Pests adapting to genetically modified crops - anyone surprised?

This report Trouble On the Horizon for Genetically Modified Crops? in ScienceDaily (June 20, 2012), my quick window to what is happening in the world of science, is a report on the way "pests" are adapting to genetically modified crops. The specific work relates to toxins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis ...

To decrease sprays of broad-spectrum insecticides, which can harm animals other than the target pests, cotton and corn have been genetically engineered to produce toxins derived from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.

... to control pests. But then ...

Over time, scientists have learned, initially rare genetic mutations that confer resistance to Bt toxins are becoming more common as a growing number of pest populations adapt to Bt crops.

Bruce Tabashnik, who is the head of the department of entomology at the University of Arizona College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, says this is an early warning to farmers and throws some doubt on the assumption about whether what what they learn from developing lab-selected resistance, will apply equally in the field.

So I wonder if this means that at least to some extent, the field becomes the lab - and, are we surprised?

They found some resistance-conferring mutations in the field were the same as in lab-reared pests, but some others were strikingly different.

Now it is these different ones that concern me. Where will this lead? And when will we need to genetically modify genetically modified crops to ...

stay ahead of the game

... as he says. Anyone else concerned? Are we not just educating "pests" and making them more smart and versatile. Can we really stay ahead of Nature?

No, we cant, but it's not nature we're trying to stay ahead off, we started this race ourselves, nature is just responding.

The best I can hope for is 65 at this point.

They spent all our SS money, so logically they want us dead by retirement age,

reply to post by KenArten


No, nobody with two functioning brain cells is surprised at this. And neither are the proponents of this nonsense... they may say they are, but if that is true they are too stupid to have the kind of power and influence they have.

GMO crops are intended for one purpose and one purpose only: To increase short term profits of AgriBusiness. Any other excuse given is just that... a BS excuse.

This is just the Wall St. boyz and gurlz again only in a different arena... these mooks are playing with fire and we (the collective WE) are the tinder. The bill is coming due, and will be collected here pretty soon.

S&F

But the ball game rules have been changed. Instead of the farmer simply planting more of his crop to allow for the raveges of nature (elements and insects and market conditions), middle man has shoe-horned himself into place. This is the developer of "better" strains of the farmer's crop.

It should be no surprise to anyone, even lay people that insects adapt to efforts to eradicate them. We see it in every aspect of living creatures from the smallest virus to thinking creatures.

when you insert yourself into these various but commonly defined areas, you are assured that you have an on-going, evolving market because nature operates that way and always will. Monsanto is not going away anytime near soon.

The most valuable thing taught to me when young is that if something seems too good to be true, look closer.

Wish all those farmers had looked closer. Big fixes are never easy.

i'm hoping mother earth takes down the like of monsanto, because our elected officials sure as heck aren't getting it done. monsanto and the rest of the GMO companies are the largest blight the world has ever seen and hopefully the earth can make them go away.

Originally posted by chasingbrahman
The most valuable thing taught to me when young is that if something seems too good to be true, look closer.

Wish all those farmers had looked closer. Big fixes are never easy.

The problem here is that Monsento often with governmental help both here and abroad is hardly restrained and allowed to have its way with a extremely vital aspect of human existence. This situation is hardly different than the careless fiddling around with nuclear energy. The constant possibility is these fields of dabbling can get out of control.

Originally posted by Romekje
No, we cant, but it's not nature we're trying to stay ahead off, we started this race ourselves, nature is just responding.

You are quite right Romekje. Perhaps better said that we cannot beat Nature. I remember a Hindu wise man being asked a question on TV about whether or not we are destroying our planet. He just laughed a bit and said in response

My friend, the Earth will destroy man long before man can destroy Earth

Agreed. In effect it is really suicide on man's part.

reply to post by Open_Minded Skeptic

these mooks are playing with fire and we (the collective WE) are the tinder. The bill is coming due, and will be collected here pretty soon.

Open_Minded Skeptic, you have this right. That old saying about the Earth having sufficient for all man's needs, but not for all his greeds, is so true. What is it that makes some think that they can withdraw more from the Earth Bank that they ever deposited, or earned? And then to speculate against its assets as well, investing in Futures with a guaranteed return that we cannot afford.

Man playing god is a great way to display his learning, but perhaps also exposes his ignorance. Problem is this ignorance only shows to most much later when all the damage is done. When will "the collective" and "inclusive we" all learn? Seems some of the We make awful decisions on behalf of the rest.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
The best I can hope for is 65 at this point.

They spent all our SS money, so logically they want us dead by retirement age,

and understandably so, the cake is being divided into far too small slices for some. Space on Earth is also getting in short supply.
Did you also note who has a huge hand in this all?

He emphasized the importance of the ongoing collaboration for addressing resistance to Bt crops, which is a major issue in China.

and most probably gets exported at rock-bottom prices. We know what that means for quality.

I dont understand the issue here. Most of the time, crops are tinkered with to make life easier for farmers. I mean lets take this case for example. The cotton was modified to cut down on the spraying of insecticides. Insecticides are extremely harmful to the environment So tinker, new crop with built in defense. Naturally the insects will adjust, such is nature. All that means is back to the drawing board to find a new way to protect the crops. Why is this an issue?

reply to post by Aliensun

when you insert yourself into these various but commonly defined areas, you are assured that you have an on-going, evolving market because nature operates that way and always will

This is certainly self-perpetuation business. It makes one wonder about motives of anything that earns big $$$$ for the "inventor". Is there any real concern for man in any of these endeavours?

reply to post by chasingbrahman

if something seems too good to be true, look closer.

Do at haste, repent at leisure.

Just proof that evolution overpowers the corporation on the smallest scale visible.

Not surprised at all.

Originally posted by acmpnsfal
I dont understand the issue here. Most of the time, crops are tinkered with to make life easier for farmers. I mean lets take this case for example. The cotton was modified to cut down on the spraying of insecticides. Insecticides are extremely harmful to the environment So tinker, new crop with built in defense. Naturally the insects will adjust, such is nature. All that means is back to the drawing board to find a new way to protect the crops. Why is this an issue?

Try this
It took billions of years for life on Earth to find its present (or at least its recent) equilibrium. And then we hope we can out-think Nature in a year or two? There is already some uncertainty about how "safe" Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin is for useful insects as this report highlights.
Lethal Effects of Genetically Modified Bt Toxin Confirmed On Young Ladybird Larvae

These ladybird larvae are typical 'non-target' environmental goods which are not supposed to be harmed

then after this claim, the debate seems to just get political.

The debate extends into the human realm as well. From GMWATCH.
Bt toxin found in human blood is not harmless

Bt toxin produced in GM crops is not the same as the natural Bt toxin. The process of genetic engineering changes it (as is admitted even by the pro-GM website GMO Safety). And testing is not actually performed on the Bt toxin extracted from GM plants, which would be the scientific way, as it is claimed that it is too expensive to isolate. Instead, testing is done on Bt toxin isolated from E. coli bacteria (as is the norm for GM risk assessments). The protein would be different from that present in the actual GM crop.

I believe this. Those with vested interests will always colour the information supplied to suit their own agendas. I guess that is what we all do in our own spheres. But there are thankfully also those who prod and poke to try to keep things honest. Is that not what we too are doing here on ATS?

reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

as already stated ...

the Earth will destroy man long before man can destroy Earth

but we individually are indeed in no position to change anything. At least we have a say through forums like this one.