asked. her. leg length. legs. well slim. bringing you the latest in science and technology from around the world

. we've got the future covered. lead mission and free credit patient free in-store charge a free. range lunch free risk free stereotypes freezer gold free broadcast quality video for your media projects a free meal dog party dot com. that's .

the purpose of this experiment is to determine if genetically engineered fish will outcompete and mate with wild fish and if they do that whether their genes will spread in a wild population or whether they will disappear over a number of generations and we're interested in that because that's one of the main questions about ecological risk if genetically engineered fish are being produced in a fish farm and if they were to escape from the farm and if they were able to make if they were fertile the question is they skate and if it is they skate into waters where there are wild relatives what will happen if they interbreed with the wild relatives and our experiment is designed to test that question.

so this and recovered and build your the university developed a computer model in which they created a population of sixty thousand wild creatures into which sixty transgenic individuals penetrate a council of the questions was compiled for instance other certain survival strategies or mating advantages of the mixed offspring stronger or weaker if these phenomena are observed and the results recorded then the computer calculates the possible future results.

and what we're doing in these types of testers to look for rating advantages of transgenic real growth of the wild type males. training males are larger than wild type males and they could have increased mating success because of that and they could have increased success because either the female prefers to mate with larger males or better by being larger they can drive away the smaller wild night competitors that are around and as a result of that combined. advantage with other males as well as the female preference we found that the transgenic males get more than seventy five percent of all the mating so for example one thing that we've also measured is if a young doe survive as well and. mating advantage of the males would drive that trans gene into the population or more transgenic but the survivorship of the

. less and less through time. resulting in a smaller population size. right likely the population could go extinct. genetic engineering to some extent is about a four hundred year old mistake it was a mistake and began with the cartesian revolution and this idea that life is a machine. you know that basically animals are better machines that animals are basically in chains and yet they continue to try and treat life as a machine and engineer is it for a machine and the cruelties of the early going to sections are now being repeated by the genetic engineers who are literally changing the make of billions i are linking them based on this pathological mistake of thinking that life is a machine that's why they believe in genetic engineering they're engineering life

as if they were engineering sheens that's the fundamental mistake of genetic engineering. as a lawyer and author andrew kimbrell battles his way through all the issues raised by the new genetic technology he heads an environmental agency in washington which vigorously campaigns for food safety literally legally as an attorney i find is very important for the very first time in history in the last twenty years we define plants animals even humans now as machines and manufacturers under section one of one of our patent law that's what you can patent and sheens and manufacturers so we've decided as a government as a as a polity united states pumpkin that a beagle really human and a primate if these are machines in manufacture is no different than refrigerators

or toasters or new tennis racket they can get handed and commodified this is a shocking commodification of life and shocking philosophical development as well as legal. this was a greenhouse that was used for a story and so one year ago. this facility had a lot of things that had been stored over the years which we had to clear out and then construct this entire facility to hold the and for the channel so that we have about one hundred fifty tons of water in here right now. old farm buildings converted greenhouses improvised nation and inventiveness this is won't risk assessment research looks like conducted by a handful of idealists around the world one would think that this is the only

industry and government controlling agencies to conduct these tests but it's markets and profits are at stake not the mills and food. not our environment this is not in the south of the effects the may even be in grave jeff edgy. the research that we're doing here and looking at the transgenic mating advantage and so forth is very unique because there we know of no other lab in the world that is looking at the success of transgenic individuals in the wild like that and actually one of the reasons why we began this research in the first place is to set a methodology where industry where regulators could test organisms and see whether they would be safer safer if they were the environment. ways that transgenic organisms like fish get into the environment in the first place. would more likely be an accidental occurrence where there would be there in

. our offense. area in the ocean that the fish would expect from going through natural. really every year thousands and thousands of fish that stay for these types of situations so it's a very common type of event there is a storm off the coast of maine a couple years ago that destroyed some of the closure that the salmon were being farmed in and that one storm one hundred thousand fish. they can excrete from these situations and they get a great number there are certainly environmental hazards associated with transgenic animals and particularly with fish because they can escape and they're free ranging after that it's real hard to find one after they get out as the as the salmon farming industry has discovered on its own in order to protect against the fish

either colonizing new habitat or interbreeding with with wild fish what we're doing is developing a fish that is or our production line a fish that will be sold will be sterile so that it can't reproduce and they will be all female and the reason why they're all female is because it's sterile female salmon tends not to come back from the ocean they have no reason to come back to the rivers to spawn because they're never mature so they stay out to sea they feed they live their lives there and they die there and one of the things that find so curious about the argument of the biotechnology companies that often call themselves life sciences. is that when you talk to them about environmental threats about all the other threats to say don't worry we are making genetically engineered fish sterile we'll make sure they're sterile by the way who checks on this millions of fish being sterile is ridiculous and force an idea don't worry biological push

the plants we're going to put a terminator technology in these plants will commit suicide after one growing season and i find it very strange that accompany the causes of life sciences is telling us that their technology only will work if we make all life on earth sterile. with a terrifying concept you know if i was an engineer. and an engineer came to me he said i have invented a technology about life but the only problem is we have to sterilize all living things i so go back to the drawing board you have a failed technology that's what i'd say. because as you can tell you are going to make it sterile.

in norway not only of the effects of foodstuffs on humans and animals being examined terri or traffic has brought together a group of scientists from numerous different fields to work out a holistic perspective they include molecular biologists geneticists immunologists ecologist and most recently a philosopher. and those questions are both concern vade the whole ecosystem sister urban says in ecosystems by introducing a new foreign possibly different d.n.a. and also directly related to change that may take place in animal organisms and in

plants or innocence your concern to both will be called in at pollution and we are concerned of both making everybody understand that genetic pollution is something totally different from the chemical pollutions we had been stupid enough to initiate over the past fifty years or so because chemicals never replicate themselves even even at your which chemical pollution but over time get smaller. value for d.n.a. it may be the order of area wrong because in a way it's self replicating in principle so it's more pollution may replicate itself to become a huge pollution in theory and all this different types of risk aspects that we are concerned and world contributing to getting answers to so far is a lot of questions no answers was

. lucky was. the. i. just like their american colleagues the norwegian team wonders about what effect these new forms of life will have outside the laboratory experience gathered with genetically modified farming has shown that there are and will be grave repercussions to the environment. just as pollen fly in the modified plants drift unwelcome fields fish that escape will undo the predictions made by industry and no longer be subject to control. manny's anyone link in the food chain

the entire ecosystem is effected. thomas is a member of terrier traffics team and sees them as if from an ecological viewpoint . i have been to cuba and we have some cooperation with a group. of scientists from cuba and i thought very interesting example of transgenic is it has some of the traits that was not expected when they modified the genes of the fish. they have found that the fish is growing about twice as fast as the normal. but that's a side effect of a totally different effect you also tolerate salt water and that may be very important in for example a further spread of the species. also shows that the. transgenic

plant or organism may suddenly have some other traits that was not expected maybe no one could just come with a side effect of the case the difference is that. we don't put that first generation of crops or animals out onto the market we observe them as i said in our case we have five generations that have been under cultivation where we have been observing these fish and we've been calling anything that has an unexpected result something that grows continues growing fast or grows too quickly or gets sick or whatever it is we will we call those fish and we only select the ones that don't have those unintended side effects for for actual production by the time these fish are ready to go on the market they will have been through six generations that's over fifteen years of observation. and we're quite confident that there's nothing.

occurring there was an expected. back to the united states for the past eighty years genetically modified grain has been cultivated as if this were completely normal canola cotton and soya dominate the market but plants have been manipulated so that they produce their own insecticide to kill pests. from humans who of course eat this as well how does a fake nature do you know professor of entomology at the university of minnesota is attempting to examine just this point is that the bt corn bt cotton can even be cheaper tadros or commercialized before many of the potential effects of these crops on the environment were investigated so. how much gene

flow what kind of non-target affects how to whether or not resistance in the target will occur and how to deal with that these things were not figured out before that before the plants were commercialized and it was as they were commercialized people were raising these issues and and frankly what it is is a takes a while it takes a number of years to figure these things out and the. people who made these plants knew that they wanted to get them commercialized as fast as possible so you run into a problem where the people who are trying to sell these things want to sell them the soon as possible because the sooner they sell them faster they can make their investments back at the same time we need to take the time to evaluate the environmental effects and so in the united states the route this been taken is to allow them to be commercialized and then sort of play

a. a game of trying to chase after it and find out whether or not we have any effects and characterize what they might be. celebratory visit because gee we are interested in various factors affecting insects in the environment. so many things we do we actually work on endangered species problems there's an endangered piece of butterfly nearby that we work on. i think the importance of monarchs to the ecosystem is a pretty interesting thing to think about so probably if monarchs went extinct tomorrow there probably wouldn't be a big he can logical impact in that there are a few parasites that's append predator is not nothing that's really they are what we call a keystone species they are in a species that effects huge numbers of other species. and monarchs

because they migrate depend on habitats in many different parts of north america so an individual monarch butterfly that emerges in minnesota or somewhere else in the northern part of its breeding range will migrate through the central part of the united states through texas and into sites in central mexico where they spend about four or five months and then fly back into the southern part of the united states where they start another generation of monarchs. so what we're doing is we're trying to figure out the relative impacts of the genetically modified crops and all of the other things that might be killing miners in there in. the moment also fly lays its eggs on a wheat the so-called milk wheat that grew on fields after the industry had developed to supposedly ingenious method of killing plants for the desired you.

plant by the calculated use of a certain herbicide it took away the butterflies habitat. and unintentional side effect of gene technology in a culture. we now know through our experience with corn in the united states that the biological pollution of these you know going across is uncontrollable there's no buffer zone you can't control the way insects fly over that rainwater will carry any vector can take this these new genes and spread them to other crops and so we relatives it's happening all of the united states can't control it all the companies are not taking responsibility for that and they're not being held liable for this biological pollution in the future that a company like monsanto is going to go out of business there they're teetering economically new months and as intimate as economic problems think of the billions

of dollars already out there and biological pollution costs are not going to pay so they're going to be long gone i mean when we look at our major crops if we're not careful corn soy and wheat rice and are all going to be polluted perhaps indefinitely in the future because of these companies actions which they can never pay for that's gross corporate responsibility. not to consider. but i feel in minnesota and you ask how many species of insects are there in a typical me's field through a growing season. what we can say is that the studies have shown this is proximately seven hundred species of insects that visit maize every year and so if you think about how many plus there are there's maybe about. five to ten species of pests so all the rest of those species the other six hundred ninety five or so species would be considered the non-target species so they're far more non-target

species and they're our target species and so when you try to control the target it's very likely that you're going to affect some of those other species as well the industry attempts to destroy five in six species that cause loss is worth millions that is understandable what is more difficult to comprehend is that industry does not seem to care that womanist seven hundred other animal species are also affected. the scientists of norway and america just at the beginning of their is such quite frightening for the grain is already on the market and industry is impatiently awaiting approval of transgenic fish. i'm trying very hard to get. the government regulators the other scientists and the consumers to all understand that risk assessment has to be done and it has to be done in a scientifically sound way and it's complicated we're looking at each kind of thinking here fish figuring out

a good methodology to do the risk assessments and then on a case by case basis figure out what is the most reasonable answer we're always going to have uncertainty and the scientists can't get all the answers that's why the democratic process is so important because it's society that has to decide what uncertainty are we willing to accept a trade off with what possible benefits and what possible risks. as i mentioned earlier you know we don't suggest that our salmon are going to feed the world we do suggest that our to lappie and carp which require the salmon saddam's straight the proof of concept and to build up a business but the to lock in car in fact are going to be significant contributors to food security and will feed the world but they contribute to food security and every piece every contribution that brings us closer to the point where you don't have to face. famine where you don't have to face starvation in particular where you don't have to have eight hundred thousand people i'm sorry hundred million

people a year going to bed hungry. i think that's important the truth is the only value to genetically modified animals or plants is for the companies who own those patents it doesn't make for better tasting food it doesn't taste better production of food it's really not good for the planet but it really is good for the people who own those patents were trying to own our food and the more that people know about this the more resistant they will become so lobbyist work as hard as prohibiting labeling is worth anything else because it's in their interest to keep the consumer ignorant every time you walk into a fast food place and every time that you know that you buy conventional vegetables you and i am responsible for the pesticides being used the incredible cruelty to these animals the destruction of our forests and wildlife and seventy percent of

our endangered species are created through farming and ranching united states were complicit in those moral crimes whether we know it or not and so it's not just an environmental crisis it's a moral crisis and we're never going to solve that by being near consumers we have to say no we are creating either the solution or the problem as one of the few mollica by old guests who are also skeptics of course i travel quite often given talks in a place of the world. and the proponents of genetic engineering all this and say that a lot of the scientific arguments i use are exaggerated. but i have one particular argument that they never start discussing and that is when i say that von all the main risk issues of genetic engineering is that ninety five percent of all competent scientists in these fields are working for produce

a cite and only five percent are really genuinely independent. and never discuss that and that makes me suggest that maybe the situation is even worse because i have no data for this it's my own invention. the reason i mention it is so calls that that day the percentages are one hundred looking for all the injustice and ciro percent that are really independent then we have both a very serious scientific problem in society but they also had a very very serious democratic problem as you may imagine i mean it's.

bad. for. wealthy british science it's time to. market why not. come to. find out what's really happening to the global economy

with mike's conjure the no holds barred look at the global financial headlines tune in to kaiser report on our jeep. mission free credit taishan free transfer charge is free from ancient free risk free. two sides free. download free blog counseling videos for your media projects a free media oh god hard teach dot com. let's . see it's.