> > The GM technology is proceeding like an
> > express train and nobody has checked whether the brakes
> > work.  There is massive ignorance on all sides.
>
> What are the experiences from the pollinators in the GMcanola
> in Southern Alberta (Canada) ?

Genetic Modification can take many forms.  In the canola we pollinate in
Southern Alberta, I believe that two simple traditional factors are
involved: selection, and hybridization.  There is no injection of human
genes, BT emulation, or any such questionable activity -- AFAIK. I may
be wrong, but I understand that the modification is merely by the same
sorts of traditional methods that derived many different dogs, including
the Irish Wolfhound and the Toy Poodle, from a common gene pool.

AFAIK, each parent line of the canola is merely the result of careful
selection from a worldwide population of plants for certain
characteristics, among which are -- most significantly -- resistance to
the effects of Liberty(r).

Liberty is a weed control chemical produced by the company that owns the
enterprise that developed -- and continues to develop -- the seed we are
helping to produce.  Historically, canolas have been extrememly
sensitive to such sprays and great care had to be taken to avoid contact
with any of these weed control chemicals.

The advantage to tolerance of weed control chemicals is that canola
crops can now be sprayed for weeds *after emergence* and thus be planted
earlier than would be possible if farmers had to wait for weeds to
emerge and be killed before planting the crop.  There is also less
danger of serious competition from fast-growing weeds overtaking the
crop, since the canola can use its head start to develop a canopy and
shade the weeds before they can get established.

There are many considerations in the selection of the parent lines for
this canola, such as plant sturdiness, disease resistance, yield, etc.
Chemical based insect resistance is not presently one of them -- AFAIK.
For one thing insect resistance or toxicity would be highly detrimental
to the seed production since there is currently no feasible way of
producing the commercial seed without the agency of bees: the 'male' and
the 'female' lines are planted in very distinct and well-separated
areas.  Without bees enthusiastically transferring pollen between the
two, no seed would be produced.

Once the parent lines have been selected and grown, they are seeded in
the fields we pollinate, and which will yield the final product: a
canola that can be sprayed for weeds after emergence and which will
out-yield standard commercial canolas by over 25%.  The two parent crops
are seeded in wide rows (See pictures at
http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/) and the seed from the 'females' only
is harvested and sold to farmers to seed commercial crops.  The 'males'
are mowed out and destroyed.

Since there is no deliberate attempt to have a plant that is repulsive
or harmful to insects at this time -- AFAIK -- this canola seems to me
to be no different from any other 'Argentine' type rape.  It welcomes
bees, yields nectar and pollen, and is otherwise great for bees.

The stocking rate of 3 hives per acre -- along with the deliberate
avoidance of areas with nearby competing crops for the bees to forage --
does, however, very significantly reduce the likelihood of attaining a
large honey crop.  Moreover the other factors associated with hauling
bees in and out and crowding them into locations does introduce some
negative factors which result in noticably greater losses of queens and
hives over the season that we would expect to experience in a stationary
operation with less crowding of sites and with abundant alternate bee
forage available continuously as the season progresses.

Last season, we lost about 500 out of 3,100 hives between the time we
finished splitting and verifying success and the time we wrapped in the
fall.  Our winter losses were also higher than we would have expected,
and we think that is partly due to the additional stress of pollinating
and the residual effect of sprays in some yards, since the crops were
all sprayed at conclusion of flowering with Decis(r) while the bees were
still present.

I should mention that if spraying has to be undertaken near bees, that
Decis(r) is a good choice.  It works by contact, and has very low
residual toxicity.  If it is sprayed after the bees cease foraging for
the day, little immediate damage is noticable -- assuming that there is
no drift over the hives, and that they are given a reasonably wide
berth.

So, all in all, going back to the question about 'GM' canola, It seems
to me that the term 'GM' is a catch-all that includes a wide variety of
techniques, and does not really adequately differentiate between many
matters that generate distinctly different concerns.  It is one of those
concepts that is designed to appeal to the (largely uninformed) public
mind and generate popular movements, but which is largely meaningless in
any specific case.

There are some concerns that are legitimate and which are *associated
with* the idea of 'GM'.

Introduction of foreign genes into common plants and animals is a
practice which presents more possibilities -- both 'good' and 'bad' than
we can begin to imagine.  The BT crops experience is a good case in
point here.

Even traditional non-'space age' methods of breeding new crops and
plants can have huge effects that are difficult to predict.

Monoculture and its many ramifications, even without GM, is cause for
concern on many levels.

allen