Victorian premier John Brumby extolled the virtues of drought-tolerant GM wheat under development in Australia at an international biotechnology conference in the U.S., explicitly linking the new varieties and their potential to help combat climate change.
“Drought-tolerant wheat developed in Victoria is returning yields up to 20 per cent higher than non-GM control crops, Premier of Victoria John Brumby announced today at BIO 2008 in San Diego, California:”
VICTORIAN DROUGHT-TOLERANT WHEAT YIELDS UP 20 PER CENT
A few climate-change chickens may be coming home to roost. As people become concerned about global warming, a concern promoted by activist groups themselves, it seems to be having the unintended consequence of allowing policy makers and the public to see GM crops as being more acceptable if they might “help”.
Drought tolerance, salt tolerance and yield-increasing GM traits may start to be seen less unfavourably, even though they are a producer benefit not a consumer benefit, since they’ll at least be better for the environment and this climate change issue that people keep hearing about.
Greenpeace for example, seem to have less credibility now when they call a drought-tolerant, higher-yielding wheat variety “unsustainable” as they did on ABC radio on Friday (although not repeated in their press release, below).
Greenpeace: Genetically engineered wheat not the solution to drought
PSC, After posting I realised my comments could interpreted as you have done. My apologies for not being clearer. To correct, I understand that amimo acids are created by plants and are of a limited number of types. From amino acids proteins are created etc. As I said above, my knowledge of this field is basic.
I also posted in reponse to Anne mentioning some rare amino acids that there are checks and balances to discourage development of toxic food. Like regulations and ambulance-chasing lawyers.
I was disappointed that my own State, SA, has extended the morotorium on GM crops.
Note: I agree with the post, and think lots of GM crops in Victoria would be great.
However this comment:
"Further, regarding genes and genetic engineering: I have always understood that genes are strings of amino acids called proteins. There are only a limited number of these, and they are are the building blocks of all life on earth, and found throughout the biosphere. Proteins are created by plants, which are broken down during animal digestion into individual amino acids, to be used by the body. As I understand it, GM technology is a method of rearraging existing genes (strings of amino acids) It does not create alien amino acids, so cannot possibly be of any threat to human health."
is wrong on a number of levels. First "there are only a limited number of genes"; there are, but there's no reason to suppose that that finite number might not be very large (much larger than the number of particles in the universe say). No-one knows how big the number is. Second proteins are created by all living things, not just plants. Third "rearrangement of amino acids" can make novel proteins. This is often exactly what we want; for instance novel insulin analogues with better binding properties. Fourth GM could easily be a threat to human health if someone did something daft with it, e.g. put a cyanide gene in a broccoli, and tried to flog it to the public. The truth is that most people are not (that) daft, and in any event there's a (necessary) regulatory framework in place to stop that kind of thing.
Spot on Aaron. And right now, a bit flood resistant wheat and corn, would help tide us over! http://business.smh.com.au/perfect-storm-in-grains-market-20080622-2uxa.html
It costs about US$200 million to put just one variety of GM seed on the market, and that's merely to pass the testing required to satisfy regulatory authorities.
Meanwhile, putting out seed mutated by radiation or chemicals costs about as much as conventional breeding, because regulators don't care.
Regulators don't care, because activists don't care.
Perceptive, informed people will immediately notice what's wrong with this picture.
Apologies Darren. We are on the same page. I'd have to say the hyperinflating costs of producing food are scary to say the least (even though I own Incitec Pivot shares).
Johnathon Wilkes - "I take it speculating in oil futures right now, is helping the economy and people too?"
Damn straight speculators are helping you and society as a whole. Left in your cheap oil trance you'd have consumed to the barrels ran dry only to be left with bare knuckles to nut the future out. The market signals being sent out are amplified with speculators because thats what you numbskulls need. Market signals that crucify your ignorance. Cheap oil is gone. Get the infrastructure built you are going to need to function without cheap black gold while there still is comparitively abundant reserves left (albeit expesnive). At least there is oil still left to fuel whatever work we need to do to get to a new fossil fuel free economy, even though I doubt with 6.5 billion comparatively spoilt brats that transition will be bonding for the global community. A suggestion. How about you think before you type. I've got no patience for the ideologically bereft.
Speculators deliver the message in the extremes needed to change the world for the better. I'm more than happy to jump on board that bandwagon to profit from ignorance and drive sustainable change.