Big Island *takes first step* in banning GMO's

[james weatherford]

thanks, punareader.

I have read Lotter's papers and other papers published since Lotter's that have quoted Lotter in their lit reviews. My own biology, let alone genetics, is too thin for me to concisely layout the case as you have.

Transgenics is not as simple as pollination, and it would seem, far, far less predictable.

[peteadams]

"Transgenics is not as simple as pollination, and it would seem, far, far less predictable."

That statement seems entirely backwards. Genetic modification involves placing a gene with known characteristics (e.g., what enzyme they produce) into a chromosome. The resulting plant is genetically identical to the parent except for the introduced gene. Pollination involves crossing two parent plants with thousands of genes whose chromosomes can recombine in essentially a random manner. In standard development of improved varieties of plants hundreds or thousands of pollinated crosses are made. Then the large number of offspring are grown to maturity to determine the effect of any individual cross. When hybridizing something like fruit trees this process can take nearly a decade.

The anecdote related by jerry in another thread is relevant here. A plant geneticist stated to him that she knew which genes affect flavor in tomatoes, but could not simply insert those genes into suitable parents to produce better fruit due to the political noise. Rather she had to make the thousands of conventionally pollinated crosses and then grow out and test the thousands of resulting tomato offspring for desirable characteristics, a very slow process. The insertion process is obviously more predictable.

[Richard Ha]

A coalition of farmers got together spontaneously when the first anti GMO bill came up.
It is estimated that 80% of the food calories grown on the Big Island are produced by those farmers. They believe the anti GMO bill 113 is counter productive. It will result in less food self sufficiency for the Big Island, rather than more self sufficiency. This bill needs to be killed and we should start over, this time the right way.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwzq-swl4cI&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DMwzq-swl4cI.

Farmers feel that there should be room for all types of farming--co existence. Bill 113 throws small farmers under the bus because Councilwoman Wille and Ford chose to make law before they studied the situation. They never asked the farmers who produce most of the food grown on the Big Island, what they thought. As written, farmers are now advising their children not to consider farming as a career. This is tragic. A University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) study pointed out how the Ag sector has been declining as a percentage of Hawaii's economy. We need more farmers not less. The folks making the decisions are not farmers. Farmers have common sense.

The farmers believe the objective needs to be a long view of how we will achieve food self sufficiency for future generations. A credible group of stakeholders and experts need to be on a study group that will bring forth credible results. It isn't who is right that is most important. It is what is right that is most important!

[james weatherford]

Pete,

My point is that what happens with transgenics is not a singular, predictable outcome -- the law of unintended consequences is relevant.

As punareader states: "Modern genetics now knows that the old model of one gene makes one protein is no longer valid. Many scientific discoveries over the past decade point out that one gene may participate in production of multiple proteins. And, multiple proteins we now know may also be involved in many simple metabolic processes."

Metabolic processes that were not intended occur.

[Richard Ha]

http://www.civilbeat.com/voices/2013/11/...-bill-113/

Professor James, here is an article by Dr Susan Miyasaka that was in the Honolulu Civil Beat. She is an expert in the field. Look at the comments. Dr Shintaku is another expert in the field. I rely on their expertise more than I do you.

[peteadams]

James, the law of unintended consequences is everywhere, including the anti-GMO crusade. Not exactly a pointed criticism. Complex systems simply do not have a "singular, predictable outcome." As a trained scientist you should know that outcome of complex system interactions are stochastic, that is, the outcomes can be analyzed statistically but not predicted in detail, like the weather. This is true for any type of genetic manipulation, including pollination, so also not a very pointed criticism.

And, yes, one gene, one enzyme is an outdated concept, since at least the 1950's. Hardly a basis for overturning today's vastly more sophisticated understanding of genetics. And..."Metabolic processes that were not intended occur." Ouch! Again, as a trained scientist you should know that any invocation of teleology in natural processes takes you out of the scientific realm into, well, other realms. Dr. Miyasaka's article is excellent and sticks to the science in great detail.

[Rob Tucker]

"other realms"... indeed.

[james weatherford]

Thanks, Pete.

"criticism" is actually not my intent.

[kalakoa]

Everything converges into missing the point.

"Natural selection" evolves at the same relative pace against the cohabitant species. Even if focused ("selective breeding"), evolution is constrained within one order. Transgenics jumps this to approximately two-three orders, at which point you suddenly have "containment risk" (as has already happened with the canola).

We are there, now, brand it "anti-science" if you will, it doesn't matter anymore, at least not the way you think. WOO HOO

[Richard Ha]

Talking about adapting to change. I noticed oil price rising around 2007 and that it caused our farming costs to rise. I went to learn about oil so we could adapt to changing oil price. First thing I learned was that the world had been using twice as much oil as it had been finding for 20-30 years. I subsequently went to five ASPO conferences on the mainland because the subject was so important. I also went to Iceland and the Phillipines to see geothermal in action. I noticed that the folks at the ASPO conferences were several years ahead of the general population about oil supply matters. One recent study by Citi Bank is noteworthy. It says that because of internal usage Saudi Arabia will no longer be exporting oil by 2030. http://www.abo.net/oilportal/topic/view....Id=2000557. There are many other studies that point in that general direction. The question is; how do we dodge the bullet?
Here in Hawaii we rely on oil for more than 70% of our electricity generation. The US mainland uses oil for only 2% of their electricity generation. This means that as oil price rise we become less competitive to mainland manufacturers/ growers who have electricity imbedded in their process. Our situation on the Big Island is that we have the lowest median family income of all the counties and the Puna and Hamakua districts have the lowest on the island. Can we find a solution that will help the rubbah slippah folks while we dodge the bullet? The answer to me is yes. But, we will need to leverage geothermal because it costs half that of oil to generate electricity and we will be over the hot spot for 500,000 to a million years. The other thing we can do is leverage whatever biotech solution comes along. We cannot afford to throw away the opportunity to leverage the Hawaiian sunshine which allows us to grow crops year round. I am talking about things we can actually do. I am not talking about biofuels because to date it is just talk. Imagine if our electricity cost was lower than Oahu's. Maybe, our kids would not have to leave for the mainland to find work. If anything I have learned by going to all the Peak Oil conferences, its that its about costs. Since two thirds of an economy is made up of consumer spending, taking care of the rubbah slippah folks so they have extra money, takes care of all of us. I think fooling around with bill 113 is wasting time and focus.