varieties, whether they are produced by genetic engineering or not.

Our desire is that the world’s farmers will be offered seeds that have been developed to provide the most energy-and water-efficient and chemical-free agriculture and forestry as possible, but current genetic engineering legislation prevents this.

Stefan Jansson, Catherine Bellini, Christiane Funk, Per Gardeström, Markus Grebe, Vaughan Hurry, Pär Ingvarsson, Edouard Pesquet, Göran Samuelsson, Wolfgang Schröder, Åsa Strand, Hannele Tuominen, Johan Trygg, Xiao-Ru Wang
Umeå University
Inger Andersson, Rishikesh Bhalerao, Peter Bozhkov, Christina Dixelius, Åsa Lankinen, Karin Ljung, Ewa Mellerowicz, Ove Nilsson, Jan Stenlid, Sten Stymne, Björn Sundberg, Eva Sundberg, Sara von Arnold, Gunnar Wingsle,
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Urban Johanson, Henrik Jönsson, Per Kjellbom, Christer Larsson, Carl Troein,
Lund University
Adrian Clarke, Magnus Holm, Bengt Oxelman, Cornelia Spetea Wiklund,
University of Gothenburg
Annelie Carlsbecker, Stenbjörn Styring
Uppsala University
Harry Brumer
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Elzbieta Glaser
Stockholm University
  • Well Dear all scientists,
    appriciated your announcement on the facts of GM cropping etc….
    I would like to know what and how many plants/agric. crops are available in Sweeden.
    All the food consumed in sweeden is GM based crops and or else breeded variteis.

    expedit how about vegetables!
    as per my knowledge though I am not against the GM , but there is no concrete results of its impact on human beings if consumed. But no practicle research made any where in the world.

    secondly all GM crops needs good irrigation conditions. For eg. some cotton farmers benefited through GM cotton(not food crop), when there is sufficient irrigation conditions. But failed in the rainfed areas.

    when failed and or adverse irrigation conditions leads to the pest problem! in tropics the multiplication more eager than than temperate regions. Hence farmer suffers a lot. results more investment and poor returns to the farmer. At this juncture what is your experience. How do you share in it…
    regards

    KBN Rayana, Dir.Gen., IAMMA (india), agrmktg (AT) yahoo.com, iamma (AT) usa.com

  • GM rapeseed (canola) is a non irrigated food crop that is grown extensively in North America and Australia.

    Interesting that so much GM cotton is now grown in India. It is a useful vegetable oil source too.

  • Rape seed needs climatic condition suits to the northern part of india and cold climatic region. Whereas tropical regiondoes not pose to the cold climatic one. Already rape seed is a crop inindia but under irrigation conditions of minimum requirement.

    Even Norther america canola grown as irrigated crop. I am in USA at present and the crop is under irrigated condiions.

    KBN Rayana

  • The Southern Australian canola is rain fed. GM maize also in South Africa and the US is not all irrigated.

  • To prof Rayana statement “there is no concrete results of its impact on human beings if consumed. But no practicle research made any where in the world.”
    During 15 years more than billion of mettrc tunes of GM soybeans have been consumed. Can prof. Rayana indicate any dverse effects?
    There are many radiation mutants on our dishes. How was their safety for humans tested?

  • Eric Baumholder

    KBN Rayana is obviously not a farmer, and obviously not an agronomist. Everyone knows that a given crop of any sort whatsoever needs to be matched to local growing conditions. Everyone knows that there are locations where irrigation is required to make up for a lack of local rainfall.

    And this has nearly nothing to do with the crop’s GM status. I say ‘nearly nothing’, because it has been proven that insect-resistant GM maize is somewhat drought-tolerant, since damage caused by insects makes the crop more susceptible to drought.

    As for a lack of information on the impact of GM crops, KBN Rayana is apparently not able to search the internet for such information.

    There are those who say the lack of information on GMOs damaging humans proves that there is insufficient testing, but they are so far out on the fringe that their imaginations govern their dubious rationality. Give these people a laboratory, equipment, and staff, and they wouldn’t know what to do.

    Likely, they’d blow their budget on press conferences, etc., and talk about capitalism, patents, globalization, multinationals, anti-feminist reductionist science, indigenous wisdom, biodiversity, organic, sustainability, and so on. While displaying no real understanding of any of these issues, nor of what a productive farmer actually does.

    There are many scientists and scholars involved in molecular biology, who believe that educating about these issues would be effective. This is a false ideal. The anti-GM contingent has its dogma, and contradicting them merely stiffens their zeal.

  • Mr Eric Baumholder and David Tribe

    At the out set let me tell U I am a Director-General of IAMMA (inst. of agr. mktg, Mgt & admn), from Hyderabad /India.
    And I am Agricultural sc Bachelor with Honours. The Honours is Agronomy. Besides electives like farm management, econ, engg. etc.
    and Mastrate with major in Ist yr in Soils sc, and ag. chem.
    followed with a Post Grad. cert. in Ag. operations research Management, and also PG dip. in Pub. Admn.
    Ever since I made nearly more than two decades in the Govt-state, central, private, own farming, etc. now in autonomus orgn.
    I nevr deny any new tech. GM basically good. But many micro biologists think what they say is correct. Good let them prove.

    I have plowed my field (own) at the age of 14 yrs and grown Rice under typical irrigation conditions.

    Further in India any university Vice chancelor and any international organisational Directors and or directors does not have a farming experience, as what I have. Because at initiall;y I suppose to manage the 12000ha.of land devided into 10 farms to grow main crop of sugarcane followed with other crops.I am not only incharge of R&D with that time fully equipped lab/s- like soil,plant,chemical,biological, climate & met.observatory, and small museum etc,etc.

    My fellow college mates visited my job appriciated to get a job like that in the Govt. with high responsibilities. Even 20 yrs experienced BSc(ag) too report to me in point of management.

    So what I am telling is correct and with all my experience.
    further I have not widely travelled in Australia. Hence I am not sure of it. As DR DAVID says as rain fed crop may be correct.

    But what eric contents my personal qualification is not correct.
    Further regarding to the north america widely travelled and every farmer of America equiped irrigation facilities, and big farms with sprinkler on wheels. They employ mostly the illegal like maxicans and employ for irrigation at least 6-10 times depends upon crop and climatic conditions.

    Further itis Glad to infarm U that I am one of the innovator after makeing two decade research on Transitional economy in India and Compared with Global countreis experienced in the world including developed countries like Russia and NZ. and innovated found as <<> eg. India.
    Now in America I am considerbly on R&D for economic changes and recessions. Soon I will come out with good result on this too.

    OK with regarding to India I have widely travelled all India. hence most geographic base as I know may not aware. There are certain farmers doing rainfed agriculture bellow 200mm rainfall.

    Any one wants to visit I will take straight to thefarmers and let U know the experience…….KBN Rayana.

  • Ewan R

    Full disclosure (as I’ve not encountered KBN Rayana before) – I’m a Monsanto employee, what I say here is entirely my own opinion and not that of the company.

    KBN Rayana – on irrigation – this isn’t true, there is no reason that a GM crop would need more or less irrigation than its isogenic counterpart, the issue, I believe, arises from the initial release of GM cotton in India – the intial release was, as far as I recall, predominantly into elite germplasm which was highly dependant on the right watering conditions, thus in areas where the product was oversold in terms of insect protection farmers got stung due to lack of water (a fair comparison to the isogenic line is not what caused issues here as one can assume the isogenic line would perform jsut about as badly – although this isn’t necessarily a given as a plant that hasn’t been chewed up by insects will be more intolerant of drought simply because it transpires more (hard to transpire through leaves you don’t have)) – there is no reason however that this equates to GM crops requiring irrigation – they don’t, and while it is true that many major growers in the US do utilize irrigation it is equally true that many don’t – you categorically cannot state blithly that

    every farmer of America equiped irrigation facilities

    As I’ve driven past numerous fields in Illinois and Missouri which have absolutely no irrigation whatsoever yet clearly are used in soy/corn rotation using transgenics (as evidenced by the hybrid name signage along the field borders)

    On the other questions, as far as I understand them

    would like to know what and how many plants/agric. crops are available in Sweeden.

    I’m not sure any crops are available in Sweden for growing (climate and whatnot precludes the main ones) doubtless in terms of food to eat you’d be looking at the same cohort as is available to the rest of Europe.

    as per my knowledge though I am not against the GM , but there is no concrete results of its impact on human beings if consumed. But no practicle research made any where in the world.

    Depends how you define practicle research on food safety – there are abundant studies utilizing animal models which conclude no evidence of adverse effects, and given that GM foods have been on the table for well over a decade now with no adverse effects noted one wonders what you’d suggest as “practicle research” in this area?

    Any one wants to visit I will take straight to thefarmers and let U know the experience

    My own personal anecdata on this – at a recent company wide meeting the bigwigs in charge brought 3 farmers from different markets to talk to us, most impressive of these was a farmer from India who told a story of Bt adoption which brought a lump to the throat – she had farmed cotton prior to the introduction of Bt and was caught in a perpetual cycle of debt, had no modern conveniences, multiple daughters she was concerned about being able to marry off (parapharasing her wording here lest anyone accuse me of sexism or whatnot – this is something which has deep cultural importance to many Indians whether or not it is agreeable on a personal level) – the adoption of Bt cotton allowed her to run her farm for a profit, she was able to get a gas stove, a motorbike (which she was tremendously excited to talk about – personal transportation is a big deal in villages where the bus comes perhaps once or twice a day) purchase more land – and was able to marry off all her daughters and send her son to college. The one rather scary comment which was at odds with what the two Industrial (one USian, one Argentinian) farmers present said was that she had 100% trust in Monsanto – now clearly that’s great to hear from the perspective of how the product (bt cotton)has performed etc, but I’m not convinced anyone should ever trust anyone else 100% – particularly not in Ag where the landscape can change year to year – it’d be a shame (not for Monsanto obviously, but for Indian farmers for sure) if another product was released by a different company and this 100% trust prevented adoption.

  • OrchidGrowinMan

    KBN Rayana,

    “GMO” just indicates (colloquially) that an organism has somehow been manipulated in a lab by methods (tools) more flexible, precise and predictable than other forms of genetic modification (selection, hybridization, mutation); there is, in principle, nothing else in common among organisms so-labeled. If a drought-sensitive plant is given, by genetic modification, the ability to produce a particular protein, then unless that protein is related to drought-tolerance, there is only a small chance of any direct effect on drought-tolerance. If it is deliberately modified (successfully) to be drought-tolerant, then there is no particular reason to expect insect- or disease-tolerance too, except indirectly (by it being healthier under specific conditions).

    There is no test that can generically identify “GMO-ness” as it is not any one thing. Following on this, it does not make sense to refer to the effects on humans of consuming food made from genetically modified organisms; it only makes sense to refer to the effects due to a specific one.

  • Ewan R & orchidG man

    let me address first to ewan
    out of your address what i can say that u are indirectly supporting ur company rather than says outbound from ur company and as a private views.

    secondly once again I say I am not against to GMO.
    But no concreate results….

    obiviousley
    my straight question howmuch did U consume GMO product daily as a food ?

    regarding ill., miss., states where U R visiting… absolutely no irrigation….

    plant needs water to transport the nutrients through catonic and anionic reaction through roots…..
    hence if subsoil moisture is good no need to irrigate it. How does it develop. when there is a good amount of rain fall and when gographically where it is below to MSL (mean sea level),
    in both state it is just MSL and good amount of seasoned rainfall fetches for no irrigation directly.

    concerns about the indian farmer to whome brought to your company…
    I regret to tell U that monsanto who is employed non agric graduates to address the farmers issue/s., initially about a decade back. when I contacted personally the company when it show up in an exhibition stall of Monsanto exhibited at Hyderabad -AP state.. a graduate lady who does not know what is agriculture argues as if she is a scientist.When I wrote a letter to company at Mumbai while requesting some seed to test it under our filed cum testing lab, they fail to give me a reply. there by their association with private seed companies stoped to contact, since they are diff. mentality to show up with right persons.
    hence bringing farmer and addressing at press or some thing is limited to the private business rather than facts.

    Getting a gas stov in India every state become a fashon as politically to make a vote bank the govt. in position equips to the villages. Out bound of motocycle and mopeds become a fashion to a villager now a days and hire purchase become a daily business right from micro finance to commercial banker.

    regarding landscape change year to year ….
    rightly there are changes in the land potential and degrading soil in the developing countries due to ill nutrition with fertilizetrs, and useing of chemicals on farm other than the misuseing of natural resources.

    But at the same time our innovation should diverse to the farm land.

    Now….. orchid Man …

    To make a innovation one should do techniques to test in the lab. Hence GMo did it. But no reason to simply escape no test generically identify GMO ness….

    S we have not tried for it.. so far… since there will be obstruction in commercial level. and barriers will be developed.
    However some of the products lebelled for food consumption. However it was not followed in some of the developing countreis and or most developing countreis.

    next ..thing is that the consumption of soya and its products in india is below 10%. hence no identify made so far in India.However future will take place if once any product induces in india as a direct food consumption. waite and see!

    • Ewan R

      But no concreate results

      What do you mean by this? There are concrete safety results unless you are setting the bar ludicrously high. There are concrete performance results unless you are ignorant of reality.

      my straight question howmuch did U consume GMO product daily as a food

      I consume GMO products every day, of this I have no doubt, as to the quantities consumed I have no idea, but then neither do I have an idea of how much soy, corn or whatever I consume, nor which hybrids I’m eating at any given time (given the choice I’d far rather be eating dekalb hybrid corn, if only because that does my own personal bottom line more good – and preferably smartstax or at least a VT triple pro)

      regarding ill., miss., states where U R visiting… absolutely no irrigation….

      I think I need to clarify somewhat here, absolutely no irrigation is meant as no irrigation facilities that you state all American farmers have – this isn’t the case, vast swathes of corn and soy in the midwest do perfectly fine rainfed (this year we suffered a prolonged drought right through the reproductive stages of both crops which no doubt will have hit yields somewhat, yet the farms I drive by (which is only a handful most days, and a good 20 mile stretch of road lined with farms on days I go out to the research farm on others) do not utilize irrigation facilities (as is obvious from the distress of the plants this year – irrigated plots are amazingly obvious under such stress) therefore your statement remains false – your description of where water comes from here is no use to anyone – you misrepresented US agriculture by flatly stating

      every farmer of America equiped irrigation facilities

      Which is a rather poor show for a self stated expert in agriculture.

      I’m not sure what your point is around the farmer who spoke to us, are you suggesting she is a liar, or that the company put an actress up infront of the audience to bamboozle us? I’d wonder then why there were two other farmers on stage, one of whom is very well known amongst the US ag community as a pioneer of modern techniques and the other whom operates thousands of hectares in argentina – and both of whom were more than willing to level pretty heavy criticism on the company alongside praise for the things that are being done right – neither of these guys stated 100% trust.

      If however we want to discuss the facts of Indian farmer benefits from the adoption of GM cotton all one need do is address the abundant scientific literature – all of which demonstrates large increases in income partnered with decreases in insecticide use. I’m sure the time not spent making your website even remotely informative was spent doing something along these lines.

      regarding landscape change year to year

      Sorry, I was being metaphorical here, by shifting landscape I was more referring to fluctuations in commodity pricing, improved varieties being released, pricing structure changes and whatnot – terminology I would have presumed at least relatively familiar to anyone with a passing interest in agricultural economics.

      But no reason to simply escape no test generically identify GMO ness….

      Other than as OGM has pointed out this is an absolutely ridiculous thing to go out and try to test for. There can be no one stop generic test for “GMO ness”, OGM spells out exactly why – you can develop tests for any individual trait, but a single generic test would only be proposed by someone with not even a base understanding of genetic modification – likewise OGM is absolutely correct to state that it would be silly to expect there to be generic effects simply down to something being GMO – each individual inserted gene (some might argue each instance of an inserted gene, which may have some merit, but I’m not entirely convinced) could be different (although frankly I’d expect 99%+ to have utterly no effect whatsoever)

  • OrchidGrowinMan

    Ewan,

    Don’t forget Anastasia’s project: copying a high-activity promoter region of DNA from one place in the maize genome to another to up-regulate something-or-other that promotes iron sequestration: it’s not even a gene being modified, nor is any other species’ DNA present, but still the result is a “GMO.” (If I have erred in the descriptionof Anastasia’s work, it is my own error.)

    Also, Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells: it’s not even the genome that is modified, but rather the metagenome.

    Finally, let me note that there CAN be side-effect to genetic manipulation, however it is accomplished. Mucking-up the basic metabolic machinery or inducing sufficient production of a metabolite that has a significant resource cost would be expected to affect fitness and vigour, but that’s one reason why so much testing is needed; if I cross two strains and the progeny perform poorly, I probably have failed to make the desired improvement.

    • You have correctly defined part of my research 🙂
      There are a lot of improvements that could be made using a crop’s own genes but attached to a different promoter. In my case, I used a gene for an iron containing protein that is found in very low concentrations in the roots of maize plants. The gene was pasted into a construct that included the promoter from a protein that is abundantly expressed in maize seeds. We were able to achieve stable transformation of maize that expressed the iron binding protein in reasonably high amounts in the seeds – high enough to show a significant effect in iron bioavailability experiments.
      That reminds me, I need to get my butt back to work to get that paper finally published so I can show you more about it!!!

      • Ewan R

        Anastasia – how did that impact yield? (I’m generally of the opinion that if you mess with seed composition overly much you’re probably taking yield with it, I would however be very happy to be utterly wrong (and also dunno how this effects stuff grown under really poor agronomic conditions which is prob where fortified corn would be needed))

        (or just get published so I can read all about it =p)

  • Eric Baumholder

    OrchidGrowinMan, Ewan R,

    The observation regarding ‘what is a GMO’ is interesting and thought-provoking.

    In general, a ‘GMO’ is an organism that has been intentionally changed at the molecular level by a human, or a group of humans.

    More specifically, a GMO is an organism that has been changed at the molecular level by a human, or a group of humans, that does not prompt protests by NGOs.

    Even more specifically, everything produced by Monsanto is like, you know, dudez, totally GMO regardless. Gotta wonder what Syngenta is paying to NGOs to keep them away, Syngenta is positioned to kick Monsanto butt.

    Yes, it is about the money.

    • Jonathan

      “a ‘GMO’ is an organism that has been intentionally changed at the molecular level by a human, or a group of humans”

      Chemical and radiation mutagenesis?

      (Playing devil’s advocate here)

      Jonathan

      • Eric Baumholder

        Jonathan,

        The use of chemicals or radiation to effect changes at the molecular level is indeed interesting. Those who employ such methods are prone to claim that the methods “mimic nature”.

        Nature does random things.

        The less random things are, and the more they are governed by human understanding, using precise methods that deliver intended results, the more they become ‘GMO’.

        When crops become the product of humans, they mystically become imbued with everything from conspiracy to greed, and every failure of human nature in between. “Genetically altered bullies crowding out biodiversity”, as F. Chapela would put it.

  • OrchidGrowinMan

    Ewan,

    Spot-On.

    Pornography, Too-Spicy (Too Bland), Squickiness of Gayness, Beauty, and many other definitions are also subjective, based on emotion, dogma, individual perceptual psychology or cynical mendacity. Science is not involved.

    I am familiar with a community of plant hobbyists who refer to themselves as growers/collectors of “caudiciforms” (other people refer to them as “BCPs” [Beets, Carrots, Potatoes]). The functional definition of “caudiciform” is “something that a caudiciform-grower grows.” (They usually attach themselves to a local “cactus and succulent” club; “succulent” has a similarly squishy definition [as does “bulb” as in “Indigenous Bulb Association of South Africa”: the working definition is “Petalloid Geophyte,” but that is extended to include some epiphytes and non-petalloid species….])
    http://www.safricanbulbs.org.za/

    But back to the general theme of the sort of research that is being impeded, did you see this?
    http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nbt.1988.html

  • Evan R

    of course U are indirectly helping to support of ur company rather than reaching the fact results.

    With regarding to the states U work/vist of IL, Mis., states there is good amount of rainfall one hand and another hand they are just to the MSL(mean sea level in aLLEVATION). tHAT RESULTS THE SUBSOIL WATER IS GOOD . hence the plant will take the nutrients through cataionic and anaionic action where in nutrition will transport through the water taken by the root of plant. Hence water is necessary either as irrigated or through rain. The retention capacity of moisture dependant upon the soil texture and structure and organic matter content. hence to note the same and for observation.

    comeing to the point of consumeing GMO products>>> my straight question to U How much did U consumed GM food so far ?

    with regarding to the bringing the farmers from India. and argentina. I donot know the Argentina famers but I know it was quite failed country during its ttransitional economy. , though backed with 61% of its agric exports.
    About the india… gaining a GAS stove ..is a political exihibition to make a vote bank. For every thach house one TV, one Electric connection-free, Gas Stove free,. Now when Equipped all every one wants either moped or motorbike… No surprise.
    That is not from the GM crop or cotton. Besides this a lot sof hire purchase either by micro finance or commercial bankers.

    Ur Monsanto>>> U C when one decade nearly back there is exhibition conducted by Govt., in Hyderabad, AP on AGRICULTURE
    WHERE in Monsanto also participated in that. When I want to meet ur marketing manager not available but one lady who does not know about farmer problems and who argues vague way was addressing and it is argueing.
    Furtehr at that time I wrote aletter to Ur Mumbai office to send some seed to enable to test it under field cum lab conditions to make result. there is no response from your office.we tried to contact the US office. They directed to Mumbaioffice.

    hence U can understnad where we are….OK

  • Jarslov D

    Ur clain is that ther much food is consumed from years… OK how much did U consumed ?

    What research and who carreied in what university & or Govt. Dept?

    expedit…..

    with regatrding radiation mutant ….
    this is one of the aspect.. accepted… Radiation of evern solar is basically used for phytosynthesis.. the system is safe and what we are useing. keeping a basic principle, tried to induced radiation for three major objectives.. like draught resistant /pest resistant and high yiled purpose. But so far at international including IAEA too count not comeout of good crop for any individual region. still research is on. When I did a course on radiation tech, application of Radio isotopes applid on Agric, & food, what I come to concluded my self that extent of its use is very limited. However this tech, is useful to detect and analyse purpose of some of the nutrients and its impact.

    Hence note the same.

  • once again to Evan

    Some time at least accept facts… U see there is a draught in your area under which crop is suffered. why farmer did not much bothered in the encountering of it. just because it is fully insured. and backed with govt. assured help of crop failures etc.

    The developing countries like india does not have cash back schemes. it provides certain subsidy on agro inputs including irrigation too for small and marginal farmers.

    But they are not affortable. Also there are some community irrigation schemes etc., wherein no cooperation failed in 90% areas. Farmer of india small or big think is independent man and his farm. Hence cooperation fails when shareing comes to wrok out due to who is big and small and how to devide it..

    Howver if U quote that the farmer did not equiped .. USDA will come to the picture how much prompting on agriculture front and agriculture outlook for each year.

    However if so much research or results are available why EU take this kind of decession?
    it is not a single polity party. or one govt. it is a group of govts.,.. any answer for this…

    • Ewan R

      Some time at least accept facts

      Where am I not accepting facts? You’re the guy claiming that every farmer in the US has irrigation facilities. This is, as I’ve pointed out, the opposite of a fact.

      why farmer did not much bothered in the encountering of it

      Because in the midwest a drought of the severity, length, and timing as that we’ve just seen is so spectacularly rare as to make paying for and maintaining an irrigation system an act of pointlessness (thus far, perhaps in coming decades this will be the norm, in which case I would expect to see more irrigation in the area, you’d still be telling absolute lies when stating that all US farmers operate with irrigation systems though) – when you can generally raise 160+ Bu/Ac corn on rain alone why kill your profits by installing and maintaining irrigation systems? The rest of your hand waving about the USDA is either unintelligible (I’ve tried to be forgiving on this front but vast tracts of what you say have to be ignored because I cannot for a moment fathom what the hell you are trying to say)

      On the EU, alas I hear the sound of shifiting goalposts – your credibility fast wanes (I do so hate it that Eric is so frequently correct about folk who have the possibility of not being cranks, but alas he seems to be on the ball) – perhaps later today I’ll have the energy to take a stab.

  • to Ewan R
    U have forgottn what is agriculture, and know only counter argue.
    we have discussed here where no sufficient irrigation conditions, that also include the rainfall. Further one should talk if the rain fall is arround and below the min. 200 -250 mm/pa. That is in india where farmers takes farming of BT crop.

    C the world in developing countries in the tropics. and learn to how to shape it. I too taken last six months farming. no crises so far.

    hence note the same. since I have lot of things to do , wherein I cannot waste the time like this….

    what I say only on the practicle front. not theritical and or any once favour.

    thats it…..

    • Ewan R

      Yes, I’ve forgotten what agriculture is because I can spend 3 minutes while feeding my son a banana in the morning to counter your ridiculous claims. That must be it.

      I hope my boss doesn’t find out that I’ve forgotten what agriculture is, given that without that understanding my job would be rather hard to do.

      we have discussed here where no sufficient irrigation conditions

      We have?

      Your statements on the matter have been

      secondly all GM crops needs good irrigation conditions

      and

      every farmer of America equiped irrigation facilities

      Nowhere do you limit this to only areas under severe drought stress.

      That is in india where farmers takes farming of BT crop.

      This’d be the same India which has vastly increased cotton output, cotton yields, income per farm and reduced insecticide use on cotton fields right? Predominantly due to the adoption of Bt hybrids.

      since I have lot of things to do , wherein I cannot waste the time like this

      Good consistency – you make a comment one day which opens up a whole other can of worms worthy of near endless discussion (why the EU doesn’t do GM crops to any great extent) and the next day claim you don’t have time. Perhaps if you dont have time you shouldn’t have started spouting nonsense in the first place, then everyone would have their 15 minutes back.

  • Eric Baumholder

    Ewan,

    The EU doesn’t need GM crops. With ca. 60 percent of all tax revenues collected in arguably the world’s most prosperous economy being diverted to farm subsidies, the farmers could all grow black tulips and live just fine.

    And consider France’s position. Due to the subsidies involved, France produces about twice as much wine as it can sell on the open market. The result: the wine is pumped into freighters and sent, primarily to the US, for conversion into ethanol for car and truck fuel.

    As for KBN Rayana, he’s swallowed the Green Kool-Aid, which tends to be an irreversible process.

  • Ewan

    let me tell U it is nothing to do your family or your son. feed or seed here only onething I once again tell U that U know countering with no facts.

    of your job left to ur company and or HR dept/ your boss.
    I know and seen in India specifically that they only employ who can argue with no knowledge of agriculture. that is what I experenced… now no need to teach me in this regard.

    comeing to my valuable time.. if there is any valuable suggestions we can discuss. but no use of it…

    regarding to india about the GM crop or cotton.. when failed with GM related the companies suied and demarages collected and paid to the farmers. in some cases the farmers raided shops and even burnt out… etc.. however it is still question of stress condition where moisture regiems not good.
    However the matter between the state govts, vs central govts vs seed company/s vs farmers… hence still picture is bleek

    With regarding to the Eric B
    he should know the facts out side the Air condition chambers, and on field with diff. countries. however le him struggle if sucess .. any thing….

    however I would like to tell U if facts with the research publication ..kindly extend… then I will be the first person to represent the govt./s to implement it. I know how to put it right way to the govt./s any where on the globe.

    Still india front if needed articles U can visit the ag bio world wherein ag bioview news letter quotes world experiences inclduing India on GM tech.

    OK….OK

  • To Ewan and Eric B

    if U open the CGIAR web site U can C an article as it …….

    Can India Teach Europe how to Deal with Drought? read it & if U want any polished result than ICRISAT quote I am here to make more clear picture on this.

    Because initially it is project carried by us as Farmer farm to lab and vice versa. but we did not went up for any propoganda and or advertisement. OK

    OK

  • Ewan R

    I once again tell U that U know countering with no facts.

    Fact: Not all farmers in the US have irrigation systems.

    Lie: every farmer of America equiped irrigation facilities

    10 points to anyone who can connect the name of the person providing each of these tidbits.

    regarding to india

    50-150% increases in yield, income. Reductions in insecticide use. On average. Across the whole nation. Fact. Quit relying on outliers and data which is not directly related to GMOs to make half points.

    know how to put it right way to the govt./s any where on the globe.

    Citation needed. I see no reason to view you as anything other than a crank at the moment, you’re spouting nonsense, you link to a website that looks like a geriatric cat in late stage kidney failure vomited it up, and a brief search online for any impact you’ve had on agriculture links to nothing more than dead links, websites which haven’t been changed since 2004 and grandiose statements which have you claiming to be expert in practically every aspect of agriculture.

    I know and seen in India specifically that they only employ who can argue with no knowledge of agriculture. that is what I experenced

    So your experience with a couple of people in India is enough to make the rather brash assertion that one of the most succesful ag companies on the globe only employs those with no knowledge of agriculture. I’ll have to remember that next time I’m in a meeting with folks considered to be leading global experts in their field with >30 years tenured experience at top crop research institutions.

  • Charles M. Rader

    It’s rather difficult to discuss anything with Mr./prof Rayana because his English is so poor. For example, I am pretty sure that he is using the word “irrigate” to mean any way of providing a crop with water, including rainfall.

  • Mr charles M Rader

    with your name U R in Rader …but looks as Radar….hence it is difficulty to understand. Further there are some terror group in the name of hackers of computer will also attack my communications., Hence U have to pity such type of people.

    However leave radar … thing what is irrigation and to its ultimate levels…

    • Ewan R

      My apologies to all for feeding the troll. I would not take it as anything other than correct editorial policy to clean out all of my comments to our friend with the name not unlike a radio station (and therefore not to be trusted, as radios um, come through on oddly wired dental work, or something)

  • Ewan

    Accept or not fact is fact……

    argue counter argue is a common but here about GM and its facts so far on cross roads.

    Hence not only U , but many donot accept who full support of GM. Again I am not against to GM….

    if any reference with facts of carried research with published papers can give U some evidance. if not have forget to argue.

    equipped irrigation facilities in USA is correct. thats it. If farmer use it or no use it …I am not bothering….

    Further some time business have no ethics.. as what it is common practice in India.. similarly some of the other country/s.

    mistakes are part of their daily work and to counter simply they argue without evidance.so as Ur company as I feel.

    thats it!