Slashdot Mirror
GM DNA Spreading...
Raphter writes: "Frightening study on GM crop genes spreading to wild plants. Original [subscription required] is here." The best part is the farmers who have been sued because plants on their land showed traces of this same DNA, and the agriculture giants alleged the farmers must have planted them.
It seems that the sueing should go the other way around. It should be the responsibility of the growers of geneticly modified crops to keep their plants from "corrupting" other farmers crops. Some farmers use the fact that their crops arnt geneticly modified as a way to attract some customers.
I assume though that the current plantiffs suing represent a lot more money than the farmers who do not use geneticly modified plants, and so it goes...
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
This story was looked at in depth on All Things Conisdered on National Public Radio a few days ago... click here for a real media archive of the recording.
As to the farmers getting sued and the agriculture giants alleged the farmers must have planted them, I'd make this statement michael. If the farmers didn't plant the seeds to cross polinate other plants in an area (and country) where GM seeds are illegal, who did? Black UN choppers?
poliglut discussion
One of the saddest things about this story, is that the genetic purity of Teosinte, the proto-maize, is being threatened. Modern corn relies on modern ag techniques, but teosinte manages to survive just fine in the wild. To survive in the wild takes much more genetic diversity and resistance to all types of pests and competition. Don't want to lose them goood genes.
It's quite interesting the reaction you get when you throw genetically modified into something. People's corn have been cross polenating for thousands of years, and ppl have been performing Genetic Selection on the varieties they plant as well. This probably the most basic form of Genetic Manipulation, but it is a form.
Now that science can do more sophisticated forms of this everyone flips out. I do see that the possibility of danger is higher, but everything that the scientists do can (and possibly has) occur in nature.
I do agree that testing needs to be done, but more importantly ppl need to be informed that these scientists are trying to improve products, not make gross odities. They are taking a random act (evolution) and trying to direct it towards a productive end.
http://monkeyserver.com --- weeeeee
Somebody help me. Adding genes to the pool threatens diversity?
We're all computer people here. Genes are genes, there's no magical "man-made" marker that makes them evil. (Some protesters think there is. I consider them idiots. Other protesters have better reasoned opions. I listen to them.) The gene won't spread to the whole population unless it enhances survivability, and even then, it probably won't get to ALL the plants.
Massive dieoffs of particular genes happen all the time, and is part of "evolution".
I don't understand the panic, unless you have the unfounded "man made genes are somehow automatically evil" idea. Genes have been transferring amongst life forms since the invention of viruses at least.
Then again, I'm a rational environmentalist, not a reactionary one. I've never understood the reactionaries.
I agree that people shouldnt freak out, but be very cautious. The problem with GM is that if a specific GM makes a modification that happens to be extremely harmfull to a crop in a situation like drought, or insect swarms, then its likely that all of the plants that have assumed the effective part of the GM genes will be vulnerable. The reason that this isnt normaly a problem in nature is that muatations in genes are normaly indetectibly subtle. Being subtle, they lack much risk of making a plant extremely vulnerable. When changes that occur in nature arnt subtle, since the changes are random, its likely that the change will harm the plant enough to remove it and its offspring from the gene pool pretty quickly.
On top of all of this, in nature, it doesnt matter if only 100 plants out of 1,00,000 survive some environmental situation. Those 100 will go on to reproduce and become the new population. In relation to human lives, it is important. If only 100 plants survive, a huge supply of food being wiped out, will certainly cause a problem.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
The best part is the farmers who have been sued because plants on their land showed traces of this same DNA, and the agriculture giants alleged the farmers must have planted them.
these farmers sould get together and get a class action suit going to sue the GM patent/IP holders for trespass on thier land...
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
Fish genes can get into tomatoes naturally? How exactly does that happen? (I have this mental picture of a fish humping a tomato...)
GM has nothing at all to do with the cross-breeding and selection we've been doing for so long. (And that artifical selection has dangers we're just starting to understand, as monoculture leaves our food crops vulnerable.) Historical agriculture - from the first permanent settlements up until a few years ago - has not introduced new genes into a species, only rearranged existing elements of a genome. GM introduces completely new elements into a species' genome.
BTW, it has to be understood that this is being done by the crudest of methods. If we wrote computer programs this way, to introduce a new capability into a program we'd take our best guess at what section of machine code gave an existing program that capability, snip it out, and insert it in random places in our program until it seemed to work.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I have no problem with GM crops. I am just saying if GM varities or any natural variety take over and eleminate natural varities then the total number of varities go down. Also if this new gene has some unknown weakness that some insect or bacteria etc. can exploit then crops that have been 'contaminated' by the GM gene can be lost.
Huh? Yeah, your decision as to what you eat has been taken over by hired experts who Congress is allowing to decide that it's ok to introduce GM products into your grocery store's products without letting you know. Because they are "experts," you know, so they can decide *for* you that it's 99.99999% safe. Never mind that you may not want to accept a 0.00001% risk if you can avoid it. Never mind that you may not care about the risks at all, but have religious, superstitious, or other personal reasons for wanting to make your own decision, which you have every right to.
Or maybe you just don't want to be a guinea pig without first giving your consent.
Look out for legislation giving "experts" the illegitimate "right" to decide things for you, instead of persuading you what to decide!
The right to exercise informed consent is being eroded. That is the biggest danger. It is exemplified by GM food introduction, but the principle is much more widely applicable. Uninformed we are vulnerable and helpless. Demand honest labeling, at the least, so you can make your own decisions for yourself.
(rimshot)
Fish genes can get into tomatoes naturally? How exactly does that happen?
Viruses. For the details, you'll have to look it up. And yes, that particular combination is unlikely, but any two species that can be infected by the same virus could potentially directly share DNA that way.
I like the programming analogy, it paints
some pretty amusing pictures in my head.
In addition to viruses, people need to realize that (in this context) there is no such thing as a "fish gene".
I know, strange thing to say, but here's what I mean. A 'gene', especially as discussed here, is a template for making a protein - a sort of a 'protein algorithm'. That's all. It is irrelevant where the specific 'implementation' of this algorithm came from. Consider the herbicide resistant crops - there is NO FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE (in terms of 'biochemicals' being produced) between the unmodified plant, and the resistant plant - the 'new' gene, which comes from bacteria (GASP!), performs exactly the same function as the original plant version - it's just not affected by glyphosphate herbicides like the plant version is. (Imagine if fuel additives in the US clogged and destroyed fuel-injection systems in, say, Honda cars. If US Honda owners started bolting fuel-injection systems from Saturns onto their Honda engines to deal with the problem instead of waiting for Honda to start producing US-fuel-additive-resistant cars, would THAT be 'horribly unnatural', or a fundamental change in the vehicle they're driving around?) The REAL question is 'is there anything horribly unnatural about this protein being in this organism'. Unless you believe that there is no possible way that a plant population can develop individuals resistant to a type of herbicide, or resistant to frost, or whatever, 'naturally', I'd say the answer is 'no'.
It should also be pointed out that any genetic additions (e.g. production of an extra 'antifreeze' protein) have a cost to the organism in question as well. It takes energy to produce proteins. Outside of the specific environment where the extra protein gives the plant an advantage, the extra gene is a burden which will hinder the gene's ability to compete with the 'natural' wild population.
In the case of glyphosphate resistance, I don't honestly know if the gene is as efficient as the original one it's replacing, but even if we assume it is - the gene is STILL only an advantage in areas where herbicide is being sprayed. There is no 'advantage' in the wild for plants that have the 'glyphosphate resistant' version of the gene, unless the farmers are taking their expensive herbicides and spraying it outside of their fields just for fun. The gene may end up in part of the wild population, but is unlikely to ever end up as a large proportion of it, let alone take it over completely.
Finally, as to the notion, mentioned elsewhere, that this is like 'taking pieces of program code and dumping them randomly into our own programs to see if they work' - gene expression happens in parallel. It doesn't MATTER where, fundamentally, on the genome the new gene ends up, so long as it ends up in a place that the organism's cellular machinery is looking for expressable genes. The only thing random about where the new gene will show up is whether or not it ends up A) in the genome at all or B) in a place where it will be expressed enough or not. That's it. Places where the gene is under or over expressed are a detriment to the plant, and those versions get selected out during development just like good old-fashioned 'natural selection', and the rest are cultivated.
I blame the worldwide dearth of good science education, and horribly bad science in Television and movie science fiction. ("Biogenetic plague"? Is that like a "geopetrified fossil"?)....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend