Jump to content

Genetically engineered bees and NZ honey brands?


Recommended Posts

NZ being GE free means we do not grow GE plants here, or have GE live modified organisms here on a commercial scale. It does not mean we don't import GE products. We have  for years, soya and canola being two examples

Edited by M4tt
  • Agree 1
  • Good Info 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If I could get GE modified bees that carry their honey in buckets back to my shed and pour into my drums like you see on the cartoons, I would be first in line.

Given we export most of our product , it can only have a negative effect on most markets that buy because NZ is isolated , miles from anywhere and perceived as being free of all that nonsense ........

I want a GM that makes my queen easier to see. Fluorescent pink would be good. Although it could make mating flights more dangerous...

8 hours ago, M4tt said:

NZ being GE free means we do not grow GE plants here, or have GE live modified organisms here on a commercial scale. It does not mean we don't import GE products. We have  for years, soya and canola being two examples

If I could get GE modified bees that carry their honey in buckets back to my shed and pour into my drums like you see on the cartoons, I would be first in line.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Haha 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Invasion of the ‘frankenbees’: the danger of building a better bee

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/16/frankenbees-genetically-modified-pollinators-danger-of-building-a-better-bee?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Really interesting article from the Guardian.

There are good links in the article .

Check out Tanzanian refugee camp beeks  version of a bee veil .

Edited by kaihoka
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kaihoka said:

and that people will feel free to poison everything else in the environment as long as what they value is unaffected.

They already do surely. But the problem is giving someone an exclusive social licence to do that, which they profit from. The most interesting aspect of the article you posted was the open source licence, especially given a 'not fit for purpose' Patents system.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh crap, we are doomed. Do I geneticaly modify the chips with the fish I consume on a friday night ?  The world is full of evolution, and as we evolve we adapt, just as when we adapt we evolve.  

Rather like at a Manuka conference I went to a few years ago. The talk was of breeding manuka varieties and planting them in  different parts of the country.... and a respected  participant stood up and suggested that that would compromise the purity of their  Manuka ..... to which my reply was  what was his view if a young man from the King country fell in love with a young wahini from Northland ..... did that too compromise the Whakapapa ?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/10/2018 at 2:10 AM, Don Mac said:

...

The alternative is to make the varroa specific hygiene trait dominant in the honeybee (it is presently a recessive trait) so it is easily transferred throughout the Queen's progeny

...

 

 

Just for the protocol, VSH is a additive trait controlled by at least 7(so far discovered) pair of alleles. The more of them you have, the more you get.

 

The first generation from pure VSH queen (inseminated with non VSH drones) will be as efficient in removing varroa as pure VSH. Even the second generation will be varroa resistant enough to go on without treatments (thus having on average at least 50% of active VSH alleles in the majority of the workers)

http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/genetic_aspects_queen_production_3.html

Edited by Scutellator
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something of interest as Mexico (2014) is the worlds sixth biggest producer and third largest exporter of honey.

 

Mexico builds wall to keep out Monsanto’s GMOs

Published on Sep 27, 2016

Video 6:11 seconds

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcdQl_Nxse8

Mexican beekeepers are celebrating a victory after biotech giant Monsanto lost its permit to plant Roundup-ready genetically modified soybeans in the country. RT America's Marina Portnaya reports. Then, Simone Del Rosario is joined by Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology to weigh-in.

 

They really don't like the neonicotinoid pesticide bans in Europe and soon America. NZ and Aussie still allow them though it is under more recent review.

Bayer-Monsanto is suing *Europe* for saving the bees

https://actions.sumofus.org/a/bayer-bees-lawsuit

'Wow. Bayer, BASF and Syngenta are suing the European Commission to overturn a ban on the pesticides that are killing millions of bees around the world.
A huge public push won this landmark ban -- and we can't sit back and let Big Pesticide overturn it while the bees vanish.'

 

NEW ZEALAND -

TPP

In NZ TPP was changed to CPTPP – Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership and if memory serves certain contentious sovereignty issues were not dealt with before signing but shelved or otherwise put on the backburner. I wonder if this is one of them.

The below was taken from an infographic.
‘Under the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) Monsanto would be plaintiff, judge and jury. A provision of the TPP called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) would allow Monsanto to sue any nation bound by the TPP for any lost profits as a result of GMO or pesticide regulations. Have GMO labelling or cultivation bans? Get ready to go to court. Monsanto’s court, that is. With ISDS Monsanto can take its case before an international corporate court where corporate lawyers are the judges. Their ruling can’t be challenged in the defending nations courts. Goodbye national sovereignty.’

 

The new push for NZ GMOs.
Time to restart genetic modification debate?
Wednesday, 18 July 2018 14:55
https://www.ruralnewsgroup.co.nz/rural-news/rural-general-news/time-to-restart-gm-debate
‘An expert on genetic modification says though young people can see the possibilities with the technology, some people are still living in a time warp in regards to it.
Massey University professor of molecular genetics Barry Scott, FRS, co-chairs a panel on GE technology for the Royal Society.
He told Rural News that GE technology has moved on a lot in the last 40 years and is now more precise. He believes fresh public discussion is needed on the subject of genetic modification.
His comments echo those of the recently retired Government chief science advisor Sir Peter Gluckman, who called for the debate on GM to be restarted. Gluckman says there are no significant ecological or health concerns associated with the advanced used of genetic technologies. But this doesn’t mean NZ would automatically accept these technologies, he says.’

 

NZ needs to rethink genetic engineering stance - experts
2/07/2018
https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/national/nz-needs-to-rethink-genetic-engineering-stance-experts/ar-AAzt9Eb?li=BBqdg4K&ocid=mailsignout
‘Since then, all genetic experiments have been confined to labs. However Sir Peter says we need a rethink on the issue, telling TVNZ there are "no significant ecological or health concerns associated with the use of advanced technologies".’
‘Chief science adviser Juliet Gerrard says there's "no doubt" the current regulatory framework is out of date on the issue.
"We'll definitely need a fresh look at the evidence."
Professor Barry Scott, co-chair of the Royal Society expert panel on GE, says there's a lot of "scaremongery" about genetic modification and many haven't changed their opinions since the early 2000s. He told The Project GE has huge potential to cure illnesses such as bone marrow cancer, as well as conservation of the environment. GE could even be used to remove allergens from food, making it safer for people with intolerances.
Professor Scott doesn't think Kiwis should be concerned about the potential dangers of GE.’

 

Life hackers
~ Feb 2017
https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/life-hackers/
Gene editing is now being used in research around New Zealand, usually to ‘switch off’ genes one by one in order to figure out what they do. Overseas, this technology has started to emerge from the lab—it has the potential to help eradicate pests, save threatened species, even cure diseases—and soon, we’ll have to decide whether gene editing should be permitted more widely in New Zealand. What are the risks? What could we use it for? And how should we decide?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...