Transgenic, genetically modified plants near vineyards

What do you think of transgenic plants growing near vineyards? Do you think it doesn`t matter if pollen from these mutants covers the vines, get washed into the ground and therefore effects (more or less) the soil, plants, etc.?

I am kinda pissed (ooops) from Monsanto and BASF planting MO 810 corn mutants in Haßloch and Limburgerhof, 2km and 11km away from the biggest Riesling growing region in the world, the palatinate (Pfalz) winegrowing region in germany. I don`t see a reason why a region should be allowed to call wine "ECO", "BIO" or whatever when - in fact - the ecosystem in this area is affected by genetically modified organisms.

I see that there is no direct connection between sweet corn and wine/ vine; but as there is more in a picture that meets the eye I would not vouch for GMOs not affecting anything and being no harmful at all. I also have to admit that I drink this wine - simple because I am living in this environment anyway; but if I would be living somewhere else and I would have the choice between 2 wines, I would simply choose the wine been grown as far as possible away from GMOs.

[David M. Bueker]

Doesn't bother me at all. I try not to get worked up over the GM thing. One the one side is science, and on the other side is "science is evil." It reminds me a lot of the cork versus screwcap debates. Neither side will ever convince the other & so we end up with exactly what you have near the Pfalz.

First of all, there's genetic modification and Genetic Modification. All traditional methods of breeding and hybridization are genetic modification, after all. The problems, such as they are, concern the introduction of genes from wildly different organisms (insects, bacteria) where the law of unintended consequences says that we should be cautious about such introductions until we understand the full extent of the changes wrought by such modification. However, I have few worries about GMO corn pollen changing the grapes or the wine made from them in any way, though the pollen might get into the wine if it's present on the skins at the time of harvest. On the positive side, if the introduction of GMO corn permits a decrease in the use of chemical pesticides on the corn, that may benefit the wine since chemical sprays are known to drift on the wind to neighboring fields. Personally, I'd rather have some GMO corn pollen in my wine than 10 ppm parathion. YMMV of course.

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

I'd rather have some GMO corn pollen in my wine than 10 ppm parathion.

Amen to that!

First of all, there's genetic modification and Genetic Modification. All traditional methods of breeding and hybridization are genetic modification, after all. The problems, such as they are, concern the introduction of genes from wildly different organisms (insects, bacteria) where the law of unintended consequences says that we should be cautious about such introductions until we understand the full extent of the changes wrought by such modification. However, I have few worries about GMO corn pollen changing the grapes or the wine made from them in any way, though the pollen might get into the wine if it's present on the skins at the time of harvest. On the positive side, if the introduction of GMO corn permits a decrease in the use of chemical pesticides on the corn, that may benefit the wine since chemical sprays are known to drift on the wind to neighboring fields. Personally, I'd rather have some GMO corn pollen in my wine than 10 ppm parathion. YMMV of course.

Mark Lipton

Saw this post earlier this morning but was going to wait until Lunch when I had some time to respond but Mark saves me from having to do so as I completely agree with his reponse.

Doesn't bother me at all. I try not to get worked up over the GM thing. One the one side is science, and on the other side is "science is evil." It reminds me a lot of the cork versus screwcap debates. Neither side will ever convince the other & so we end up with exactly what you have near the Pfalz.

David there is at least one other side, which is that science in the service of profit, ain't necessarily all science.

[David M. Bueker]

David there is at least one other side, which is that science in the service of profit, ain't necessarily all science.

True, but my point still stands because those that oppose science will always fall back on some kind of a "service to the unholy dollar" argument. It really ends up being one thing. The sides change some times though. The sides sometimes change (e.g. KRAFT Corp. versus actual cheese), but the hope of resolution seems dim.

It's not that I am absolving science of any misdeeds, I just don't see a light at the end of the argument tunnel.

The light at the end of the tunnel comes when the two (or more) sides begin talking to one another, because not doing so becomes too dangerous. May it be so.

[David M. Bueker]

The light at the end of the tunnel comes when the two (or more) sides begin talking to one another, because not doing so becomes too dangerous. May it be so.

I'll drink to that, but it has to be talking, not posturing.

Yes; when I said talking, that's what I meant. The time for bullshit is over.

Yes; when I said talking, that's what I meant. The time for bullshit is over.

Bingo!

People in Europe are very opposed to GM foods, considering them unhealthy, dangerous, screwing biodiversity, and putting lots of ill- gotten gains into the pockets of big, bad multinationals like Mosanto.

My own views are somewhat more nuanced.

I believe that, like hormones used in meat in some countries, in-depth studies need to be made.

In other words, a scientific, rather than an emotional approach is called for.

I am not against GM foods on principle, but I do damned well want government agencies to guarantee that such foods are not harming the environment or my health.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Monsanto 810 is forbidden in France, Greek, Hungary, Luxembourg and Austria.

I don`t see any need for GMOs. There are no advantages except earning more money for Monsanto and BASF.

People in Europe are very opposed to GM foods, considering them unhealthy, dangerous, screwing biodiversity, and putting lots of ill-

People in USA are very opposed to organic food, considering it unfunny and boring to consume, responsible for not gaining record weight in a given time. ;);)

In contrast to this there is a huge market for bio- eco- wine in the USA, people paying excessive amounts of money for a bootle of grape juice that is growing just next to another vineyard where nobody cares for any bio or eco stuff. The fertilizer gets washed into the soil anyway, same thing for the pesticides that just don`t stop being poison at the border of the eco-vineyard. Seems like people just want to get fooled.

in-depth studies need to be made

In depth studies have been made. Therefore the countrys listed above did not allow Monsanto 810 sweet corn to be planted in their territory.

Did I already mention that 1 of these 2 vineyards is inside the Großlage Gimmeldinger Meerspinne, close to Forster Schnepfenpflug and Diedesfelder Rebstöckel? Deidesheim and Ruppertsberg are also close to these GMOs, so, if anybody out there does not want to take part in real dept studies I would buy and drink some other stuff.

[David M. Bueker]

People in USA are very opposed to organic food, considering it unfunny and boring to consume

You are completely wrong there. Organic food is gaining in popularity all the time. Even my local supermarket (a large chain store) carries a wide array of organic foods, many of which I buy on a regular basis. I see them in other peoples' carts as well. The organic selections get wider and wider every week.

Funny food?

We are not enslaved to Monsanto in the USA.

I don`t see any need for GMOs. There are no advantages except earning more money for Monsanto and BASF.

That's an awfully broad statement to make. While I agree that the development and use of "Roundup Ready" crops, especially those that are sterile and don't produce viable seed, are a strictly commercial (and ethically challenged) activity, have you heard of "Golden rice" and all the efforts that have gone into developing drought-resistant crops? These IMO are perfectly legitimate uses of the technology.

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

all the efforts that have gone into developing drought-resistant crops? These IMO are perfectly legitimate uses of the technology.

And potentially vital with all the bizarre weather changes. I bet the Australians would like drought-resistant crops.

Richard, you have an amusing view of the U.S. market concerning foodstuffs and wine. Not necessarily correct, but amusing. I would be perhaps not so definite and sure were I to definitively state the attitude of the average German.

Americans are adapting to, and learning to appreciate more and more the organic and sustainabely grown foods. It has become a much larger share of both the market and the economy of agriculture. People remain either confused or unknowledgeable about the intricacies of meaning in wines though, since we have the vague and apparently all-encompassing 'sustainably grown', the 'organically grown', the 'organic wine', and the 'biodynamic' wine. Add in to that mix the constant---and wrongheaded---conflation of sulfites warnings that some people get confused with organics, and you've got a mess.

So, no, I'm afraid people in the U.S. aren't flocking to what you call 'eco-bio'. Hardly. Yes, it's better now, thank you, but as a warrior for these wines for the last twenty years in the U.S. market, I can tell you it's not a war that's won. Or even more than well begun, truth told.

It's very popular to be "green" where wine is concerned. Trouble is, the person or corporation using the word gets to define their own meaning for the word. And as often as not it's merely a marketing term that's been tacked on.

Other people have pointed out that for this to be a meaningful discussion (if one is possible) we have to avoid the cant and rhetoric, and honestly discuss the issues. I don't know if that's possible, but I sure do applaud the people that make an effort.

People in USA are very opposed to organic food

I was just overdrawing with that one and forgot this one:

have you heard of "Golden rice" and all the efforts that have gone into developing drought-resistant crops? These IMO are perfectly legitimate uses of the technology

Sure I heard of, it just don`t make any sense at all - except making more money.

Drought resistant crops? Why not just stop to cover the earth with concrete and use knowledge and crops that have been used since hundreds of generations? Who needs drought resistant crops when there is enough water to irrigate golf grounds in deserts? If it would be about "folks we don`t have enough food on earth to feed the poor" - but it is not.

Where are those drought resistant crops, where are they planted and it which stage is that progress? How much percent of earnings are invested in "production lines" like that? Or is it just fake?


But lets think of some more transgenic stuff, so, corn is resistant against those desease spreaded by those insects, they just die when they start drilling in corn plants, 50% of the butterflys also die, the field beside this corn has potatoes, they are resistant against potato beetle, they just die whey they start eating the plant, they are drought resistant too, cause they don`t need to get irrigated that much and therefore there is less weed in the potato field, therefore less plants with pollen feeding the 50% butterflies that are left, so 50% of them also die.... next field is some huge radish that sucks up the water left from the potatoes, these radish is resistant against some roundup, so, there are almost no butterflies and bees left to pollinate the trees around.

But some folks from MO`SF had the idea to just cross trees with grasses so they don`t depend on those lazy insects no more.

Or....what about just crossing vine with potato, and mix some other DNA, so that we have potatoes, but they taste like corn, or apples, or orange. Why not just mix it all up? Where does it start and where does it end? Is it just the same with the banking economy? Is there any reason to just believe "them" or is it more a three monkey theory?

[David M. Bueker]

Richard - you're not interested in talking, just posturing.

If you want to talk, try again some time.

David, it's funny to hear you say "We are not enslaved to Monsanto in the USA"
It almost sounds like you're wishing it to be true.
The US governement is controlled by these corporations. Money makes the world go round.
Why does the US govnt subsidize corn? Its not to help the farmer. Its to help Cargill, one of the biggest multinationals in the world. Cargill turns that unedible corn into corn syrup and feed for cows that use up 70% of US anti-biotics because they're not even supposed to be eating so much corn feed - they didn't evolve to digest it. Its all in the book Omnivore's Dilemma. You've probably read it.
I'm willing to discuss and listen, but you have to be careful about your own ego, national identity, etc.
Americans want to do good, but they also get suckered into things like War on Terror, lets invade Iraq and give them democracy and other such naive stuff.
I'm not criticizing the US, I grew up there. The problem is so much in the US revolves around money that people forget that its only a byproduct of something more meaningful.

[David M. Bueker]

Agostino,

I do not wish to be enslaved by Monsanto. Far from it. I buy a great deal of both organic food and organically farmed (even biodynamic) wine. Yes I have read the Omnivore's Dilemma.

I was against the invasion of Iraq from the very start, as were many Americans. Please do not generalize as if all 300 million of us share uniform views.

I just tire of the empty debates that do not move the discussion forward (I've been in enough cork vs. screw cap threads to know what those are like), and would instead like to see something more informative than downright insulting generalizations, accusations and fear-mongering (on any side of the debate).

Expanding upon what David B. said, few institutions have done more to help the world's poor than the US-based agricultural multinationals. They have contributed to the development and extension of the Green Revolution. The introduction of GMOs and other bred/designed strains of grain, corn, and rice has increased agricultural productivity around the world and lowered the cost of food. As much as I love and value the environment (and I say this as someone who was, until 2 years ago, working towards a PhD in geology & climate science), improving human lives is so much more important.

It's interesting: the Koreans are hysterical about CJD in American beef even though it isn't really a threat, but accept GMOs with open arms. The Europeans are hysterical about GMOs, but were blind to their CJD problem for many years.
People are strange.

People are strange.

when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone

have you heard of "Golden rice" and all the efforts that have gone into developing drought-resistant crops? These IMO are perfectly legitimate uses of the technology

Sure I heard of, it just don`t make any sense at all - except making more money.

For whom? The professor who developed the technology? The people who lobbied various patent-holders to renounce their claims to intellectual property? The non-profit organization trying to spread the technology? You seem blind to actual altruism, Richard, or too wedded to your own ideology to see good intentions for what they are. And you say it makes no sense? Are you denying the reality of the vitamin A deficiency that afflicts nearly 50% of the world's population? Please understand that I am not saying that Golden rice is the only, or even best, solution to the problem, but I find it puzzling in the extreme that you so casually discard a tremendously innovative approach to a long-standing problem.

Drought resistant crops? Why not just stop to cover the earth with concrete and use knowledge and crops that have been used since hundreds of generations? Who needs drought resistant crops when there is enough water to irrigate golf grounds in deserts? If it would be about "folks we don`t have enough food on earth to feed the poor" - but it is not.

Have you ever seen the analysis of the costs of transporting water from places that have excess to drought-stricken areas? Are you familiar with the costs of state-of-the-art desalinization in areas outside of the Arabian peninsula? Australia is right now experiencing a years-long drought and the American Southwest has likely entered a period of lower rainfall totals akin to that which brought an end to the Chaco Canyon civilization. How are your methods going to address those problems? Again, I am not suggesting that producing GM drought-resistant crops is the only or best solution, but again I question why you are so confident in the ability of other approaches to mitigate the likely enormous climatic changes brought on by global warming.

Where are those drought resistant crops, where are they planted and it which stage is that progress? How much percent of earnings are invested in "production lines" like that? Or is it just fake?

Are you interested in rice, soybeans or other crops?

As for the state of development, it depends on which plant you're talking about, but keep in mind that the timeline for fully developing a new plant strain by any method is usually 20-30 years, and transgenic studies on drought susceptibility only really got started in the last 10 years. Of course, people's kneejerk rejection of all things transgenic doesn't make these efforts any easier...

Or....what about just crossing vine with potato, and mix some other DNA, so that we have potatoes, but they taste like corn, or apples, or orange. Why not just mix it all up? Where does it start and where does it end? Is it just the same with the banking economy? Is there any reason to just believe "them" or is it more a three monkey theory?

Classic strawman argument. If you choose to debate, please avoid the use of logical fallacies.

Mark "Don Quixote" Lipton