Monsanto says Biotech Wheat Moves Closer to Market

[Travlyr]

Jan 8 (Reuters) - Monsanto Co, the world's largest seed company, said Wednesday it was making good progress on development of an herbicide-tolerant wheat, pushing what would be the world's first biotech wheat a step closer to market.

Monsanto is already a leading developer of biotech corn, soybeans and other crops and the company has long tried to bring to market a wheat genetically altered to tolerate spraying of glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.

Fraley said while the company continues to make advances, it is still "several years away" from a biotech wheat product launch.

Biotech wheat is not commercially available despite several companies having researched it for a number of years.

Monsanto shelved an earlier version of an experimental herbicide-tolerant wheat, called "Roundup Ready," in 2004 amid widespread market concern foreign buyers would boycott U.S. wheat if it were genetically altered like corn and soybeans.

Controversy erupted again in May when the U.S. Department of Agriculture said an Oregon farmer had found the Roundup Ready genetically engineered wheat growing in his field, despite the fact the experimental grain should have been destroyed or stored away.

South Korea and Japan immediately temporarily halted purchases of U.S. wheat after the announcement, due to fears the unapproved biotech wheat might have contaminated U.S. wheat supplies.

More at link.

[angelatc]

Woot! Cheaper wheat!!!

The company is progressing on work to make crops more drought-hardy, and more pest- and disease resistant. It is also working on a new combination of biotech crops and herbicide chemistry to control weeds that have become resistant to its Roundup herbicide.


The company has a new insect-protected, Roundup Ready sugarcane in the works, and is advancing research on improved tomatoes, lettuce and peppers.


It is also pushing ahead on what it calls "biologicals" - a platform using microbials in ways that can make plants more resistant to disease and insects, and improve yields. The company also sees microbials as helping improve the health of bees, which are crucial to pollination of many crops.

I can hear the anti-science heads exploding already.

[silverhandorder]

Unfortunately with the ludites all over the world it's going to be a long process before this technology breaks through.

[Travlyr]

Unfortunately with the ludites all over the world it's going to be a long process before this technology breaks through.

I simply can not believe that it is smart to spray poison on food seeds. If the pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides being sprayed on GM seeds are killing off the honey bees, then that is not smart either.

[angelatc]

Unfortunately with the ludites all over the world it's going to be a long process before this technology breaks through.

Eh - the third world nations desperately need this more than we do, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it developed there. Of course, that will rapidly lead to offshoring our food supply, putting more farmers on the dole.

[Eagles' Wings]

I simply can not believe that it is smart to spray poison on food seeds. If the pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides being sprayed on GM seeds are killing off the honey bees, then that is not smart either.

+rep

[silverhandorder]

Don't eat them. Put your money where your mouth is. That is the only reason why GMO is winning. Because people like you don't want to pay for what you believe in. Or you just such a minority that no one can justify to cater to you. In that case home grown gardens is your last stand.

[Travlyr]

Don't eat them. Put your money where your mouth is. That is the only reason why GMO is winning. Because people like you don't want to pay for what you believe in. Or you just such a minority that no one can justify to cater to you. In that case home grown gardens is your last stand.

I do stay away from Genetically Modified Organisms when I can. They are unnatural and I no longer want any part of it.
High performance farming is better for the consumer, the farmer, the soil, and the bees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDbkSn9rpo#t=22

[silverhandorder]

I do stay away from Genetically Modified Organisms when I can. They are unnatural and I no longer want any part of it.
High performance farming is better for the consumer, the farmer, the soil, and the bees.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQDbkSn9rpo#t=22

What you mean by unnatural means created with techniques you do not approve of just because they are new technology.

[Travlyr]

What you mean by unnatural means created with techniques you do not approve of just because they are new technology.

Natural means that the process occurs by the laws of nature. The GMO seeds Monsanto modifies are modified by humans not nature.

[Kotin]

So it's not necessarily the GMO Part that I'm worried about but that does deserve more research as I am skeptical..
It is the glyphosate ... It is terrible for your health but go right ahead and eat it anyway and shut off the important enzymatic pathways that make bacteria in our gut so beneficial.. I always find it funny when people support these things but know nothing of chemistry or biology.. I'm a molecular biology major and a chemistry supplemental instructor and everything I have researched about glyphosate is pretty terrible

[Travlyr]

What you mean by unnatural means created with techniques you do not approve of just because they are new technology.

GMO is not really new technology. It has been around for 20 years or more. The reason it is being talked about today is because the problems associated with GMO are beginning to surface and the fact that Monsanto and FDA did not do proper research on how GMO affects humans and bees before they put GMOs into production is concerning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

[angelatc]

So it's not necessarily the GMO Part that I'm worried about but that does deserve more research as I am skeptical..
It is the glyphosate ... It is terrible for your health but go right ahead and eat it anyway and shut off the important enzymatic pathways that make bacteria in our gut so beneficial.. I always find it funny when people support these things but know nothing of chemistry or biology.. I'm a molecular biology major and a chemistry supplemental instructor and everything I have researched about glyphosate is pretty terrible

And I always find it funny when people throw out their qualifications in an appeal to authority instead of providing evidence to support their assertions.

Here are a few studies that helped me make up my mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302 " Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229 - In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480780 - Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.



How did you reach your conclusion?

[angelatc]

GMO is not really new technology. It has been around for 20 years or more. The reason it is being talked about today is because the problems associated with GMO are beginning to surface...

You mean, the organic farmers are starting to lose market share to cheaper, more sustainable food? I can see why they think that's a problem.

[Travlyr]

You mean, the organic farmers are starting to lose market share to cheaper, more sustainable food? I can see why they think that's a problem.

No Angela, if that is what I meant by that statement then that's what I would have written. I say what I mean and mean what I say. There is evidence that GMOs are more problematic than originally promoted and the video I posted does a good job of exposing Monsanto and FDA's antics to get them approved.

[twoggle]

And I always find it funny when people throw out their qualifications in an appeal to authority instead of providing evidence to support their assertions.

Here are a few studies that helped me make up my mind:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302 " Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229 - In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480780 - Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.

I hope you realize that these are 3 industry reviews: Monsanto and Exponent (which does reviews paid for by manufacturers). Here's a typical statement from one of the reviews: "The authors acknowledge the Monsanto Company for funding and for providing its unpublished glyphosate and surfactant toxicity study reports." So, who would be surprised that Monsanto reviews their product (or pays for a review) and it is magically found safe!

[Eagles' Wings]

So it's not necessarily the GMO Part that I'm worried about but that does deserve more research as I am skeptical..
It is the glyphosate ... It is terrible for your health but go right ahead and eat it anyway and shut off the important enzymatic pathways that make bacteria in our gut so beneficial.. I always find it funny when people support these things but know nothing of chemistry or biology.. I'm a molecular biology major and a chemistry supplemental instructor and everything I have researched about glyphosate is pretty terrible

Is there a specific study that lead you to this conclusion, Kotin? I enjoy hearing from skeptics in the science department.

[familydog]

Woot! Cheaper wheat!!!

Hell yeah! All thanks to taxpayer funded subsidies, taxpayer funded research, and taxpayer funded politicians who write favorable legislation. The free market at work!!1

[Root]

And I always find it funny when people throw out their qualifications in an appeal to authority instead of providing evidence to support their assertions.

Here are a few studies that helped me make up my mind:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302 " Our review found no evidence of a consistent pattern of positive associations indicating a causal relationship between any disease and exposure to glyphosate"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229 - In conclusion, the available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23480780 - Glyphosate and typical GBFs do not appear to present significant genotoxic risk under normal conditions of human or environmental exposures.



How did you reach your conclusion?

I can't trust .gov sources.

[Natural Citizen]

I hope you realize that these are 3 industry reviews: Monsanto and Exponent (which does reviews paid for by manufacturers). Here's a typical statement from one of the reviews: "The authors acknowledge the Monsanto Company for funding and for providing its unpublished glyphosate and surfactant toxicity study reports." So, who would be surprised that Monsanto reviews their product (or pays for a review) and it is magically found safe!

That's (pubmed) actually a very good source for, really, any kind of medical research that people would want to review. It's great for learning the value of herbs and things like that too. The thing with the source though is that it's all lumped into one big old mess.Technically you could use the same source (meaning pubmed) to find completely contradicting abstracts than what angelatc presented for debate.

It's kind of like when we go looking for news (think FOX, MSNBC, CNN) because it seemingly reflects what we believe or positions that we already hold. You could bury every one of those papers here using the very same source if you wanted to take the time. There is a wealth of contradicting research there. You'll find both industry funded reviews as well as the unbiased papers.

Seems like angelatc is cherry picking the industry ones. Which is OK, I suppose. But we can just as easily use the same source to bury those papers.

Again though..we have to be careful when we "educate ourselves" because we have a tendency to reach for data or news that supports the position we already have or wish to use to influence others. Much like what I mentioned about the three letter news organizations.

[silverhandorder]

Natural means that the process occurs by the laws of nature. The GMO seeds Monsanto modifies are modified by humans not nature.

Everything that exists occurs by the laws of nature.

[ClydeCoulter]

Everything that exists occurs by the laws of nature.

Maybe you would like to expand on what you are trying to imply?

The black plague was natural...so.......?

[silverhandorder]

Maybe you would like to expand on what you are trying to imply?

The black plague was natural...so.......?

That his statement was meaningless nonsense.

[ClydeCoulter]

That his statement was meaningless nonsense.

You mean, in your opinion.

Because I found it direct and meaningful, that is, I found it understandable and saw the meaning in it that I believe he meant, and I also agreed, in my mind, with it.

[silverhandorder]

Well good for you. Continue to spout natural this natural that. Don't think anyone normal will buy your ludite bs tho.

Natural to me is anything that allows me to live healthy and reproduce. GMO in no way hinders that. So it is natural. If you have evidence of people dying from GMO please present it. So far all I see if fraud and "natural" fear mongering.

[Natural Citizen]

If you have evidence of people dying from GMO please present it.

As we begin to see other countries fight back against this and foods are being labeled we'll absolutely start to see proof. The only reason that these industries fight back so much is because as it is now there is no legitimate means to trace the health problems back to them if there is no label trail and they want to keep it that way. We'll start to see these health problems traced back to these industries now that labeling is in effect abroad and there is an official and verifiable trail to research. Make no mistake about it.

Have you ever heard the joke about the bulls, siverhandhorder?


Here you go...

True story....

Ultimately we see that this industry, among many, absolutely depend upon the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement to interfere with this research abroad which is actually quite an interesting phenomenon itself around here. We have, in one sentence, folks creating the illusion that they are against it but then in another breath propping up the very industries who are influencing it. It's an interesting quirk, for sure, and certainly a defining moment in identifying just who is who in our little liberty movement.

[ClydeCoulter]

Well good for you. Continue to spout natural this natural that. Don't think anyone normal will buy your ludite bs tho.

Natural to me is anything that allows me to live healthy and reproduce. GMO in no way hinders that. So it is natural. If you have evidence of people dying from GMO please present it. So far all I see if fraud and "natural" fear mongering.

The argument that "what doesn't kill me now, is of no effect" is ridiculous. Effects could be hidden for a generation or two, who knows? But, by then, will anyone care? Perhaps not.

GMO is not the only way of feeding you, but you have no problem with it, and that fine with me if you don't. There are some of us that would rather not be the lab rats for it. But, how to avoid it? (I know, I know, you'll say, do your research or grow your own, but there are many problems with either of those, gmo crosspollination, labeling, etc).

[RickyJ]

Woot! Cheaper wheat!!!
I can hear the anti-science heads exploding already.

As long as it can be contained and not cross pollinate with non-gmo wheat and it is properly labeled then I have no problem with people buying and eating this wheat. However if it can't be contained, and is not labeled then I have a big problem with it.

Genetically modifying a food source is risky business because micro-nutrition from food sources is very complex and we are not even close to fully understanding it. There is nothing wrong with science being used to give us cleaner water and better transportation, but when you start messing with something that every human needs for survival, food, then it should always proceed with extreme caution and only if it can be contained to not wipe out the non-gmo food supply.

[RickyJ]

Unfortunately with the ludites all over the world it's going to be a long process before this technology breaks through.

Wait a minute, you are one those conspiracy theorist that believe the government's story about 9/11, aren't you?

You have the nerve to call other people luddites when you are profoundly ignorant of basic science and believe the absurd!

Have fun eating your GMO wheat buddy, and falling through the ground at the speed of free fall in your crazy world.

[RickyJ]

Everything that exists occurs by the laws of nature.

With that logic then poison and nuclear waste also exist by the laws of nature, that hardly makes them safe to eat though. I perceive you are an arrogant luddite, and I don't like conversing with such people, so have a good day.