One of the interesting articles that I have found in recent times on GM crops is that insects like humans evolve. Part of this evolving is that there is a tendency in the evolution of all living things that the cycles learn how to adapt to the environment, in this case pesticides. Apart from the possible side effects to GM crops of making humans ill, or livestock after eating some of the grain, absorbing the genetically modified products and is passed down the food chain into the food that we eat, raises more doubts in the writes mind.
Back in the good old days when there was no GM, we look at how healthy we were, and as time progressed, and GM product came into the food chain, more and more of us tended to get ill quite easily, as if our resistance to various bugs like flu has fallen. Is it that a combination of so called modern methods has destroyed the natural inhibitors in processed foods or somehow GM production and resultant food chain products have assisted in this process. An interesting thought that goes through my mind, all I know is natural foods feel better, look better, taste better and aids in a healthy lifestyle. Have a read of the article below; it raises more questions on my mind on the benefits or lack thereof of GM foods.
More pests resistant to GM crops: study The Australian June 11th 2013
MORE pest species are becoming resistant to the most popular type of genetically-modified, insect-repellent crops, but not in areas where farmers follow expert advice.
The study delves into a key aspect of so-called Bt corn and cotton - plants that carry a gene to make them exude a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which is toxic to insects.
Publishing in the journal Nature Biotechnology on Monday, US and French researchers analysed the findings of 77 studies from eight countries.
Of 13 major pest species examined, five were resistant by 2011, compared with only one in 2005, they found.
Of the five species, three were cotton pests and two were corn pests.
Three of the five cases of resistance were in the United States, which accounts for roughly half of Bt crop plantings, while the others were in South Africa and India.
The scientists found big differences in the speed at which Bt resistance developed.
In one case, it took just two years for the first signs to emerge; in others, the Bt crops remained as effective in 2011 as they were 15 years earlier.
What made the difference was whether farmers set aside sufficient "refuges" of land for non-BT crops, said the study's authors.
The genes that confer resistance are recessive, meaning that insects can survive on Bt plants only if they have two copies of a resistance gene - one from each parent.
Planting refuges near Bt crops reduces the chances of two resistant insects mating and conferring the double gene to their offspring.
"Computer models showed that refuges should be good for delaying resistance," study co-author Yves Carriere, an entomologist at the University of Arizona at Tucson, said.
Evidence of this is shown in the case of a cotton-munching pest called the pink bollworm.
Bt crops in the southwestern US, where growers work closely with scientists on refuge strategies, do not have a resistance problem.
In India, though, pink bollworms became resistant within six years because farmers did not follow the guidelines or get this support.
The researchers cautioned that resistance to Bt crops was simply a matter of time, as all pests eventually adapt to the threat they face. But refuges were the key to braking it.
Farming groups have been furiously debating the value of refuges, and in recent years the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relaxed its refuge-planting requirements.
In 2011, Bt corn accounted for 67 per cent of corn planted in the US and Bt cotton for between 79-95 per cent of cotton planted in the US, Australia, China, and India.
Transgenic crops are opposed in Europe and other parts of the world where green activists say they are a potential threat to human health and the environment