Genetic modification - overwhelmingly positive way for rapid breeding

Perjantai 2.3.2018 klo 15.40 - Mikko Nikinmaa

Analysis of climate sceptics work has indicated that the studies claiming to show that climate change is not occurring have serious fallacies - as a meta-analysis on them shows: Rasmus E. Benestad, Dana Nuccitelli, Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland & John Cook Theor Appl Climatol (2016) 126:699–703 "Learning from mistakes in climate research".

Now there is a similar analysis of work carried out about the problems caused by genetically modified organisms (GMO; plants) with virtually the same conclusion. The work indicating strong negative effects of GMOs on human health stem from a small number of groups, and include various errors in experimental design. The analysis is reported by Miguel A. Sanchez and Wayne A. Parrott  in Plant Biotechnology Journal (2017) 15, pp. 1227–1234: "Characterization of scientific studies usually cited as evidence of adverse effects of GM food/feed".

It is not surprising that genetic modification as such does not cause any negative effects. One can consider it as a rapid form of breeding - what has earlier required up to thousands of generations can now be achieved in one. However, although the methodology as such is highly beneficial, the hard-line GMO supporters forget several things that need to be considered, whenever large-scale genetic modification is planned. One must make certain that one does not inadverently influence the behaviour of another property of an organism, that one does not influence outside ecosystem etc. These things could (and should) be studied without strong preconcieved attitudes. With the help of good quality work on the questions related to the use of GMOs, the overwhelmingly positive effect of the rapid breeding can be without reservations used to help humankind.

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: GMO, plant breeding, food production

Can we wear any clothes?

Sunnuntai 17.12.2017 klo 17.38

As the "most unneeded product of the year" the nature conservation magazine Finland's Nature chose fleece clothing, because washing them liberates microplastics in water. This got me thinking, which clothes we can wear, because environmental arguments for the discontinued use of virtually everything are strong. Below I go through them in detail:

1. Fleece clothing, but also virtually all other synthetic clothing should not be used, since they inevitably cause the release of microplastics in the environment.

2. Cotton clothing should not be used because of several reasons. It is very likely that the cotton from which the clothes are made is from genetically modified plants (GMO). The use of different pesticides in cotton fields is greater than anywhere else. As a result, the number of dead birds is great because they eat insecticide-affected insects, and the toxicant also affects them. In the semiarid areas, where cotton is produced, cotton production uses up water, which would be needed for food production and human consumption. Further, it is quite likely that the cotton clothing we wear has been produced using child labour, at least if we want to have cheap models.

3. Wool products should not be used, because wool clothing is produced by taking advantage of sheep. If one is protecting the rights of animals, that is not acceptable.

4. For the same reason as for banning wool products, everything containing leather or fur should not be used, because they can only be produced, if animal rights are not respected.

So what can we wear? Presently only linen clothing, but if it becomes popular, it is likely that many of the problems associated with cotton will also take place in linen production. Wood fibres could be a solution, but many hard-core environmentalists are also against the use of wood products. I suppose I shall start to look what the real environmentalists wear to see, if they follow their principles. - Or maybe we should walk around naked? It would also be difficult here in the north, when temperatures are close to or below freezing.

Kommentoi kirjoitusta. Avainsanat: microplastics, GMO, pesticides, child labour, animal protection