Showing posts with label Biotech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biotech. Show all posts

Saturday, June 24, 2006

Resistance Evolution to Bt Crops

Resistance Evolution to Bt Crops: Predispersal Mating of European Corn Borers



Over the past decade, the high-dose refuge (HDR) strategy, aimed at delaying the evolution of pest resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxins produced by transgenic crops, became mandatory in the United States and is being discussed for Europe. However, precopulatory dispersal and the mating rate between resident and immigrant individuals, two features influencing the efficiency of this strategy, have seldom been quantified in pests targeted by these toxins. We combined mark-recapture and biogeochemical marking over three breeding seasons to quantify these features directly in natural populations of Ostrinia nubilalis, a major lepidopteran corn pest. At the local scale, resident females mated regardless of males having dispersed beforehand or not, as assumed in the HDR strategy. Accordingly, 0–67% of resident females mating before dispersal did so with resident males, this percentage depending on the local proportion of resident males (0% to 67.2%). However, resident males rarely mated with immigrant females (which mostly arrived mated), the fraction of females mating before dispersal was variable and sometimes substantial (4.8% to 56.8%), and there was no evidence for male premating dispersal being higher. Hence, O. nubilalis probably mates at a more restricted spatial scale than previously assumed, a feature that may decrease the efficiency of the HDR strategy under certain circumstances, depending for example on crop rotation practices.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

No consensus yet on safety of GM foods

No consensus yet on safety of GM foods: "IN HER reply to a letter about the labelling of genetically modified (GM) foods, Ms Airani Ramli of the Genetic Modification Advisory Committee stated that 'the lack of international consensus refers to labelling of GM foods and not safety of GM foods' (ST, June 5).
She seems to suggest that there is consensus on the safety of GM foods. This is not so. There is continuing debate about the safety of GM foods. A number of scientists continue to express concern.
Ms Ramli herself states that 'so far, there has been no conclusive scientific evidence that GM foods now in the market are unsafe'.
'No conclusive evidence' means that, either way, scientists do not know for sure. Scientists do not know that GM foods are definitely unsafe; neither do they know that GM foods are definitely safe.
Moreover, Ms Ramli's discussion about the difficulties of detection is largely irrelevant.
Firstly, is she saying that if a criminal goes into hiding and becomes hard to detect, then it is not practical to seek him out and to inform the public about him?
Secondly, when certain food products are already known to contain GM material (equivalent to a person who is already known to be a criminal), there is no need for detection. In this case, why can't consumers be informed so that they can make their own choices?
As a nation, we are not afraid to be among the world leaders in taking bold measures, such as banning chewing gum, curbing smoking in public places and imposing the death penalty on drug traffickers.
But when it comes to labelling GM foods - as well as labelling foods that contain trans fats, which are now "