Billme, you made an excellent point that supporting gm in any way makes you complicit in it's continuation. It is my understanding that the word "may" is used because the research is ongoing. Here are some samples of ongoing research from PubMed, each concluding that more research is needed: "1: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Nov;71(11):6719-29.Click here to read Click here to read Links Impact of Bt corn on rhizospheric and soil eubacterial communities and on beneficial mycorrhizal symbiosis in experimental microcosms. * Castaldini M, * Turrini A, * Sbrana C, * Benedetti A, * Marchionni M, * Mocali S, * Fabiani A, * Landi S, * Santomassimo F, * Pietrangeli B, * Nuti MP, * Miclaus N, * Giovannetti M. Istituto Sperimentale per lo Studio e la Difesa del Suolo, CRA, Florence, Italy. A polyphasic approach has been developed to gain knowledge of suitable key indicators for the evaluation of environmental impact of genetically modified Bt 11 and Bt 176 corn lines on soil ecosystems. We assessed the effects of Bt corn (which constitutively expresses the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis, encoded by the truncated Cry1Ab gene) and non-Bt corn plants and their residues on rhizospheric and bulk soil eubacterial communities by means of denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analyses of 16S rRNA genes, on the nontarget mycorrhizal symbiont Glomus mosseae, and on soil respiration. Microcosm experiments showed differences in rhizospheric eubacterial communities associated with the three corn lines and a significantly lower level of mycorrhizal colonization in Bt 176 corn roots. In greenhouse experiments, differences between Bt and non-Bt corn plants were detected in rhizospheric eubacterial communities (both total and active), in culturable rhizospheric heterotrophic bacteria, and in mycorrhizal colonization. Plant residues of transgenic plants, plowed under at harvest and kept mixed with soil for up to 4 months, affected soil respiration, bacterial communities, and mycorrhizal establishment by indigenous endophytes. The multimodal approach utilized in our work may be applied in long-term field studies aimed at monitoring the real hazard of genetically modified crops and their residues on nontarget soil microbial communities." "1: Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2005 Mar;16(3):524-8. Links [Effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility] [Article in Chinese] * Wang J, * Feng Y, * Luo S. Institute of Tropical and Subtropical Ecology, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China. wangjw@scau.edu.cn An incubation test with the straws of Bt corn 34B24 and its non-transgenic isogenic line 34B23, Bt corn Nongda 61, and non-transgenic Nongda 3138 was conducted to study the potential effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil enzyme activities and soil fertility. No significant difference in soil protease and acid phosphatase activities was found between treatments 34B24 and 34B23; but on day 75 of incubation, soil dehydrogenase activity was significantly higher in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The same was true for soil invertase activity on days 15,45, 60 and 75. Soil urease activity in treatment 34B24 was significantly increased on day 30, but decreased on days 45 and 75. A significant difference in several soil enzyme activities was also observed between the treatments of two Bt corn hybrids and their conventional cultivars at some sampling days. After incubation for 90 days, the contents of soil available P and K were significantly lower in treatment 34B24 than in treatment 34B23. The differences mentioned above resulted from the composition of test corn straws, which may be affected by the Bt gene transformation process. In order to accurately assess the effects of Bt corn straw decomposition on soil ecosystem, a standard classification system of soil enzyme activities should be established for different soil types from different regions." "Erratum in: Mol Ecol. 2003 Aug;12(8):2279. Effects of transgenic Bt corn litter on the earthworm Lumbricus terrestris. * Zwahlen C, * Hilbeck A, * Howald R, * Nentwig W. Zoological Institute, University of Bern, Baltzerstrasse 6, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland. claudia.zwahlen@gmx.net A 200-day study was carried out to investigate the impact of transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn on immature and adult Lumbricus terrestris in the field and in the laboratory. Another objective of this study was to develop test methods that could be used for standard testing of the impact of transgenic plants on different earthworm species in the field and in the laboratory. For this purpose two different experiments were involved, a laboratory experiment with adult L. terrestris and a field experiment with immature L. terrestris. No lethal effects of transgenic Bt corn on immature and adult earthworms were observed. Immature L. terrestris in the field had a very similar growth pattern when fed either (Bt+) or (Bt-) corn litter. No significant differences in relative weights of (Bt+) and (Bt-) corn-fed adult L. terrestris were observed during the first 160 days of the laboratory trial, but after 200 days adult L. terrestris had a significant weight loss of 18% of their initial weight when fed (Bt+) corn litter compared to a weight gain of 4% of the initial weight of (Bt-) corn-fed earthworms. Further studies are necessary to see whether or not this difference in relative weight was due to the Bt toxin or other factors discussed in the study. Degradation of Cry1Ab toxin in corn residues was significantly slower in the field than at 10 degrees C in the laboratory. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay results indicated that earthworms in both experiments were exposed to the Bt toxin throughout the whole experimental time."

Hi pineresin, Long story and last one here, because I do not want to hijack this thread... No these people are nice people, they in general totally against cultural xenophobia. They are not bad people and quite likable in general. But they in general seem to be blind for their xenophobic views and dismiss them immediately. I have read 6 books, chosen by my girlfriend (blind test) with the subject�nasive species". So I did not pick 'm. These are books meant for Univerity ecology/biology students. All these books are ridden with valueladen wording. At the end, it will be hard not to think of immigrant species as villains, pest, aggressive beings etc. You are indoctrinated in this way, like we can be indoctrinate din so many other ways. This psychological effect is ture for everybody, it is not that scientists themselves are not affected by this. And so it goes...these people find labour in various nature conservancy associations etc. And so their theory becomes practice.. In our Dutch naturereserves you find all sorts of sgns and explanations. In many instances, you read the simplified version: we cut out spruce and pines because they don't belong here because they are foreign". The University of Wageningen has done some research on what people think about foreign species. In two ways. One was to ask about what they think about foreign species and cutting them down because they don't belong here. Answer: 65% are totally against. They were surprised that after explaning (wrngfully!) that they weed out other species and cause extinctions, still the majority did not buy it. Especially Doug fir was highly valued. They thought that broadleaves would be nr 1. They weren't. More on that in a moment. A second one was to evaluate 200 woodland pics. They choose pics with clear foreign species, clear native species and a mix. End result: 4 woodlandtypes were highly valued. The top 2 consisted of a broadleave (beehc and oak) and in both cases a spruce tree (by some not considered native).. So....who are ecologists doing it for? Not for the Dutch people. Not for nature. If nature has anything to say some species simply don't grow somewhere and others do. Not because trees and plants cause extinctions. Well... they think so everstill, but peerreviewed research shows they don't. Even in those books I mention you can read this in between lines. The do not emphasize did, but in those book they stated that not one foreign species ahs actually led to extinctions. And then: "until now" implying that this will probably happen or is likely to happen. It hasn't. So what does Wageningen Uni want to do? DO they want to change their views..nope. Their goal is to change our views. They clearly concluded that other approaches need to be developped to make people change their views. This again comes close to some propaganda in the cultural sense. In the UK, you see they want to weed out Pinus contorta and Picea sitchensis of the Caledonian forest (Scots pine). Which is "unique" (also another words that has no scientific meaning as so many things can be called unique). Now why is Scotspine a threatend species? No: it is the most widespread conifer around the world. It is the Scottish crossbill, a bird in that forest only found in Scotland. Okey, sound plausible. But the Crossbill is happy to feed on contorta. even more strange: waht makes this bird so special? It s colour? No? Does look different from the two other crossbills in that area...No...They in fact fligh in the same flocks with all others, you cannot distinguish them. So what is it? It is the song. It has its own song...so that is a good reason the set it apart and to weed out all sorts of nonnative species apparantly. Etcetc. If biodiversity is the main reason and it cannot be local biodiversity (because our local biodiversity has gone up much by all those foreign species and not too much loss of older species). Biodiversity is global, according to them. Scots pine is not at risk. Nor is any other species in that area of any concern worldwide. Why spend so much money in your scottisch forest, while you would do A LOT more for global diversity if you would spend that money to protect the Indonesian rainforest? The fact is that ecologists and conservatist use biodiversity as a reason, but their main goal is their own nation. Not global biodiversity. Finally: it seems to be a big problem that the Ruddy duck intebreads with the whitehead duck. They however get fertile offspring. Besides: genetic swamping has never let to the demise of any species. The Ruddyduck and the Whitetailduck are no more different than black and white people. They are the same species. But in ecology, basic human things like discrimination have not the proble of being considered morally incorrect. So even so, we must kill the Ruddyduck at sight to keep the whiteheadduck (whitetailduck??) genetically pure. Where did we read that before. Another final example is the Sikka deer, also in England. It interbreeds with reddeer. Is the reddeer at threat wordlwide? It is not. do they produce fertiel offspring? Yes they do. So if anything, you get another species. A new species. But that is not okay: the reddeer must nbe kept genetically pure. The Sikkadeer must be shot a sight. I think ecology is a good showcase how people can think basically when confronted with newcomers and strangers when they do not feel the pressure of morals. They tend to be prejudice, act on their prejudice etc...This is also our nature. It shows that nature and natural do not equal good and unnatural equals bad. We do not need to judge., However: it is the people at large and not some scientist who decide what happens in a countyr and what not. If I tell these examples to people, they find it totally unacceptable. The only ones who do, are ecologists and co...

hpersky: I think these are very different people with a lot of thing sin common. They see a problem, they adress this to a newcomer and the endresult is to get rid of all newcomers. The thing in Arizona reminded me very much of this argument. Over here I saw this documentary in which several people stated that these MExicans were dangerous and carried guns.....yes, may be....and how is that unique to Mexicans??? In The Netherlands, we have the same thing constantly now. Muslims are the problem of: hate against gays, are badly inegrated, are prolific, are agressive, are a threat to us, are the main cause of violence and theft etcetcetc. And it is all based on examples (tons of them) and it is believed by nowadays 20% of the voters. The facts are very different. But examples, pictures, are strong. Just like that kakapo...Which is not the victim of competition (like in plants, which we are discussing here) but by a predator and the kakapo does not live on a continent, but on an Island. I do not think a kakapo is worth more or less than a stout BTW. If we believe in Dawinism, than the kakapo is a victim of its lack to defend itself. No one is to blame. I LOVE all animals. In fact, I have helped young birds from predatory birds. Just because I consider myself a full part of nature and it is my instinct to protect the young, defensless bird. So too the kakapo: I think it is a very placid, lovely bird. It would be very difficult for me not to protect it when I saw it under attack. I wonder if people would think the same if a dangerous mosquito was under attack from a newcomer btw.... But is the kakapo really the victim of the stout. Did New Zealand nature flourish before invasive species came on the Island. This has been researched on almost all pcific islands: the population of almost all birds was dwindeling well before predatory mammals were introduced. It was...us! It were Polynesians for instance. Was the Moa killed by European mammals? No, it was not. And this is not just an example, this is the redline: the only invasive species which has had a constant impact on its own all over the world is us. Focussing on invasive species without taking this factor into account, is the same as what we do with immigrants blaming them for things caused by ourselves. Which we constantly do. The part of Europe and the uniqueness that is lost. Not a single part of Europe has an "ecosystem" that was not (heavily) modified by humans. So what caused this loss in "uniqueness"?? Invasive species? One thing is certain: never on their own. Besides: if you say that plants lose some traits, you have to be fair. The newcomers gain new traits. Fro instance: Sitkaspruce in Europe is now different from its American borthers and sisters. We now have European landraces and these are indeed protected. So yuo gain seomthing "unique". Another thing is that we also gain unique compositions never witnessed by modern man. For instance: in NW Europe you have woods constisting of more different trees than ever before. Like Tsuga-Abies-Picea-Pseudotsuga-Quercus-Fagus forests. If "unique" means something "good" than we win something and we lose something. But the words used by this sceintist are hardly scientific. They are trying to appealing to our emotions. "sSomething unique is lost!! Forever!"...They appeal to the fact that we do not want to use something of "value". Which is not scientific, as value is something personal. It is also single sided: it does not mention that we get something else back. It is like saying that we lose our culture, because our Dutch music gets lost, our language is heavlily influenced by English and changing rapidly our architecture is influenced by foreign artists etcetc. First of all, like in nature: this is nothing new! The Dutch language for instance is littered with germanisms. I repeat myself. If you only focus on what was, then you only lose something. If you look at everything, you must say that things change and you got something back. So the Dutch language and culture is in constant flux and like nature, more than ever! Ecologists are prone to attribute value to some things and not to others. So they mention losing something that is of value to them and they do not mention gaining something that is if no value or even undesirable. What is or what isn't desirable is a personal thing. Not something science can dictate or even prove. Almost all things we have lost when it comes to biodiversity, is lost because of habitatloss and hunting by us. It is rarely if ever lost by introductions of specieson continents and certainly not by competition. The introduction of species has lead to huge local increases in biodiversity and globally, because of a few losses mainly on Island by disease and predators, is going down. New species can provide valuable habitat for other speies, oldcomers or newcomers. And sometimes, we discover new species in introduced forests. Like in The Netherlands, wehre a totally new fungus (mushroom) was found in a forest of Pseudotsuga Menziesii...

I don't know why you pull out garlic musterd. Sounds tasty..:-) It is simple why it is the same as victimising newcomers in culture. It is an emotional response and when things turn for the worse, the newcomers are to blame for everything we feel has gone wrong. Because things change when there are enough of them to make a difference (fear of what is new) and the loss of what we had (sadness, it was so nice...). I understand these emotions, I am into climatology. Do you think I like the thought of an icebear drowning because he now has to swim 500 km with no ice instead of 100 km and finally drowns? Don't you think I find it a horrible perspective?? Don't you think most climatologists do the same and have some strong thoughts about that?? But they do so in private. And they rarely use valueladen words, even then... Scientists are not the ones who should start to use valueladen words about those who are the main cause of this. They should prove this first and foremost and than let us decide. You won't read anything about this in the climate scientific literature. No: scientists are not there to use these valueladen words and to victimise people, plants or animals. Scientists can never tell us what belongs somewhere and what does not. What should live and what should die. They are there simply to come up with proof and tell people, policymakers etc what the data means. Not what they should think about it, not what they should do about it. Nothing. That is up to us, the people. Yes, I know some climatologists personally who had to testify for the Dutch gouvernment. You simple tell what is correct and what is incorrect (thanks to climate deniers sometimes). But you do not tell that it is awfull, that they have to act now, that they should attack factories that put out Co2 or that should stop emitting CO2 ASAP. Or attack the US because it is the main poluter per capita. etcetc...No such thing. Ecologists however think they have this special position in which a moral view is quintessential. That somehow they are in a special positon to decide for us and what we shoud think and do. I have read the books, the scientific papers, their arguments also on this topic and these words. I know what I am saying. They throw in their moralistic views, how we should think of these immigrants and what we should do. In this way, it has become an ideology and a religion that tells us what our morals should be and how we should behave. When it is okey to let somehting live, what should be highly valued and what should be eradicated, killed etc. Another point is of course credibility: do I believe someone who researches something but is clearly not impartial? How credible am I if I want to research somehting and constantly name it in clearly negative ways. "Let research these dangerous, unreliable, aggressive foreigners and see how they behave in society.." Right... No, I don't think tearing out Garlic musted is any different than tearing out any other plant. But tearing out because it is bad and does not belong here is of the same kind as what some people want to do with immigrants in the cultural sense: based on prejudice and your personal problem with a changing region or may be a changing world. The negative bias you have heard time and time again about foreigners is the main cause for actions. That is waht I think. I think it is no different than the dislike of human immigrants and culture and the prejudice they encounter. In that case it are not sociologists, not historians, not antropologists who say they are bad. It are rather opportunistic and many times populist politicians that support this or even actively promote these views. In nature it are not politicians, but sadly scientist who actively promote this view and eradication programms.