GMO Wheat Intended To Repel Aphids Fails Completely In Field-Scale Tests – PlanetSave

GMO Wheat Intended To Repel Aphids Fails Completely In Field-Scale Tests

In another show of just how much genetically modified agricultural crops (GMO crops) consistently fail to live up to the hype placed on them, recent field-scale tests of a GMO wheat variety “designed” to repel aphids have shown the new GMO crop to be nearly completely ineffective. A total flop in other words — one that cost several million dollars it should be remembered.

The new GMO wheat was theorized to be able to repel aphids via the ability to produce a “special smell”, that supposedly the aphids would avoid.

crops

Given that a field of monoculture agricultural crops is essentially a open buffet to many species of insects, I admit to being very skeptical as to how anyone could in good faith believe that this strategy would work. Would a simple smell-deterrent work to keep hungry humans from a huge “field” of barbecued meat?

Unsurprisingly, despite the very poor field results the researchers intend to press ahead. (Towards some sort of “glorious future” where everything is under absolute human control no doubt. A surrogate heaven for those with that sort of belief system I suppose.)


Reuters provides more information:

The work at Britain’s Rothamsted Research institute in southern England was the first test of a crop engineered to release an anti-insect pheromone, or smell, and it provoked protests from anti-GM activists who threatened — but failed — to rip up the plants.

While the crop survived human attack, however, it fared less well against the aphids. Results from the five-year project published in the journal Scientific Reports on Thursday showed the GM wheat did not repel aphid pests in the field as hoped, despite initial success in laboratory tests.

The Rothamsted team added genes to make the wheat produce the pheromone (E)-beta-farnesene, which is found naturally in other plants, including peppermint, and acts as an alarm call telling aphids to disperse. It is not clear why the GM crop failed to work as expected but scientists said the aphids may have simply become attuned to the constant alarm signal, in the same way that people get used a car alarm that never stops ringing.

What a surprise. A gross oversimplification accompanied by assumptions, leading to complete ineffectivity. In other words — the hallmark trait of “findings” produced in a “controlled environment” being subjected to a world with far greater interactions, contexts, inputs, and motives.

For more information on GMOs see:







About the Author

's background is predominantly in geopolitics and history, but he has an obsessive interest in pretty much everything. After an early life spent in the Imperial Free City of Dortmund, James followed the river Ruhr to Cofbuokheim, where he attended the University of Astnide. And where he also briefly considered entering the coal mining business. He currently writes for a living, on a broad variety of subjects, ranging from science, to politics, to military history, to renewable energy. You can follow his work on Google+.
  • Peter Olins

    What a mean-spirited perspective, James! You seem to take delight in the failure of a bold experiment to deter pests in the crop that provides more dietary protein to the world than any other—wheat. Surely you can find a less critical target for your cynical schadenfreude?

    Do you have some alternative approach for increasing the world’s bread supply, or is your solution to “let them eat cake”?

  • Ken Gallaher

    O lookie the usual Big-GMO “spokesmen” are here.

    GMO – an altered food creating “altered mindset from a species that went the path of extinction due to their ignorance”…a fascist and oligarchy movement to poison the world.

    • Sally Blackmore

      Yep — and they are having a lovely conversation with each other. Hey guys — I got news for you, if this technology actually reduced the amounts of pesticides used and was put through the proper human trials and found to be safe for humans, animals and the planet, we would indeed be cheering for it, but the technology consistently fails on all counts. You guys are the ones who wouldn’t admit it even if it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, cause then you wouldn’t be a part of your “good ‘ol boys” club anymore.

      • Michael McCarthy

        “put through the proper human trials ”
        Sally ding-a-ling, we don’t do trials on humans. They get pretty upset when you kill them at the end of the experiment to autopsy their organs. If you would like to volunteer, I’m sure an exception could be made.

        • Sally Blackmore

          My point exactly — therefore they can’t say that it is safe now can they?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Of course they can, they run animal tests, that’s how it works. Like you don’t know that already. Allergenicity is one they do run on humans (pin prick test) to be sure there aren’t any issues.

          • JoeFarmer

            I think Sally and Debbie Owen were home-schooled by Hortense DeBunkerman.

          • hyperzombie

            At the great and prestigious “DeBunkerman School of Illogic and Paranoia”

          • Michael McCarthy

            Is that a charter school for the Maharishi University?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Glad to see you spend so much time fantasizing about it.

            LOL!

          • Michael McCarthy

            They probably all get plugged by Cletus at night too. *pump* “corrupt” *pump* “GMO” *pump* “pesticide” *pump* “industry” *pump* “echo” *pump* “chamber” *squirt*

          • Debbie Owen

            That comment is just one example that shows us the type of character of the typical GMO/poison pusher. This is no surprise coming from someone who is also a proven anti-consumer.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Well, many of your comments show your total separation from reality, so…

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            That’s why I flagged it.

          • JoeFarmer

            Could go the other way, too.

          • Debbie Owen

            Says the fake farmer who knows nothing about education….

          • JoeFarmer

            Tell us how proteomics are used in allergenicity testing, Debbie.

          • Debbie Owen

            Tell us how allergies are tested without labels.

          • JoeFarmer

            That makes no sense.

            When a GM trait is inserted, the amino acid sequence of the proteins are compared to known allergens. There’s a huge database containing that information.

            This will surely go way over your head, but have at it anyway: http://www.allergenonline.org/

          • Debbie Owen

            Maybe you aren’t aware of the fact that unintended proteins are also created and they aren’t tested.

          • JoeFarmer

            Citation?

          • Michael McCarthy

            Did I miss it, or was there never a citation given for these “unintended proteins”

          • JoeFarmer

            No. But she never does give citations since nothing supports her ignorant claims and incoherent rants.

          • Debbie Owen

            Just google Monsanto whistleblower and there is an article by Jeffrey Smith, and try to actually read the article without your usual rantings of Jeffrey Smith. I know you will just try to discredit the source and you won’t be able to discredit the info.

          • JoeFarmer

            Smith has never written anything that even remotely resembles facts.

            No one pays him any mind except Maharishi cultists.

            But go ahead, be a big girl and post a link, and someone will deconstruct it for you.

          • Debbie Owen

            I predicted right, you will just attack the source because you have nothing else. Google it for yourself, it’s easy to find, not that you would read it anyway.

          • JoeFarmer

            Nobody listened to him when he ran for Congress either. Poor schlub couldn’t even get 1,000 votes.

            No surprise you won’t post a link, you probably just made it up.

          • Debbie Owen

            Anyone reading these comments can google it and read the article so they can decide for themselves. I don’t think anyone will be surprised that you can’t dispute any of it.

          • JoeFarmer

            Why don’t you google Jeffrey Smith’s epic loss in the 1998 congressional election? He’s as big a flop as a fearmonger as he was a congressional candidate.

          • Debbie Owen

            I don’t care about that, obviously he was meant to do better things.

          • JoeFarmer

            Only a Maharishi cultist would say something that stupid.

          • Debbie Owen

            I don’t care about your opinion either.

          • JoeFarmer

            Cultists like you are brainwashed into only accepting information from the cult leaders. That’s how they keep peons like you under control.

          • Debbie Owen

            How would you test for allergies if the suspected allergens weren’t even labeled?

          • Michael McCarthy

            They test for allergenicity when they create it, why would you label for suspected allergens when they’ve already been ruled out? You’re really grasping at straws on that one.

          • Debbie Owen

            Wrong, people are tested all the time for allergies in doctors offices.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No kidding, genius. Why do you think they use those very same people (the ones known for having certain allergies) for running the pin-prick test when they create a GMO? Oh, maybe to make sure there is no allergenic effect.

          • Debbie Owen

            Prove it. Show me the studies with the pin prick tests done when they create a GMO.

          • JoeFarmer
          • Debbie Owen

            I glanced at the link but I didn’t find the information. Please point me to the part that says pin prick tests are done on people when they create GMO. Page and paragraph?

          • JoeFarmer

            I never said anything about skin testing, genius. The subject is allergenicity testing.

            Read the paper. Move your lips, use your fingers to follow the words, whatever it takes. Probably won’t sink in, but you can say you tried.

          • Michael McCarthy

            It’s easy to ignore the information when all you do is “glance” at it. Page 2 was pretty far in.

          • Debbie Owen

            Nope, you are wrong again. It just talks about the pin prick tests in general, not that it is done with newly created GMOs on people.

          • JoeFarmer

            Read the paper, Debbie.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Nope, you are wrong. Read the whole paragraph, or maybe the whole paper. I guess that would be too much work.

          • Debbie Owen

            Nope, you are the one who said pin prick tests on humans for new GMOs, you can’t weasel out of it now.

          • Michael McCarthy

            And I gave you 2 citations.

          • JoeFarmer

            She’s acting like a little kid with her fingers in her ears. Just like usual.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Next comes, “I want independent testing citations, not the biased testing done by Monsanto”.

          • JoeFarmer

            Yep, she’s a troll just like Cletus.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL! Well thanks for the compliment I guess.

          • JoeFarmer

            If you consider that a compliment, you are truly an agricultural creationist.

          • Debbie Owen

            Wrong, I’m still asking for the same thing, proof that there is pin prick testing done on humans for new GMOs. You can pretend that posting links about allergy testings has that proof, but anyone who actually reads it can see it isn’t there.

          • Michael McCarthy
          • Debbie Owen

            I read it and it just talks about skin prick tests that can be done to test for allergies, not that they are routinely done on GMOs. In fact reading through all that it was obvious that it was biased pro-GMO and I believe it had the intent to purposely mislead people so I looked for the link to the studies that used skin prick testing for GMOs and couldn’t find it. The fact is that skin prick testing is not done for allergy tests on all GMOs.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Ah, thank you for proving that you don’t believe anything. It has the citation for the paper regarding testing:

            ” It is important to note here that evaluating the potential for allergenicity is a required step in the pre-market safety assessment process (Lehrer and Bannon, 2005).”

            I’m done, because you absolutely refuse to believe it when the proof is right in front of you.

          • Debbie Owen

            I’m glad you are done because you are just trying to mislead people anyway. I looked at the abstract (I’m not going to pay for the full text) of that and once again your link doesn’t prove your claim.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, it does. But you refuse to believe anything unless it comes from some anti-GMO schmo. But you always use the same excuse when you are wrong, “you are just trying to mislead people anyway”. Yeah, because giving citations to papers that back my point is so misleading.
            I can’t help but notice you never gave JoeF a citation for the “unintended proteins” you alleged were created when he asked for one. Par for the course with you, all allegations and no facts.

          • Debbie Owen

            I missed that notification earlier for some reason, but I just answered him. And that abstract didn’t even mention anything about skin prick testing, but if you want to pay for the full text and post it here then go ahead, I doubt it will support your claim.

          • Michael McCarthy

            It is funny how you can assume the paper doesn’t say it based on the abstract. I’m not paying for it, I can understand from the one paper and it’s use as a citation what is in it. I can also understand the other cites I gave, plus the one from JoeF, that SPT is performed. You are running low on valid arguments other than the shill gambit. Maybe one day you will learn to read and understand something, perhaps your kids can help you out, although they probably think you’re hopeless.

          • Debbie Owen

            So you are just assuming the paper has your proof without even reading all of it, it figures. You are desperate because you made a fool out of yourself when you said skin pricks are done for new GMOs and your own links couldn’t prove you right. You had to go all the back to the Flavr Savr and a GMO soy that was never approved, nothing else. You proved that the skin prick tests are not routinely done for new GMOs. Just admit it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            I said they are done, I didn’t say routinely, nice way to put words in someone’s mouth. I gave you a paper on skin prick test, done on an unreleased soy, so please tell me how it was tested if it wasn’t released? Hmm. You’re just bitter because your argument that it isn’t done fell apart.

          • Debbie Owen

            No you didn’t.

          • Michael McCarthy

            yes I did. You ignored them.

          • Debbie Owen

            You gave two links that didn’t prove your claim. Nice try but you aren’t fooling anyone.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Obviously you didn’t even bother reading them.

          • Warren Lauzon

            The fact that you cannot read does not mean the citations are not there.

          • Warren Lauzon

            It is hard for some to get past the headlines I guess.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, it is easier to not read it and say the citation doesn’t support your argument rather than read it and cite something specific that shows it doesn’t support your argument.

          • Debbie Owen

            Genius, if you read the comments it was Michael McCarthy who brought up the pin prick tests and that is what I responded to. Your link wasn’t proof at all, just a useless distraction.

          • JoeFarmer

            Wow, you’re really slow, Debbie.

            This is what you originally asked: “How would you test for allergies if the suspected allergens weren’t even labeled?”

            Read the paper I linked to, it explains how potential allergens are identified when a GMO is created. Which you clearly don’t understand.

          • Debbie Owen

            Follow along with the conversation now, I asked for proof of what Michael said which was that pin prick tests were done on humans for new GMOs. No point in you trying to help him now, everyone can read the comments for themselves.

          • JoeFarmer

            Wow, you’re slow.

            “Based on the scientific and clinical understanding of
            allergy and allergens, the US FDA (1992) recommended
            that the allergenicity assessment of GM crops focus on
            testing to ensure that the allergenicity of the GM variety
            is not greater than that of the traditionally produced crop
            [12] . In 1996 those recommendations were elaborated as
            a detailed assessment strategy with a decision tree by a
            panel of experts sponsored by the International Life Sciences
            Institute/International Food Biotechnology Committee
            (ILSI) [21] .
            As described in the ILSI approach, the assessment of
            each new GM crop should evaluate the known allergenicity
            of the source of the gene [21] . If the source is known
            to be allergenic, protein-specific in vitro serum IgE tests
            and clinical tests (SPT and food challenges) would be performed
            with appropriately allergic subjects to ensure the
            protein encoded by the transferred gene is not an allergen.

          • Debbie Owen

            Try actually reading what you copy and paste. No where does it say anything about pin prick testing on humans of new GMOs.

          • Michael McCarthy

            SPT=skin prick test.

          • Debbie Owen

            Thank you. It says the tests would only be done “If the source is known to be allergenic”, don’t you see a problem with that? And what about the GMOs that were already on the market before those rules took effect? This is just more reason to label GMOs, to make it easier for people to figure out what they may be allergic to by the process of elimination. I don’t believe it is just a coincidence that the rates for soy and peanut allergies have greatly increased.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Soy and peanut allergies were on the rise before GMO. Labeling will not effect any change in that, it is idiot parents that don’t expose their kids to allergens that are causing the problem.
            Allergy testing was required for the first GMO (Flavr Savr), look it up ding dong. No, I don’t see a problem with it, that’s why they have an allergy database. You’re just looking for a new excuse to support your BS labeling agenda.

          • Debbie Owen

            You just keep proving you are anti-consumer over and over again.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Nope, just proving you don’t know what the heck you are talking about with allergies.

          • Debbie Owen

            You proved me right with your own links, skin pricking is not routinely done for new GMOs, in fact you couldn’t find any studies of that being done on any GMOs that are currently on the market. You proved yourself wrong, but I know you won’t admit it.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Whoa, there was never a condition that it had to be on a GMO on the market. Thus the paper on the unreleased soy showing they did do a skin prick test.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You know, I went back to my links just now so that anyone that reads the thread can see that I am correct. And how funny, the first link says (end of paragraph 7), “The next stage of the experiments to transfer the gene to soybean to enhance methinione content was technically successful, but before any commercialization effort occurred it was recognized that the 2S Brazil nut protein is a potent human allergen with the potential for causing dangerous allergenic reactions (Nordlee et al., 1996).”

            Now, the second link I gave was the Nordlee paper, which specifically says, “On skin-prick testing, three subjects had positive reactions to extracts of Brazil nut and transgenic soybean and negative reactions to soybean extract”

            Going back to the first link: “”The development of this product was abandoned during development, no product was released and no one was harmed.”

            Gosh, it sure does seem like they did skin-prick testing prior to release. Like I said. This one failed and wasn’t released. Wow.

          • JoeFarmer

            “This is what you originally asked: “How would you test for allergies if the suspected allergens weren’t even labeled?”

            The paper I linked to explains how allegenicity tests are performed.

            So you can stop with the trolling.

            The salient point is that there are established protocols for allergenicity testing, those protocols are followed by GM crop developers before commercial release, and finally, that no one has ever been found to be allergic to a GM crop product because of an inserted trait(s).

            End of story.

          • Debbie Owen

            The conversation moved on from my original question, are you not able to follow along?

          • JoeFarmer

            Oh, I can follow along just fine. You did a fine job making yourself look ignorant.

          • Debbie Owen

            You always have this problem when you start drinking….

          • JoeFarmer

            You’re predictable. You always are proven wrong, then you have to try to deflect with more made-up nonsense.

          • Debbie Owen

            Not my fault if you can’t follow a simple conversation.

          • JoeFarmer

            I followed just fine. You were shown how dumb you really are. Just like what happens every time you try to argue with people who know more than you.

          • Debbie Owen

            LOL! You couldn’t even figure out we were talking about skin prick tests. Poor fake farmer, I hope you sobered up enough to reread the comments, maybe you will have a better understanding.

          • JoeFarmer

            I’m the one that posted the link and also the text that showed when SPTs are used in testing of GM crops, idiot.

            Here is the post where I posted the link: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/im-planetsave/gmo_wheat_intended_to_repel_aphids_fails_completely_in_field_scale_tests/#comment-2111419313

            Here is the post where I pasted the information that included SPTs: https://disqus.com/home/discussion/im-planetsave/gmo_wheat_intended_to_repel_aphids_fails_completely_in_field_scale_tests/#comment-2111512429

            Try reading the thread again before you embarrass yourself even more.

          • Debbie Owen

            There you go again, your link and text didn’t prove Michael McCarthy right. Try reading the thread again then you will see I’m right even though you won’t admit it. He said that the skin prick tests were done to test for allergies on new GMOs which is very misleading, in fact neither one of you could find any studies of that being done on any GMOs currently on the market so it isn’t exactly routine. The bottom line is that there isn’t enough testing done before GMOs are released unlabeled into our food supply, especially when you consider the fact that there may be unintended proteins.

          • JoeFarmer

            You are a complete idiot. Full stop.

          • Warren Lauzon

            Ever notice how so many of the woonatics hide or block their Disqus pages?

          • Warren Lauzon

            For her to be embarrassed, she would have to actually realize just how many times she has been blatantly totally wrong. Which is pretty much every time she types more than 12 letters.

          • Michael McCarthy

            You must not have tried very hard. Page 2, paragraph 1, column 2

            “In vitro or in vivo human IgE binding are tested when appropriate, if the gene donor is an allergen or the sequence of the protein is similar to an allergen. Serum donors and skin test subjects are selected based on their proven allergic responses to the gene donor or to material containing the allergen that was matched in sequence”

          • Debbie Owen

            That says nothing about pin prick testing on humans with new GMOs.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Start by reading the whole paragraph, then continue on with the paper. The information is there, ignoring it doesn’t make it disappear.

          • Michael McCarthy

            here’s one that illustrates testing done

            http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/54/386/1317.full

            and here’s one

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8594427

            don’t you feel foolish?

          • Debbie Owen

            Nope.

          • Michael McCarthy

            no, you don’t feel foolish? You should.

          • Warren Lauzon

            You should.

          • Warren Lauzon

            And you apparently don’t have any idea how those tests are done. Google is your friend.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Just show us one study.

            I’m just looking for one ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents, pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other caveat and it must be a GM variety currently on the market today

          • Michael McCarthy

            You’re still blabbering on about that? Why not ask for it to be run for 50 years too?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I guess we can all see that you can’t cite a single study that shows long term consumption of GMOs to be safe for humans.

            You have no science.

            You are not “debating science” and it is disingenuous to claim that you are. You are using science, selectively, to promote a corrupt GMO pesticide industry political agenda.

          • Michael McCarthy

            No, there is no point citing anything to you because it will immediately be called junk pseudo science without even being read.
            You never debate anything, whenever pressed you accuse the other party of trolling you and being off topic. See how that works? You’re all useless bluster.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You can’t come up with the science.

            Make me wrong. Post it here now.

            I’m sure there must be something from your corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber “science” lists that you and the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation operative cite everywhere.

            Now is the time you can prove all your bogus safety claims are real.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Sure, all you want is one chronic toxicity for 3 species and multi-generational. But of course you know that there is no chronic toxicity study done on more than one species. Getting funding to do a chronic toxicity study on one species is difficult (you’re looking at upwards of $200K just for a 2 year rat study), so let’s make it for 3 species and multi-generational, sure.
            Get real.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I guess that means you don’t know if long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden is safe.

            Label them and let people have choice to choose to take the health risk with cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs or not.

            Unproven cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs are making us sick.

          • Michael McCarthy

            That isn’t what I said, at all. I said the study with the parameters you are requiring doesn’t exist. You’ve been shown independent, long term studies done on single species on multiple occasions which do show them to be safe, but you discount them all as junk pseudo science.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Those studies do not prove long term consumption of GMO food by humans to be safe.

            Just show me the one I asked you for.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Of course they do, but you will never admit it. As I’ve told you, as countless others have told you, the study with the parameters you are requiring doesn’t exist. If you want to raise $500K+ and run a study, go right ahead, see you in 3 years.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I’m
            just looking for one ONE Independent chronic toxicity study, done to
            deduce toxicology in humans, minimum of 3 mammalian species (rodents,
            pigs, dogs or monkeys) multi generational, that indicates safety in the
            long-term consumption of GMOs and their associated pesticides. One other
            caveat and it must be a GM variety currently on the market today

            We need the science that the corrupt GMO pesticide industry does not want to see done.

          • Michael McCarthy

            So raise the money required to fund such a ridiculous study, you’ll need a minimum of $500K to do 3 species for 2 years. There have been independent long term done on single species, you simply choose to ignore them.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            How many of them are toxicology studies done long term on mammals? Feeding studies on animals killed at 49 day of life don’t reflect the reality of human situations.

            Half a million dollars is just peanuts compared to the Hundreds of million dollars the corrupt GMO pesticide industry has spent to keep cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs hidden in the food we feed out families.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “How many of them are toxicology studies done long term on mammals?”
            There have been numerous. Mice, pigs, cows, sheep. You’ve rejected them all before as junk pseudo science.

            “Half a million dollars is just peanuts”

            Then you shouldn’t have any problem raising the money. See you in 3 years. Well, 4 or more likely 5 years, because you would also have to find a scientist to create the parameters and run the study, set up a lab, etc.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            None of those studies showed long term consumption of GMO food is safe for humans.

            The corrupt GMO pesticide industry could use the Hundreds of Millions of dollars that they are now using to keep cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs purposely hidden from us in the food we feed our families to fund all the studies needed.

          • Michael McCarthy

            “The corrupt GMO pesticide industry could use the Hundreds of Millions of dollars”
            then it wouldn’t be the independent study you want. Go out and raise the money and quit trolling internet message boards.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Bottom line, you can’t come up with any meaningful studies that show the long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs is safe for humans.

            All the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation tools will see the failure too.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Oh no, I can, they just don’t fit your ridiculous criteria.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            So you can’t come up with any studies that show long term consumption of cancer causing Roundup laden GMOs is safe for humans, so you try and pass off the study criteria as being ridiculous.

            Toxicologists agree that these studies need to be done, but we should take the spin of a corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon instead of listening to scientist who are trained in human toxicology.

            You can only sell that bogus concept to other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation clowns like you.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Again, I can provide examples of long term animal feeding that show safety. You’ve been shown them, but you always give the same reply, “corrupt GMO pesticide industry junk pseudo-science”. Give it a rest.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Feeding studies are not the same as toxicology studies.

            If you know anything about science or medicine you would know that.

            Please keep your ignorance to yourself.

          • Michael McCarthy

            Ah, but they are the same, because you have to FEED the animals the GMO to DEDUCE toxicology.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            You have again shown your self to be totally ignorant about toxicology studies.

            Then you double down on your stupidity by making a totally ignorant comment like this.

            You are not doing your corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber employers disinformation spin any good with ignorant and argumentative answers like this.

          • Michael McCarthy

            So you want toxicology studies done based on long term consumption of GMO, but you don’t want it to be based on feed? Do you have any idea how utterly ridiculous you sound?

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            I want the toxicology study to be designed and conducted by toxicologists.

            Your attempt to spin away your ignorant comments on the subject will likely embarrass the other corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation echo chamber minions.

            You don’t know what you are talking about, and it make your words look like the troll drool they are.

          • hyperzombie

            Even if it was a 100 year study of 60 species, the Debunker Man clan would say “not enough testing”

          • Michael McCarthy

            That wouldn’t be enough for any of them, no matter if it was toxicity, environmental, whatever.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Nobody know what the DeBunkerman clan would think in your bogus scenario ..

            FACT is that we have no studies now, so any studies you can give us might help your bogus corrupt GMO pesticide industry disinformation agenda along the way.

            All we get is tobacco industry type junk pseudo-science.

        • Rob Bright

          They’re doing the trials as we speak — of course without informed consent or proper experimental design…

          • Michael McCarthy

            keep telling yourself that, maybe one day people will believe you

      • JoeFarmer

        “…but the technology consistently fails on all counts.”

        If that were true, farmers wouldn’t pay a premium for seed with Bt or HT traits.

  • hyperzombie

    Wow, you would think that they could at least find a pic of wheat for this story. Corn,, like WTF?

    • JoeFarmer

      The people that whine about GM crop technology have never been to a farm in the first place. Doesn’t matter what picture they post…

      • IOnlyRespond ToIdiots

        Hahaha. *Wine* from a *farmer*.

      • Ken Gallaher

        another shill

        • JoeFarmer

          Yeah, when you’ve got nothing to say, play the shill card.

          That’s what you always do.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Shilll are soooooo sensitive about that.

            LOL!

          • JoeFarmer

            So, when are you going to talk about growing organic soybeans?

            Probably never, you’ll just troll this thread like you do every other one.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            This thread is about the failed GMO wheat crop in GB.

            I’m not interested in your off topic troll distractions.

          • JoeFarmer

            Keep up the trolling, it’s all you can do.

            Maybe you could mail some 100% organic cotton crying towels to the SHAKA doofs in Maui.

      • Michael McCarthy

        Aww, Kanawai has to be all in tears today. Maui lost. Should we send him a card or something?

        http://www.kitv.com/news/gmo-ban-on-maui-county-ruled-invalid/33898178

        • Debbie Owen

          Typical response from the anti-consumer.

          • Michael McCarthy

            That wasn’t a response to anything.

        • JoeFarmer

          I’m sure he’s furiously pasting infographics together that claim the courts were bought off, or some other conspiratorial nonsense.

      • Cletus DeBunkerman

        That is one very weak lie.

        Desperation and impotence of a grasping GMO pesticide industry disinformation goon.

        • JoeFarmer

          And you’re a shining example of a whiner that’s never been near a farm.

          • Cletus DeBunkerman

            Except I own a farm and live on the farm.

            Go troll someone else.

          • JoeFarmer

            Sure you do.

            Can’t you troll any better than that?

          • Rob Bright

            GMO-Joe calling the kettle black! lol!

          • JoeFarmer

            Have you figured out why 99.4% of U.S. farm land is NOT under organic production, Rob Not So Bright?

    • Kevin Mallborg

      did you see the bio of the author?:

      ” James Ayre ‘s background is predominantly in geopolitics and history,”

      • hyperzombie

        Well then he could have at least put up a Ukrainian Map, the yellow at least symbolizes wheat.

  • Rob B

    You try something, measure the results, and adjust accordingly.
    This is how scientific research works.

    Ironically, part of the large expense was to protect the crops from anti-GMO vandals.

    No doubt, had the wheat proven effective at reducing the amounts of pesticide required, it would still be labelled a failure by anti-GMO ideologues.

    • Jeff Leonard

      Or they would have said the scientists were the bought-off tools of big ag. But the science and its practitioners are OK when the results fit the narrative.

      • IOnlyRespond ToIdiots

        Your comment is an excellent example of the straw man logical fallacy. Would you mind if I quote it?

    • IOnlyRespond ToIdiots

      Despite attempting to marginalizing opposing views, I have to agree with your premise. Failure in field tests is par for the course when conducting any scientific research. This result is not a feather in anyone’s cap.

      • Bruce__H

        Why isn’t this a feather in someone’s cap? I don’t understand.

        The researchers now know something they didn’t know before. So why isn’t this progress?