GMOs Perfected Down to the Chromosome Level

Roland Piquepaille writes "If don't like the concept of 'Frankenfoods,' I have bad news for you. U.S. researchers have developed an artificial chromosome for corn plants. The Chicago Tribune reports that researchers can now make chromosomes to order. These artificial chromosomes are accepted as natural by the plants and passed through generations. As the Monsanto Company bought rights to use this mini-chromosome stacking technology in corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola, I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?)."

Comments

Testing

[navtal]

Not that it will be tested enough before it is grown and distributed. It wont be long before people all over the world are breathing clouds of genetically engineered pollen. Is this bad? Maybe. But is bothers me a little.

Re:Testing

[RockMFR]

That's alright. Any human problems that develop can be fixed with more chromosomes! I'm sure Chromatin would be more than willing to apply this technology to humans... for a price.

Re:Testing

[zoney_ie]

Well, I'm happy that here in Europe the companies have to do lots of testing and prove there are no adverse effects.

And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs.

Re:Testing

[dvice_null]

Humans have done genetic engineering for thousands of years. For example have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of dogs? Or why strawberries or potatoes are that big? And this old fashion genetic engineering is not any safer either. For example with potatoes when they tried to increase the size of the potato, they also managed to make a very poisonous version of it. And because there were no tests for old fashion genetic engineering, it was humans who tested those potatoes first.

So I feel pretty safe with modern genetic engineering. At least we now know what we are doing and we test it well.

Re:Testing

[Blakey Rat]

People have been breathing "clouds of genetically engineered" pollen since long before Mendel described how genes even work. It's pretty obvious that if you only grow new corn stalks from your biggest ears of corn, you'll get bigger ears of corn in general. That's genetic engineering, right there.

Re:Testing

[tacarat]

Selective breeding is not the same as direct splicing of genes or chromosomal insertion. At least with selective breeding you can progressively see what other traits pop up and change rather than saying the end result is perfect. I'm a bit dubious about the testing, too. You could eat whole mayo every day for decades before you have related heart attack. How are they testing the products with lifetime use taken into account?

I also want to see how long it takes the chromosomes to hop to different plants. They should sue God if that happens.

Re:Testing

[oogoliegoogolie]

What you described is called breeding, which is a far cry from active and direct manipulation of your genome on a genetic level. Through basic manipulation of breeding in other species humans have been doing this for thousands of years and it has worked pretty well so far. Monsanto, Cargil, or any bio-company do this so they can develop crops that bring them profit, not for the good of mankind.

So I feel pretty safe with modern genetic engineering. At least we now know what we are doing and we test it well.
We now know what we are doing? We test it well?? If I had points I'd mod you up as funny. If you are really that naive read up on dangerous food additives and how many of them were rejected for human consumption at first, then how through corporate lobbying, donations, and political gifts, these additives suddenly and miraculously became "perfectly safe" and thus were approved for addition in all of our foods.

Re:Testing

[smenor]

What you described is called breeding, which is a far cry from active and direct manipulation of your genome on a genetic level.

Breeding is just a slow, imprecise way to manipulate genomes on a genetic level.

Re:Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Luddites are a retarded lot, aren't they?

For the last few hundred years there has been a lot of misplaced romanticism toward "nature" in the Western world. The sort of "natural" that is embraced doesn't support large populations, it has high infant mortality, and it's merciless with respect to any injury or disease. It's not a harmonious utopia; it's a cruel struggle for survival.

Of course there isn't anything unnatural about what humans do to their environment. It is precisely due to our cognitive faculties that we are afforded luxuries such as large, sweet tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, and carrots. As opposed to small, bitter, disgusting plants. Neutering our minds with such conservatism because we're already the beneficiaries of luxury provided by previous generations of research and efforts isn't more natural. It's just dumber.

Re:Testing

[izomiac]

One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested, far more so than the other stuff you eat (it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers, most of which are known to be harmful for humans). In any case, I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. First of all, this is good for the biotech company since farmers have to buy seed from them every year. But, besides being good for the business model, it's also a safeguard. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications. In the case of the farmers, they don't want the surrounding weeds to acquire the herbicide-resistance gene from their crops. Plus, AFAIK, other than causing allergies, pollen is pretty much harmless.

Re:Testing

[failedlogic]

Repeat after me: "A breath of fresh air can only happen when patents are in the air!"

Re:Testing

[falconwolf]

One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested

DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.

it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers

This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs. Monsanto created Roundup Ready, RR, crops so even more Roundup, one of those chemical inputs or herbicides, can be used. Whereas before there was Roundup Ready crops, herbicides could not only kill so called weeds but could harm the crop itself, but now with RR crops all the herbicide Roundup can be applied to crops the farmers wants to use. Since RR crops have been used there has been a marked increase in herbicide, those weed killers, usage.

I doubt that the widely grown crops will be making any pollen. Most GMOs are designed to be sterile. Plants can hybridize very easily, and reproduce very quickly. You don't want some random species to acquire the modifications, nor do you want natural selection working with the modifications

Yet Super Weeds have been shown to be created by the cross breeding of GMO stock and wild relatives. Genetically-Altered Crops Can Produce Tough, Hard-To-Kill Weeds.

In the case of the farmers, they don't want the surrounding weeds to acquire the herbicide-resistance gene from their crops.

See above.

Falcon

Re:Testing

[marcello_dl]

>And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs

AFAIK, and some googling seems to confirm, much lobbying is done to avoid such labeling even here in EU.

Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe?
They basically say "It's because you consumer are too stupid and bound to tradition to appreciate our offering".
I say "No matter what, I'm the friggin paying consumer and you are trying to deceive me. Besides, GMO is proprietary, so why should I support patenting what I eat after having - indirectly - to deal with patented software? no way".

Re:Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

But is bothers me a little.

You:"Achoo."

Me: "Bless you."

Re:Testing

[budgenator]

Every so often there will be a mistake made by the cellular mechanisms and the nucleus will divide without the rest of the cell dividing. This results in a condition known as polyploidy, when this happens it is possible for fertile hybrids to occur, which means chromosomes can and do hope species, and have done long before GMed crows were even dreamed of. Wikipedia has a good article on Polyploidy and which crops have which ploidy levels

Triploid crops: banana, apple, ginger, citrus [3]
Tetraploid crops: durum or macaroni wheat, maize, cotton, potato, cabbage, leek, tobacco, peanut, kinnow, Pelargonium
Hexaploid crops: chrysanthemum, bread wheat, triticale, oat
Octaploid crops: strawberry, dahlia, pansies, sugar cane

as you can see extra chromosome are quite common in food crops.

Re:Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure what bothers me more---possible environmental impact of genetically engineered crop (that'll eventually escape the farm environment), or the degree of your stupidity and misinformed-ness.

Genetically engineered or not, corn is corn. As long as the new DNA doesn't make it produce toxins (and it rarely will), it doesn't matter whether it's "natural" or not (to the people eating it---perhaps when you try to graft them onto people, then it would matter).

Re:Testing

[Kyojin]

No it's not the same. Genetic Engineering involves manipulating genes in such a way that the original plant would likely not have evolved. What you have described is natural selection. We select those plants that have desired traits.

A tendency to evolve in to harmful wheat has likely been bred out over the last few thousand years. Inserting new genes can have fantastic benefits for growing in tough conditions, growing larger seeds, immunity to various herbicides, but we do NOT know all the possible outcomes. See the case of GM potatoes being harmful to animals in a lab for instance.

That said, I'm all for GM, with proper investigation into all the effects of the new genes.

Re:Testing

[Taint Bearer]

Obviously you have no basic understanding of biology.

A GMO with an artificial chromosome would not be able to possibly pass on the new genes to wild plants, as it is in effect a new species. There can be no recombination of chromosomes during sexual reproduction (ie pollen) when the two parents do not have the same number of chromosomes.

This is actually the safest possible form of GMOs.

Re:Testing

[erroneus]

GM corn that exists today is an insecticide to insects that eat it... not just the insects that eat it, though, to a lot more than just those that eat it directly. These corn plants have pollen and stuff like that. The bees work with that to make honey and do that cross-pollenization that we already know is probably one of nature's most necessary functions that bees can perform. (Albert Einstein is quoted as having stated something along the lines of if bees were to die, humans would die soon after.) Do you think that this poison corn's pollen might be the mysterious cause of the bee population dying? ...and there are probably even worse "unforeseen consequences" that could come from messing with our food supply. (I'm not against messing with science and technology, but when "food" is ruined on the planet, what else do we have?)

Re:Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... you mean un-natural selection, right?

Re:Testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You hold exactly the same viewpoint as the more dull-witted variety of creationist Bible-thumper.

DNA is DNA.

And you know, oddly, that "profit driven" model of agriculture has produced mammoth food surpluses, while socialist agricultural models designed for the "common good of mankind" produced nothing but famine after famine after famine.

Re:Testing

[Foobar of Borg]

Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe?

Well, the point is that GMO food is so new that there is no way to really know if it is safe, or what the long term effects might be. So, corporations like Monsanto are basically trying to force us all to participate in medical experimentation whether we like it or not.

Re:Testing

[Dputiger]

Ahh, yes, the old "dangerous food additives" bit. I was waiting for someone to bring that up.

If food additives are truly that dangerous, why don't we see them listed as a significant cause of death? Yes, there are people who are gluten-intolerant. Yes, there are people who are allergic to MSG, or even aspartame. On the other hand, there are people who are quite allergic to citrus/citric acid, peanuts, shellfish, eggs, sesame, soy, and wheat, all of which are completely natural foods. Obviously someone with an MSG problem shouldn't eat MSG, but someone whose allergic to shellfish shouldn't be eating them either.

I don't buy the concept that we "know what we're doing and we do it well" with regards to genetically modifying food--it's simply too early--but some of these so-called "dangerous" food additives have been used for decades now. High fructose corn syrup may not be very good for you, but I've yet to hear of it killing anyone.

Re:Testing

[Helios1182]

I would call it un-natural selection. The plants had already evolved into a "better" form in terms of survival. I plant that grows huge seeds that never fall off is mostly worthless from a survival perspective, but it is wonderful in terms of food cultivation.

Re:Testing

[izomiac]

DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test?
I don't have any direct evidence at hand, but I also haven't encountered any evidence to the contrary either. Logically, GMOs would be first tested with animals to see if they suffer any long-term side-effects (relative to the lifespan of the animal). I couldn't imagine a responsible scientist neglecting that step, nor a cooperation fool-hardy enough to. After that it would be subject to the same tests that non-GM crops would be put through. So the relative amount of testing would be far higher. As for "it could take generations to test", I don't see why it should take any longer than a new medicine to test. And those certainly aren't tested over several generations. Plus, there are enough people opposed to GMOs that I'm sure it'd be big news if it was found that a health issue could possibly be attributed to a GMO.

This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs others make is easier to use those inputs.
Well, I'm not sure about absolute levels, but I'd expect they've gone down since one can now use lower amounts of stronger herbicides without killing the crops. For farmers there's an economic incentive to use as little as possible. Either way, Round-up seems to be less toxic than most herbicides. Personally, I'd much rather farmers use Round-up rather than atrazine (the most commonly used herbicide in the US). It's more toxic, a teratogen in extremely low quantities, and it can feminize frogs. It seems to be safe enough for humans (otherwise it wouldn't be used), but Round-up seems much safer.

Yet Super Weeds have been shown to be created by the cross breeding of GMO stock and wild relatives.
Weeds are highly adaptive. The main reason that farmers rotate herbicides is to slow the rate at which the weeds naturally develop resistance. But, given the fact that GMOs are limited to only a few inserted genes, the resulting GMOs aren't 100% sterile. So hybridization can happen, although the modified genes are a severe trade off (herbicide resistance, but reduced fertility). Therefore it's possible, but kinda rare. Sure, given the prominence of GMOs you'll find the modified genes in some plants that shouldn't have them, but the traits aren't rapidly spreading, otherwise Round-up and the like would lose their effectiveness. With reduced fertility I'd also expect exponential decay in the number of weeds carrying the modified genes, although I suppose new hybridizations occur every growing season. Fortunately, the artificial corn chromosome should help alleviate that problem in corn. With a large number of sterility-causing genes embedded on the chromosome (not for the research version obviously, but added to the final product), it should be possible to reduce hybridization to an effectively impossible event. But, in any case, it's not like we'd be breathing "clouds of genetically engineered pollen", the GMOs are almost entirely sterile.

Re:Testing

[tacarat]

The problem is that the natural gene/chromosome hopping (and the associated traits) never brought about lawsuits before. It's not like the bees in an area have read any literature saying that the corn they gathered pollen from earlier is the patented technology of XYZ corp and they should therefore not visit other plants.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html

What happens when the weeds and other pest plants become round-up ready as well?

Oh, and my favorite link so far http://www.nelsonfarm.net/

Re:Testing

[InvalidError]

There shouldn't be any need for medical experimentation: take GMO samples, run them through chemical analysis, compare to non-GMO samples, done. If the GMO samples do not present higher concentrations of harmful chemicals than non-GMO ones, the GMO stuff will be every bit as safe as the non-GMO stuff.

Since GMO crops are modified to make them more resilient to diseases, pests, drought, floods, etc., they require fewer environmentally damageable chemicals, less irrigation and less maintenance in general.

The tough part is avoiding cross-pollination since the GMO crops are very likely to displace their originals once out in the wild. Adding a chemically-suppressed kill-switch gene is one possibility but then, this chemical cocktail would indeed need to go through over a decade of medical research to determine its long-term effects on animals... so kill-switch-suppressing chemicals may be interesting but ultimately impractical in principle if they are to be used responsibly.

Re:Testing

[falconwolf]

Logically, GMOs would be first tested with animals to see if they suffer any long-term side-effects (relative to the lifespan of the animal). I couldn't imagine a responsible scientist neglecting that step

How long is long? A few years, 10, or 50? GMOs haven't been around long enough to really test them over a long period. A person can smoke a lifetime and never get cancer yet you see, well I do, places all over banning smoking. The GE, GMO, industry would never exist if they had to prove they were safe for as long.

nor a cooperation fool-hardy enough to.

Ever hear of Exxon or Union Carbide?

As for "it could take generations to test"

Smoking doesn't cause cancer with only a few puffs, or in a few years, either. It's the long term effects that concern me.

I don't see why it should take any longer than a new medicine to test. And those certainly aren't tested over several generations.

Drugs help save lives, GE corn on the other hand only lines the pockets of Monsanto or whoever created the seed.

I'd expect they've gone down since one can now use lower amounts of stronger herbicides without killing the crops.

Herbicide resistant crops are made so you can use herbicides, if you don't use herbicides there's no reason to have herbicide resistant crops. And organic farming doesn't use any manmade chemical inputs. They aren't needed.

Either way, Round-up seems to be less toxic than most herbicides. Personally, I'd much rather farmers use Round-up rather than atrazine (the most commonly used herbicide in the US).

I'd rather farmers not use any herbicides or pesticides. As much as I can I buy organic food. And I'm not some wealth person who can afford whatever I want, I'm on disability and haven't worked in years. Actually I pretty much stay at home online, such as on /. trying to save money, er not spend it. If you look at my first post today, well yesterday because it's after midnight where I am, you'll see I've been logged in for more than 12 hours.

Sure, given the prominence of GMOs you'll find the modified genes in some plants that shouldn't have them, but the traits aren't rapidly spreading, otherwise Round-up and the like would lose their effectiveness.

AH, but herbicides are loosing effectiveness as the article in "ScienceDaily" I provided the link to says. LSU has an article on Herbicide Resistance Management in Roundup Ready Cotton. Here's an article in "Wired" magazine about a Roundup "Ready" coca plant, which is what cocaine is made from: "The Mystery of the Coca Plant That Wouldn't Die".

Falcon

Re:Testing

[jamstar7]

No it's not the same. Genetic Engineering involves manipulating genes in such a way that the original plant would likely not have evolved. What you have described is natural selection. We select those plants that have desired traits.

Selective breeding is still genetic manipulation. You select the specimens with the proper genetic background based on what you see as a desirable trait and allow only that gene line to reproduce. The two differences are, first, you don't have to go directly into the cells to carve on the genes, and two, it takes a lot longer to reduce the gene pool to reliably return the results you want. As in, on the order of centuries in some cases. The 'natural selection' by selective breeding just isn't there. Don't believe me? Take a look at 'Indian corn', which is still fairly close to the original maize gene pool, compared to pre-GMO sweet corn. They produced the first sweet corns by selective breeding, evolving it to something that likely wouldn't have evolved in nature.

Re:Testing

[jamstar7]

A GMO with an artificial chromosome would not be able to possibly pass on the new genes to wild plants, as it is in effect a new species. There can be no recombination of chromosomes during sexual reproduction (ie pollen) when the two parents do not have the same number of chromosomes.

Depends on whether the chromosome or gene counts have radically changed. If you just swap out genes on a one-to-one basis, it won't be a new species and would be able to interbreed with the nonmodified parent. If you tack on a pair of chromosomes, then yeah, I'd say you have a new species on your hands that won't interbreed with the nonmodified parent.

Re:Testing

[said213]

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

Next question?

Re:Testing

[izomiac]

How long is long? A few years, 10, or 50?
Well, by that logic we'd only be using technology that was developed in the 1960's. Sure, GMOs might cause some mysterious disease that we can't detect yet, but it's highly unlikely. Medical technology has advanced from the era of spraying DTT on women and children, x-raying your feet to determine your shoe size, and not realizing the link between smoking and cancer. It'll certainly improve in 10 - 50 years, and maybe we'll find something bad about GMOs, maybe not. But the average citizen from an advance industrial country can't be sustained without embracing new technology. In the case of GMOs, food prices would go up, which the poor might find troublesome. Either way, if you're scared of GMOs then, by all means, buy organic. Well, it's determined that GMOs can be labeled organic (something some people are pushing for).

Drugs help save lives, GE corn on the other hand only lines the pockets of Monsanto or whoever created the seed.
You can live with most diseases, you can't live without eating. I like my cheap hamburgers. It's probably possible to meet current production amounts without GMOs, but it'd be more expensive for the farmers. It's not like using GMOs are the only option, but they apparently are the cheapest.

Ever hear of Exxon or Union Carbide?
Well, lots of people would love to find something wrong with GMOs, and there are bound to be people looking for something. GMOs are consumed by millions of Americans everyday. (In my biotech class we're actually extracting DNA from corn chips to look for the cauliflower mosiac virus promoter, which many GMOs have, the point is that this stuff is everywhere.) It would be foolish for a company to release a dangerous product and get itself sued out of existence. Even if it somehow survived the legal onslaught, the popularity/legality of GMOs would plummet, and it'd lose it's flagship product. Tobacco companies would have been a better comparison, but they were married to a single, cancer-causing product, whereas a Biotech company can fix their product, or create a new one.

I'd rather farmers not use any herbicides or pesticides.
I like organic food, it's far better than food that lacks carbon. :-) But, jesting aside, that's great, the free market at work! I'm a poor college student so I like cheaper food myself, so long as it's tasty.

AH, but herbicides are loosing effectiveness
That seems to be just normal natural selection there. Roundup actually has held out longer than most herbicides, but if you use it enough then the weeds will become immune through their own means. Part of the problem is that GMOs are so effective and cheap (seed cost included) that farmers are using it for several consecutive years. So they naturally get Roundup-ready weeds, but that's not at all related to the usage of GMOs (i.e. it happens to all herbicides).

Re:Testing

[falconwolf]

How long is long? A few years, 10, or 50?

Well, by that logic we'd only be using technology that was developed in the 1960's.

There's a big difference between technologies like computers and Genetic Engineering. If a computer blows up, catches fire, or does something else the damage that may be caused is local. However if a deadly GE created organism escapes into the wild it potentially has repercussions for the entire planet. Is it reall that hard to understand? If my Mac burns up it may burn down the building but if for instance a terminator gene gets out it could sterile other plants. A sterile tomato, if it works, could conceivably sterilize other tomatoes as well, so long for tomatoes.

I know the tomato example was extreme but it serves to get my point across.

Drugs help save lives, GE corn on the other hand only lines the pockets of Monsanto or whoever created the seed.

You can live with most diseases, you can't live without eating.

But you don't need GE corn to eat. Corn has lasted for centuries but Genetic Engineering is new. Not only that but there are plenty of other things besides corn to eat and most corn in the US is used for cattle fodder, and maybe soon ethanol production. Actually I rarely ever eat corn myself, peppers now, I love. For seasoning, stuffed, and picked right off one of my pepper plants in my garden. Other vegetables I have growing are acorn squash, broccoli, cauiflower, onions, tomatoes, and tomatillos. None of them are GMOs. Now if you have any evidence where GMOs and GE seeds are needed please share.

But the average citizen from an advance industrial country can't be sustained without embracing new technology.

Selective use of technology. After all nobody has a nuclear reactor in their basement yet they have existed more than 50 years. Meantime while California had those rolling blackouts several years ago and the Northeast US and south east Canada lost the power grid there were still people in those areas who had power as they used solar or other alternative energy sources.

In the case of GMOs, food prices would go up, which the poor might find troublesome.

Because the GE companies want to keep the money rolling in they want to charge farmers for seed every year instead of allowing farmers to do what they have done since the start of agriculture, save seeds. These businesses want farmers to be dependent on them, which raises prices. If farmers can save seeds it cheaper for people to eat, so in a since Monsanto and others want the world to depend on them.

if you're scared of GMOs then, by all means, buy organic. Well, it's determined that GMOs can be labeled organic (something some people are pushing for).

I am not scared of GE as I said before, what I am is I am concerned about possible side effects of escaped GMOs and about the possibility of vender lockin, in order to continue growing corn a farmer has to buy Monsanto seed every year when they used to be able to save seeds. And no it has not been determined GMOs can be labled organic. The EU split over labeling of GMO contaminated organic food. Contaminated produce not GMO grown produce. Meanwhile in the US GMOs are specifically excluded from certified-organic products.

It would be foolish for a company to release a dangerous product and get itself sued out of existence.

Are either Exxon or Union Carbide out of business? Last I heard they are still in business even if Exxon is on Exxon-Mobile and Union Carbide is now owned by Dow Chemical.

Even if it somehow survived the legal onslaught, the popularity/legality of GMOs would plummet

It is loosing popularity, That's why GE, GMO, companies do everything they can to fight labeling law

Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[prockcore]

Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[taniwha]

the difference of course is that the hybrids we've created (since the dawn of agriculture) have used mixtures of other genes that were already around for generations - if you start just making up genes you do need to do much more carefull testing - make sure they don't mix with the plant next door and make something evil that kills all the bees or creates a super weed etc etc it's a combinatorial problem that nature has already been through and spent a few billion years of evolution on - combinatorial means that there are bullions of possible combinations of genes only a tiny few of which are usefull, most of the rest are non-viable but some will do stuff we don't want and because the state space is so large we probably can't ever predict all the possible outcomes without trying and finding out (and then it's too late if something bad happens) because the state space is so large it may take many many generations to find out

don't get me wrong I'm not a luddite as far as GM is concerned - I want to see cool new organisms for us to use - I just think we should be really really carefull and require enormous amounts of testing - maybe generations (in human time) of testing

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Original Replica]

But these aren't really hybrids now are they. To make a car analogy: If you take the parts from two Corvettes and use them to make a new car it's still a Corvette. Now if you make a bunch of parts in your personal machine shop, and you build a car that is based off of the Corvette, it's still not really a 'Vette. I'm not saying I wouldn't eat NuCorn but it's not Corn, and it's not just a hybrid. It's a new different plant. I hope it's tasty.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[sentientbeing]

Oh come on. Historical hybrids take years to produce. Decades. Centuries.
 
They dont appear overnight, into the global environment and onto your plate and into the foodchain before people even know what new name to give them.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[nurb432]

shhhhh you are using logic..

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[HW_Hack]

I am no plant expert and have only had a few standard biology courses (recently) that covered DNA splicing / modification. But to compare the traditional hybrid process to manipulation at the genetic level is totally mis-leading statement. Genetic manipulation (and its long term effects )is something we barely understand - and its power to alter specific genes (and thus gene expression) is very powerful.

And this is compounded by the fact that unlike other genetic experiments (using mice - animals - cells) plants produce pollen - if that pollen escapes your "test plots" it will mix with "natural" crops and now your modification is in the wild .... ready or not.

And what happens when company XYZ's modified tomato genes (via pollen) mix with company ABC's modified genes ??? ect ect.

I believe much good will come out of genetic research - but putting profits ahead of prudent (long term research) is a recipe for indigestion

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[falconwolf]

You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?

There's a hell of a big difference between cross breeding and inserting a gene, or in this case a chromosome, that was never there to begin with. Cross breeding occurs naturally, among related species, whereas nature does not insert fish genes into tomatoes, or Brazil Nut genes into soy.

Falcon

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[wizardforce]

if you start just making up genes you do need to do much more carefull testing - make sure they don't mix with the plant next door and make something evil that kills all the bees or creates a super weed etc etc

we aren't making new "genes" in this case, we are transferring a gene from one species to another. it's very similar to natural processes of horizontal gene transfer, even viruses can and do transfer genetic material from species to species on occasion all for millions of years. as for the danger of creating something dangerous, there are several cases where natural species can and are destroying habitats and poisoning large stretches of ocean in one case. we really should test everything regardless of whether we genetically modified it or bred it successively over many generations.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[FormOfActionBanana]

In the 20th century all the wheat hybrids were created by blasting wheat kernels with hexene or with radiation... and just seeing what happened.

I don't see how actually tuning and selecting traits, or adding specific ones, can be more dangerous. It's actually mucking with things a bit less.

If you don't like artificially genetically modified food, remember not to eat ANY wheat on Earth. For that matter, if you don't like artificial food, I think your options are to shoot your own deer, catch fish and study up on mushrooms. I can't think of anything else we commonly eat that isn't man made.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[vertinox]

if you start just making up genes you do need to do much more carefull testing - make sure they don't mix with the plant next door and make something evil that kills all the bees or creates a super weed etc etc it's a combinatorial problem that nature has already been through and spent a few billion years of evolution on

Evolution isn't perfect, but it deals. It couldn't prevent the dinosaurs extinction after all (impact, gamma ray burst, super volcano etc), but life persisted regardless.

But you are right, releasing a GM crop into the wild without studying its potential dangers would be similar to pushing a comet to impact earth just to give evolution a kick in the pants.

It may work, but its unpleasant for those involved to say the least.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[cnettel]

Oh, yes, it happens. Not frequently, but look at how Agrobacterium tumefaciens originally got the properties that makes it great a great tool for GM. There are genes with a clear plant origin inside that bacterium, and as it can infect different species, it can transfer material between them as well.

There are also traces of an animal myoglobin/hemoglobin-related protein in some plant species. The sequences are so alike that the most logical explanation is that it's been transferred long after the original split in our heritage (which would be 1 billion years ago). Horizontal gene transfer isn't frequent. But even if a new gene only enters the gene pool of a species every 1000th generation, or once every million years, or anything, that would mean that just about every species on earth is the result of horizontal gene transfer. If horizontal gene transfer would create a great risk for ecosystem devastation, we should be able to track those cases down, as they should have already happened now, many times over.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[cfulmer]

After hybrids, the next version of genetic modification, decades ago, involved irradiating the seeds, planting them and seeing what grew. When one of the plants grown from irradiated seeds produced a better crop, they saved the seeds from that plant, grew others, and sold the seeds. The same thing happens in nature, albeit on a much slower time frame. GM crops are just a way of being more selective about what you end up growing. How do you know that the corn plant your corn came from wasn't hit by cosmic radiation, changing some random gene? (Chances are, you've eaten many plants with some random genetic differences.)

How many generations of testing did people do on, say, broccoli, before deciding it was safe? There are probably over 1,000 varieties of tomatoes -- some were found growing naturally, others produced by irradiation, others by selective breeding and so on, with more coming out every year. How many of those varieties have had any sort of extensive testing? Ever picked wild berries? How did you know that the particular variety wasn't toxic somehow?

Genetic modifications allow foods to store longer, avoid insects and disease, withstand shipping, provide more nutrients and be more tasty (typically not all at the same time). This means that we can eat strawberries in the middle of the winter, eat tastier corn in the summer and provide more nutritious soybean plants to third-world countries. It means that farmers get better yields, throw less food away, and can thus reduce prices. Lower prices mean fewer people starving, and more savings. It's a good thing.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[smenor]

But these aren't really hybrids now are they.

Actually... yeah. They are.

To use your analogy, as it is, corn is a combination of Corvette parts, and other parts from closely related GM (no pun intended) cars.

Even more than that, because of horizontal gene transfer, there's even the odd Toyota part mixed in as well.

The only difference is that now we can easily pick and choose parts from any car (or off the shelf) to mix in at will to get the best performance possible.

We're not *quite* to the stage where we can just make parts in our own machine shop though.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[rubycodez]

once every million years is nothing like a lab cranking out dozens of naturally impossible mixtures a month.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[nicolastheadept]

Its not like you're creating an entirely new plant, or even basing a new one off an old one. Its like taking one car and replacing a part or two.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[zenkonami]

In other words: "Give up! Accept it! It's the New World Order, comrade, and you don't get a say."

In Soviet Democracy Montsanto feeds YOU

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[falconwolf]

You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?

Selective breeding to choose those traits that are desired is compleatly different than inserting a gene, or in this case a chromosome, that is not already there into a GMO.

Falcon

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[budgenator]

One might argue that because plants are competative that naturally selcted plants would be more likely to aquire toxicity to gain an advantage.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[budgenator]

We'll just release some plants under the GPL v3 and if the patented plants contribute their code to our GPL'ed code, all their patents are ours!

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[falconwolf]

It means that farmers get better yields

Do you have any evidence or proof this is true? Here's an article about one study that shows organics, which bans GE and GMOs, produces as much if not more than conventional farming: "Organic farming yields as good or better: study".

Lower prices mean fewer people starving, and more savings. It's a good thing.

Wrong. There are 3 major causes of hunger and starvation in the world: conflicts, fighting, and wars; politics; and the massive subsidies the First World ie the EU, Japan, and the US gives to agribusinesses. Conflicts, fighting, and wars make it hard for farmers to farm. Then politicians take perfectly good farm land and ruin it. It used to be that Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of southern Africa. However once president Robert Mugabe came to power he forced most of if not all of the white farmers off their farms and gave the farms to his cronies. Now Zimbabwe is a basket case and instead of exporting a lot of food, food has to be imported and still people are starving. Then there are the massive subsidies. Did you know that because of the billions of dollars the US federal government gives to massive agribusinesses in the US they are able to grow, then ship, and sell food in Mexico for cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow food? Mexican farmers are forced off their farms because US agribusinesses want their billions of dollars in corporate welfare. Where are those farmers going to go? They either go north and try to cross the border and become so called "illegal immigrants" or aliens; or they move into Mexican cities. And since those cities are already bursting at the seams, those already in the cities try to cross the border.

Actually for those people in the US who want to stop the flow of Mexicans into the US then get on your senators and representatives and tell them to stop giving large businesses like Cargill and Archer Daniel Midlands, ADM, billions of your dollars.

Falcon

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[budgenator]

The most common gene in our genome is for reverse transcriprase, a retovirus emzyme, there are 30 full and partial copies of it in us. We carry whole viruses in our DNA and have done so for long than we've been human.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[eclectro]

By their nature, I think it could be argued that hybrids *are not* permanent, as many times the hybrid traits are not passed through seed to successive generations.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Ant P.]

the difference of course is that the hybrids we've created (since the dawn of agriculture) ...can't be used to extort licence fees from you if they accidentally cross-pollinate into your own crops.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[cfulmer]

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm, referring to an article in Science. I'd link to the science article, but you have to pay for it.

As far as your belief that subsidizing the production of food somehow yields starvation, I'd be curious to see some scientific backup for that. To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre. As for those farmers, they should switch crops -- they don't need to be cheaper than the US; they just need a comparative advantage.

Actually, at the moment, the big problem seems to be the diversion of corn to the manufacture of ethanol. Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[falconwolf]

As far as evidence goes, check out http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0531-05.htm , referring to an article in Science.

I'll like to see a meta analysis of a lot of these studies because different studies make different conclusions. The study I submitted, "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" comes to a different conclusion than the one you provided.

To me, the idea that Mexicans are somehow worse off because they can buy food cheaper, and thus keep more of their own money, seems just bizarre.

Those Mexicans who work can afford food but those who work on farms can't. How's this, from the same source you used: "Mexican Farmers See Death Sentence in NAFTA".Or this one: "NAFTA Equals Death, Say Peasant Farmers". On the first page of Googling "mexican farmers" nafta all of the results are about how Mexican farmers got hammered by NAFTA. Economically the first thing that should matter the most is food security however when farmers have to leave their farms that goes out the window.

Because of a screwy tax credit for ethanol production, corn prices have gone up dramatically, on both sides of the border. (I say screwy because the amount of energy you get out of corn-based ethanol is only marginally higher than they amount you put into making it. Converting sugar, on the other hand, is much more efficient.)

Yeap, all this is is another corporate welfare scheme. As you say sugarcane is a better source for making ethanol, even better is Switchgrass.

Falcon

Perhaps I should say something about food security. While I love technology, for most of my life I wanted to be an engineer or scientist, I also believe like Thomas Jefferson that a national economy should have a solid agricultural foundation. Then each region can trade with others for food that won't grow there to add variety to cuisine.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[falconwolf]

Oh, yes, it happens. Not frequently, but look at how Agrobacterium tumefaciens originally got the properties that makes it great a great tool for GM. There are genes with a clear plant origin inside that bacterium, and as it can infect different species, it can transfer material between them as well.

I stand, er sit, corrected. In a previous post someone brought up Horizonal Gene Transfer.

Falcon

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[cfulmer]

Well, my source was Science -- that article, I think, actually came from the Washington Post. I think that the most obvious evidence that organic farming doesn't yield as much as conventional farming is that if it did, agribusiness would be all organic.

I don't doubt that Mexico has its own losers under NAFTA, as does the U.S. does also. It's a little like Walmart coming to a community -- everybody's buying power shoots up a bit, except for the people who Walmart drives out of business. And, those people are always the ones fighting new Walmarts.

Note, for example, that while Mexican corn farmers are going out of business, Mexican Avacado farmers are doing well. Mexico's total exports to the US have more than doubled since NAFTA.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Ed_1024]

Not a bad idea... Maybe we need a repository of Open Source Organisms, whose genetics can be used/improved by anyone?

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Luxifer]

So if you take a few 3/8 inch bolts out of your Ford Escort and use them in your 'vette, it's no longer a vette? Genes are more like nuts and bolts in a car. you could even put the whole alternator from your escort and put it in the vette, and the battery. It'd still be a vette. Where the limit is, I don't know, but a few parts is not a car.
    Also, taking a gene from one thing and putting it in another is not as unusual as it seems. For example the fish gene they put in tomatoes already exists in tomatoes, it's just different. So you get increased production of the product, which allows tomatoes to resist frost better. you could just as easily evolve the tomato gene to do the same thing, but it would take a few thousand years.

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[budgenator]

it's the National Resource for Molecular Biology Information, NCBI

Established in 1988 as a national resource for molecular biology information, NCBI creates public databases, conducts research in computational biology, develops software tools for analyzing genome data, and disseminates biomedical information - all for the better understanding of molecular processes affecting human health and disease

Basically if you publish any peer reviewed scientific papers on gentics, or protiens the sequences have to be entered into the database so just run down to the book store, pickup a copy of "Bioinformatics for Dummies" and have at it.

Monsanto

[heresyoftruth]

Is there anything that company can't do? I associate that name with all things that make me nervous or irritated by this point in my life.

Re:Monsanto

[Znork]

Monsanto is pretty much the poster boy for corporate death penalty. The company has been found guilty of bribery, suppression of truth, negligence, wantonness and outrage. It's poisoned people and environment with PCB, sarin, and mustard gas. The company has shown that it will knowingly and willingly expose workers and environment to toxic substances, and it will continue doing it until it's forced to stop through legal action.

This company is one that the world would far better off without.

Re:Monsanto

[gad_zuki!]

and I associate the name Roland Piquepaille with "whoa wtf, does that guy just submit articles all day long?"

Re:Monsanto

[ShieldW0lf]

Agreed.

If any college students get the urge to go shoot the hell out of some people and put a gun in their mouth, they should go visit Monsanto and do us all a solid on their way out.

Re:Monsanto

[E 99]

"The company has been found guilty of bribery, suppression of truth, negligence, wantonness and outrage."

Uh, since those aren't actual criminal charges, what the heck are you talking about. Or should I just say that you have been found guilty of hyperbole, paranoia, and general left-wing nuttiness?

Re:Monsanto

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually, some fellow from E.L.F. was training to shoot the executive officers of Monsanto after firebombing a Ford dealership and cutting loose some horses from a meat packing plant or some such.

Anyways, to cut a story short, one of the execs at Monsanto back then was Rumsfeld... as in Don Rumsfeld.

As it turns out, the kid was sold out by his friends, and "choked himself to death in the sheriff's jail with a plastic bag" which he miraculously held shut over his throat until after he was dead... after which he let go (some rigormortis, eh?)

Most believe he was murdered so he wouldn't inspire others to try the same trick... I don't hold any beliefs on this issue but find it very telling what taking "effective" action against Monsanto will guarantee you... a black plastic bag over your head :)

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed Agent Orange - dumped into landfill (quarries) in South Wales (UK)

Re:Monsanto

[nicolastheadept]

You just proved the point yourself: you can be guilty of something that is not a crime.

Re:Monsanto

[zenkonami]

The poster's may not have been verbatim charges against Monsanto, but read here, here, here, here, here and here. And if that's not enough, add this and this.

Let's not forget Terminator Seeds, Agent Orange and Bovine Growth Hormone. Sure, it could all be hyperbolic, paranoid, general left-wing nutiness, but I think there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere.

Re:Monsanto

[ShieldW0lf]

What a surprise.

Shooting is too good for Donald Rumsfeld. A blowtorch and a good pair of pliers would be an excellent way to get started.

Re:Monsanto

[budgenator]

He's a professional bloger, probably has several assistants on payroll, and most of his submissions linked to his own blog with numerous adverts getting the slashdot effect. Lately /. haven't been accepting his submissions when they were link to his blog. So yes he just submits article all day long, hoping to get a few on the front page. Honestly other than the obnoxious factor, his submissions are pretty good.

Re:Monsanto

[Blakey Rat]

Yeah, but they have a pretty cool catchy name. "Monsanto!" Sounds like they should sell coffee.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

Shooting is too good for Donald Rumsfeld. A blowtorch and a good pair of pliers would be an excellent way to get started.

Others would say garlic and a wooden stake. Oops, sorry: that was Dick Cheney I was thinking of.

Re:Monsanto

[Znork]

The charge of 'outrage' may sound weird, but to quote the Washington Post:' Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."'

But if you really want a complete list of the exact charges brought against Monsanto around the world over the years you should research them yourself. Personally I was just irritated by their patent antics before I did. After I'd read up on them I cannot fathom how a company with consistent behaviour like that is allowed to exist, or how its leadership is allowed to run a business (or even walk free).

Re:Monsanto

[E 99]

Agent Orange was badly misused by the military in Viet Nam. That doesn't mean that it is not a useful herbicide when used responsibly in the appropriate situations.

Things like Terminator Seeds and Bovine Growth Hormone are good things. Terminator Seeds mean there can be an economic framework to make it profitable for companies to invent and sell better types of plants, which in turn could mean cheaper and/or healthier foods. The idea that it will somehow completely replace natural, reproducing plants, or force anyone to buy these seeds instead of gathering their own seeds from their own crops, makes no sense.

Bovine Growth Hormone, likewise makes milk far more plentiful and affordable. While there are valid arguments to be weighed against its use, which results in antibiotics ending up in the milk, these arguments are only even rational within a Western context. In developing economies, the advantage of using the hormones and therefore being able to feed people, is a no-brainer. Those who oppose it are doing the same kind of damage that they are doing by opposing DDT, inflicting enormous harm from malaria instead of the small damage from the insecticide.

Re:Monsanto

[zenkonami]

The problem with DDT is that it can have other environmental side effects that can, in the longer term, be as devastating as malaria. Poisoning the local ecosystem in an underdeveloped environment damages crucial links in the food chain, reducing the efficiency and usefulness of the biosystem.

I wish so many of the governments in such places of the world weren't so corrupt. Many of these nations have the resources to at least afford to support their population's reasonably if they'd stop being self serving powermongers and start serving their populace...and major western nations could do a lot more to put pressure on them.

Re:Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

Under Alabama law, the rare claim of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."

Interesting. I wonder if Matt Stone and/or Trey Parker were aware of this law or another like it. Seems like a good basis for "shenanigans".

- T

Standard...

[lionheart1327]

I for one welcome our new Frankenfood overlords.

Really, I do.

Re:Standard...

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well get it over with too...

In Soviet Russia, Frankenfoods genetically modify YOU!

Re:Standard...

[Fx.Dr]

Hasbro has been modifying our foods for years, and the results are horrifying.

Re:Standard...

[mrjb]

Maybe we finally get to eat spiderpig.

Natalie Portman carrot?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously, if genes can be made to order, I want a Natalie Portman carrot. and before moderators mod me down as a troll, no grits are involved. I will also accept a Natalie Portman potato.

Thanks
signed,
Slashdot Anonymous Coward

Re:Natalie Portman carrot?

[Jugalator]

I started thinking why exactly a carrot, of all things, then the shape of said object and certain orifices that even males have came into mind and.. Well, I think I'll let the matter drop now and just back out!

Re:Natalie Portman carrot?

[p0tat03]

On the contrary, I think he wants you to back IN...

Re:Natalie Portman carrot?

[couchslug]

One can imagine the fate of the potato:

http://13gb.com/media.php?media_id=2194

Just imagine

[Renraku]

Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out the tomato causes cancer due to some unforseen chemical combo that's being manufactured. They decide to pull them all from the market. Hey, it turns out that 80% of all tomatos in the world are now this new version. But which ones? You have to test each and every plant, or just get rid of them all. And we know how hard it is to get rid of 100% of a certain type of plant. Good luck with your new cancertomatos.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Cancer isn't the big worry. It's people with food sensitivities, or something that only impacts a small percentage of the population. Right now there are about 20 foods I can't eat. For starches I'm limited to potatoes, corn, and rice. When someone adds a gene close to one of the 20 or so proteins I've got a problem with, and suddenly I can't eat corn. Then rice. Then potatoes. At which point I may be SOL.

Re:Just imagine

[houstonbofh]

Look at the cane toad in Australia. http://www.fdrproject.org/pages/toads.htm Once it is out, you can't put it back in the box. Not that a little thing like cancer will keep people away from tomatoes...

Re:Just imagine

[Truekaiser]

your closer to the truth then many people here will be willing to admit. frankly what will doom the human race is the thinking that we can control anything. we are tampering with some stuff that if done wrong will kill us and yet we are letting the most irresponsible group of people among us have control of this, multi-national corporations. they have no incentive other then to get this out the door asap so they can look good on their next quarter finical report. If there was ever a use for a government and a space station/colony, forgetting about all the energy and maintaince concerns, THIS is it.
I weep for the messed up world we will be leaving our kids.

Re:Just imagine

[moosesocks]

Even if you weren't able to eat them, you'd still be able to throw them at bad actors. That's what the British did with them until the 1600s.

Re:Just imagine

[CableModemSniper]

Mmmm tomacco.

Re:Just imagine

[SEE]

Because, you know, a gene of known characteristics introduced to a plant that has to be tested by the FDA, EPA, and USDA before it gets to market is so much more likely to be dangerous than a random radiation-induced mutant gene in a plant that's allowed to go into the food supply without any testing.

Re:Just imagine

[jhines]

Easier to imagine a new virus or fungi that kills them off.

I try to work around this by using "heirloom" seeds in the garden, rather than modern hybrids.

Re:Just imagine

[Dishevel]

Sometimes genetic selections work against the weak. Surprising isn't it.

Re:Just imagine

[Cheapy]

Just imagine this: Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out that the tomato doesn't cause cancer.

Life goes on as normal, and people still fear monger.

Re:Just imagine

[smoondog]

As I said in a previous post, BBQ likely causes a risk of cancer, every BBQ'ed item you have ever eaten. Why are you concerned about a hypothetical risk and not a real one?

Re:Just imagine

[vertinox]

And we know how hard it is to get rid of 100% of a certain type of plant.

Why not just let the free market or natural selection take its course?

Either we'll end up encouraging non-tomato markets or we'll stimulate evolution for genetically engineered humans immune to genetically engineered tomatoes... eventually.

Re:Just imagine

[falconwolf]

a gene of known characteristics introduced to a plant that has to be tested by the FDA, EPA, and USDA before it gets to market

The only federal agency that has to approve of GE or GMO plants is the USDA. FDA approval isn't needed, neither or EPA approval. If you have evidence or proof I'm wrong please share it.

Falcon

Re:Just imagine

[falconwolf]

Just imagine this: Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out that the tomato doesn't cause cancer.

Just imagine people who are allergic to Brazil nuts, which can cause Anaphylactic shock and thus kill the person. Then imagine a gene from the Brazil nut being inserted into soy and having those allergic to Brazil nut having the same reaction to the new soy. Don't think it won't happen? It already has.

Falcon

Re:Just imagine

[rhakka]

I don't know, a few hundred million years of evolutionary evidence seems to indicate that naturally occurring mutations in food stock plants don't normally cause rapid and sudden health problems.

I guess if the government agencies want to wait for that sort of a track record on intentionally modified GMOs, I'd be pretty comfortable with it too.

Re:Just imagine

[nicolastheadept]

Of course, it makes you wonder, why couldn't they create some disease to kill the cane toad off? Or destroy opium poppies etc.

Re:Just imagine

[Oktober Sunset]

all cooked food causes a risk of cancer.

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

A mistaken, but often-quoted, example of GM foods causing new allergies concerns genetic material from Brazil nut plants that was inserted into a soy plant to improve its nutritional qualities. A gene coding for a Brazil nut chemical that can cause allergies in some people was also transferred into the soy.

Scientists were aware of the possibility of this transfer, and conducted laboratory testing on the soybean before its release. During the laboratory testing procedure, the allergenic Brazil nut protein was detected in the soy. The modified soy plant was not released, the soybean never reached the market and people never consumed products containing it.

Re:Just imagine

[Empty Threats]

Like many fruits, most tomato plants are grown by grafting. The fruiting part of the plant is a perfect clone of its parents. GM contamination of the genepool is both unlikely and unimportant.

Re:Just imagine

[revengebomber]

Make them fluoresce or something. If you're already altering their DNA, is it that hard to insert some detectable marker gene? Or is that not possible with current methods?

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL evolution is funny

Re:Just imagine

[budgenator]

actualy tomatoes and tobbaco are supposed to be closely related, i think they are working on a hybrid where only the leaves have nicotine so the fruit is still edible. The nicotine in the leaves would kill the toamatoe worms; they used to use tobacco dust as an insecticide before they used chemicals and it's still available in seed catalogs

Re:Just imagine

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, it makes you wonder, why couldn't they create some disease to kill the cane toad off? Or destroy opium poppies etc.

Because after you've swallowed the horse, you're dead, of course. Ah, the wisdom of children from decades past. Who would have thought that unleashing ever more dangerous things could come to such a tragic end?

Re:Just imagine

[Blakey Rat]

Oh no, the world might have to give up tomatos! Surely we'll all die.

Re:Just imagine

[SEE]

One important feature of the FDA's policy is that we will regulate proteins (or other added substances such as fatty acids and carbohydrates) produced by genes, that have been intentionally added to food crops, as new food additives

and

In December, Monsanto Corp. applied to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval to field-test and sell a new line of modified corn.

Re:Just imagine

[ChrisMaple]

I've bought tomato seeds, and tomato plants available at garden stores are grown from seed. I don't know how most grocery store tomatoes are started (particularly the hydroponics), but homegrown tomatoes are from seed.

Can we genetically modify Roland Piquepaille?

[thomasdz]

I'm not even going to read TFA because of Roland's reputation for spamming Slashdot with links to his blogs/sites/whatevers.
I do like the idea of the Natalie Portman carrot cross though.

Re:Can we genetically modify Roland Piquepaille?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even going to read TFA because of Roland's reputation for spamming Slashdot with links to his blogs/sites/whatevers.

Then why spend the time pontificating about this? What a waste of space.

Get over yourself. I just wish I had mod points to -1 Troll you.

Re:Can we genetically modify Roland Piquepaille?

[thomasdz]

Get over yourself. I just wish I had mod points to -1 Troll you.

You just need to log in to get mod points. How difficult is that?

Re:Can we genetically modify Roland Piquepaille?

[budgenator]

this one went straight to the chicago trib site, so unless he's got an ad placed on or an agreement with that site he get's zip. I don't think they are submitting his articles if they link to his own site anymore.

The future in this...

[Jugalator]

I think there will be a future (that might be sooner than we think too given recent advances in the area), that we will start having to make the distinction between "natural genetics" and "artificial genetics". And obviously, the artificial ones will be patent encumbered to the teeth. It will probably move on to artificial bacteria etc that can also be patented, and before we know it, we'll be patenting life. :-/

Even if we won't create complex organisms on the human scale anytime soon, or even mice, the ramifications of someone having just a pretty small subset of genetics modified with the design patent protected, has to be a pretty awkward feeling to some bearers of such modifications. I wonder if any research have been done on this. Somehow I think that'll be downplayed -- how people actually want their own bodies to be like. After all, at least in the US, people still generally prefer to take off parts of the penis of newborn babies without asking for consent, or the baby even able to tell. If you know part of your body isn't natural, but your parents felt it was for the best of you in protecting from a disease, will you at all have a voice that will be listened to here?

Re:The future in this...

[ScrewMaster]

and before we know it, we'll be patenting life. :-/

Yeah, well ... anyone that tries to find me in violation of such a patent will find himself no longer a candidate for infringement.

Re:The future in this...

[cduffy]

Patents expire, you know.

If you're talking "future", we're eventually going to see much of this work in the public domain.

Re:The future in this...

[ScrewMaster]

Only for now. Look at what's been going on worldwide in terms of (ahem) "intellectual property" legislation and harmonization with U.S. law. I would expect patents to be extended indefinitely in much the same way as copyright. Too many people want to own "their" inventions forever. Now that's not good for society (any society) but it is good for the rightsholders. Or at least, they think it is ... long-term I think they'll find it's not.

Re:The future in this...

[cduffy]

I don't think so.

There's a long track record of retroactive copyright extensions -- it's not a recent trend, and there are obvious reasons why -- for one, the folks with the economic incentive to fight such trends are historically disorganized and underfunded. On the other hand, the industry making generic medications (based on products for which the patents have expired) is huge, and powerful groups like the AARP will back up their ability to continue doing so. Who wants to be the politician that stops people from being able to buy cheap generic medications?

The patent system is prone to all kinds of abuse, but I'm not concerned about retroactive term extensions -- not at all.

Re:The future in this...

[ScrewMaster]

Well ... let's hope you're right. I just don't see much concern for the future in the system anymore, and it's obvious that whoever has the biggest lobbying budget wins. The Monsantos and big pharmacoms of the country would love to have their investments patented forever. Consequently, what you're banking on is that the people that want access to those patents can continue to prevent them from being extended. Personally, I don't feel comfortable depending upon that: in the past fifteen years or so Congress has made sweeping changes to the patent system and the U.S. PTO, with more on the way, and so far none of them have been good. I don't trust the corporations to do what's right for society, and I don't trust Congress either.

Re:The future in this...

[cduffy]

I trust it, because it's visible. Copyright terms get extended and while it hurts everyone, it's not obvious to Average Joe why that's true, there's relatively little human-interest angle for pickup by the nightly news, and so only a few geeks care. Patent terms get extended, and the impact is huge and visible because of the public's reliance on the availability of cheap generic medications. It's too obvious to the average American to be swept under the carpet in return for some help with the reelection fund, and too big of a talking point for anyone opposing an incumbent who voted in favor. At this point it's not about the companies that want to access the patents, but about the consumers who are already dependent on the inexpensive products those companies are making.

The biggest lobbying budget wins, until an issue is so hot that even a huge lobbying budget can't help with the fallout. Removing access to generic medications would be just such an issue; it's an example that makes the issue so accessible and relevant to the public that significantly extending patent lifetimes would be political suicide.

Re:The future in this...

[zenkonami]

Patents expire, you know.

As do copyrights. Don't they Disney? DON'T THEY?

Re:The future in this...

[cduffy]

Not paying much attention to preexisting replies, eh? Go read the thread in response to the other individual who was worried about patent terms being extended, and come back if you still have something to contribute once you're done.

Re:The future in this...

[the eric conspiracy]

I would expect patents to be extended indefinitely in much the same way as copyright.

The maximum term of a US patent has always fluctuated between 14 and 21 years since 1790. Right now it is 17 years from the issuance of the patent, or 20 years from the filing date with an exception allowing an extension if there is a lengthy FDA approval process involved. Over the past 217 years the term has not changed significantly. It would be very surprising if it were to change much in the future.

As for copyright law:

1790: 14+14
1831: 28+14
1908: Life of author + 50 (Berne Convention) US did not sign until 1988
1909: 28+28
1978: US life+50, 75 years for 'works for hire', establishes 'fair use'
1992: Copyright renewal automatic
1996: Database protection, WIPO treaty
1998: Bono Act

In most of the world the term of copyright law has not changed since 1908. It has only really changed in the US in 1978, bringing it up to the level of the rest of the world. The Bono act adds 20 years, which on average is a 20% increase. Whether that will 'stick' long-term is anyone's guess.

Re:The future in this...

[budgenator]

The Monsantos and big pharmacoms of the country would love to have their investments patented forever
I really don't think so and here's why; study after study has shown plain old ibuprofen is just as effective a pain releaver as anything on the market. So what do people take, whatever is "new" and being advetised on TV that has generated "brand recognition" that's what. People will go to their Dr. and demand an expensive and addictive pain reliever or one with horrendous side effects like death, that isn't anymore effective than taking Motrin in the propper dose. It's all becuse of the marketing hype, and that's expensive to keep going after the new has worn off a drug. People will always want the "new and Improved" over the "tried and true" even if the new isn't improved. I don't see seeds being any different, you get two farmers talking over the fence, on mentions that he just planted the new GM in the back 40 and the other get worried and does the same to keep up with the Joneses.

I Guess that just goes to show you how bad botched Vista.

GMO idea

[Lerc]

I had this idea yesterday (alcohol may have been involved).

You could take the genes from geckos/skinks that makes their tails fall off when they are frightened and put it into grass.

Then you could have a lawn that you could mow by going outside and shouting Bang!.

Re:GMO idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Good call.

Re:GMO idea

[Jugalator]

I wonder if such grass would bear a particular intelligent shade of green?

Re:GMO idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer emo grass, it's self-cutting

Re:GMO idea

[MarkRose]

That's even cooler than grass so emo it cuts itself! Dude, you're a genius!

Re:GMO idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Mix in some poinsettia with the emo grass, so it'll bleed when it's cut.

Re:GMO idea

[3waygeek]

If the grass were really intelligent, it'd be a shade of blue, not green.

Re:GMO idea

[Jugalator]

Well, duh. ;-)

Stop this company from controlling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

...even more of the market. These guys sell the "terminator seeds". Grows crops once and that's it. If you wanna grow another crop, you have to buy more Monsanto seeds. It's important that we DO NOT LET this companies control the market even more than they do today. Sad new world...

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Oligonicella]

Wow. How easy would this be? Don't buy one generation seeds. Plenty of seed companies that sell heritage seeds.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Original Replica]

These guys sell the "terminator seeds". Grows crops once and that's it. If you wanna grow another crop, you have to buy more Monsanto seeds.

If they are selling GMO seeds it's actually a good safeguard that they are "terminator seeds". If it's just a sceme to make farmers buy more seeds every year, then let the farmers do the math and decide if it's worth the extra annual cost. As long as Monsanto isn't shutting out competition it the seed supply business, let'em sell what ever DRMed seeds they want.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the terminator system was partially a good thing. If the plants can't produce fertile offspring, how can the transgenes 'escape' into the wild or cross pollinate with their neighbors crops?

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Prysorra]

Except that those "terminator genes" are blown into the wind, and wipe out my seed-making capability every f@cking year.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Nephilium]

Wow... that's almost like hybrid seeds that have been on the market for decades.

You know... it's not like they hide the fact that the crops are sterile...

Nephilium

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[DangerSteel]

What happens when this change gets out in the wild, as other changes have (corn changes approved for feed animals that got into the human supply, they still don't have it all out ), and we can no longer grow many foods because short-sighted things like this are allowed to happen? I'm no alarmist, but this has been something I have been thinking about for a long time. I don't believe Monsanto or any company should be allowed to limit the life of seeds for foodstuffs. Flowers maybe, but food is too important to the human race, and humans still starve to death every day because every one on planet earth cannot get food. I seriously wonder about this sometimes. and I love science and technology, used for the greater good.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Dogtanian]

These guys sell the "terminator seeds" You mean they're going to kill Sarah Connor with a plant?!

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[Original Replica]

There have got to be anti-monopoly laws about having a product that actively destroys your competitor's product. It sounds like a pretty straight forward lawsuit. You could probably get GreenPeace to provide the proof that it's the GMO destroying your seed crop, and provide the lawyers seeing as they are ardently anti-GMO.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[wickerprints]

The problem with your DRM analogy is that DRM does not interfere with your ability to use non-DRM songs. The same cannot be said of GM crops. Crops do not have any inherent understanding of where they can and cannot reproduce. There have been instances where Farmer A plants GM crops adjacent to Farmer B's non-GM crops of the same species. The result is cross-pollination. Farmer B's crops become contaminated with the genetic modifications present from Farmer A's crops, sometimes without B's knowledge. Monsanto comes in and sues Farmer B for the illegal use of their product.

Food safety is not, in my view, the underlying problem with GMO. Rather, the real issue is the application of the concept of GMO in real-world practice is unfortunately contaminated by the faulty premise that alterations to the genetic structure of organisms for commercial use can somehow be forever isolated from their respective non-modified organisms. Indeed, humans cannot even stop the threat of invasive species, and these are organisms that already exist in nature! It is the height of idiocy and arrogance to believe we can control life on a genetic level but can't even prevent a tropical aquarium plant from overrunning the Mediterranean.

Biology, by its very nature, is inextricably concerned with reproduction. One cannot create something new, distribute it on a wide scale, and yet reasonably expect that such changes will never escape one's control. Mutation and recombination is the cornerstone of genetics. In short, the critically flawed assumption is that innovations in GMOs are somehow technologically equivalent to, say, developing a new microprocessor, or even programming code. Despite the superficial similarities, they are not.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[HeroreV]

What part of "can't reproduce" do you not understand? Are you seriously worried about non-reproducing plants reproducing with other plants and creating hybrid plants that can't reproduce?

If you don't want this crazy new-fangled genetically modified evil getting out into the wild, you should be in favor of stuff like this. The whole idea is that it can be contained and controlled instead of just blowing around free all over the place.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[budgenator]

The problem is when you show that their terminator gene destroyed your crop of seed, they counter-sue for patent infringement. They bring in 5 or ten Ph.d.s to depose as expert witnesses at $300.00 an hour and pretty soon your talking a million dollar defense.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[yndrd1984]

These guys sell the "terminator seeds".

No, they don't. No only is the technology not available now, but Monsanto has pledged never to use it.

If you wanna grow another crop, you have to buy more Monsanto seeds.

No. Assuming this is ever sold, if you want to grow a different variety the next year, they can't stop you, and because the leftover seeds aren't viable, you won't get their genes mixed up with the rest of your crops. If you want to plant the same variety, you have to buy seeds anyway because of legal restrictions (patents, license agreements). Besides, most crops currently in use are hybridized, so you can't (effectively) use their seed for planting anyway.

Re:Stop this company from controlling ...

[sdsucks]

A lot of us would feel better about it if they actually were sterile.

More Bothersome - economics of it

[spineboy]

I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.
    It's not like mistakes ever happen with this stuff either. Look at Australia with it's toad and rabbit control problems, when a species is introduced out of its normal environment. What if the GM crop wildely displaces the natural crops by "accident". The company can give the growth chemical for free at first or for a nominal fee - but later on...
This should be boycotted at all costs - Food should always have the option to be grown for free, in your backyard. Yes I think I sound a little survivalist, but this can be a slippery slope, and it's easy to fall downit.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[The_Wilschon]

I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow. Actually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[RDW]

'I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.'

Pretty similar things are happening already. See this for a sample:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/crop_protection/roundup_rewards.asp

'Roundup Ready' plants are GMOs modified to confer resistance to a herbicide sold (of course) by the same company. And yes, there's an annual license and an anonymous hotline to report violators (PDF):

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/stewardship.pdf

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[DaedalusHKX]

Actually that's the downside, it will cross pollinate, and eventually your backyard crops will not "grow" without Monsanto's "blessing".

They are supposed to have dominant genes.

This story is old, by the way.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[zenkonami]

Agreed. More importantly, the motivation behind this is entirely profit driven. It's not that there isn't enough food grown in the world to feed the whole population. It's economics and environment (OMG they are related!) as well as global politics that allow famine and hunger to persist in locations throughout the world.

If political climates could be stabilized, and the national interests of major producers could more effectively deliver food to these countries until they are able to establish as much food self-sufficiency as their arable land would allow, this would be a much more difficult sell.

One thing the 20th century has taught us is that corporations are not to be trusted with the safety, health and well-being of the world.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[falconwolf]

Actually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.

Ah but that has already happened. A farmer in Alberta, Canada, Percy Schmeiser, was found to have Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn in his field. Corn he did not plant, but it had crossbred with corn he grew. Like farmers throughout the world since the dawn of agriculture, he saved seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Even though he didn't steal anything from Monsanto when Monsanto sued him he lost his crop. In another case an organic farmer, which bans GE, in Canada lost a shipment when inspectors in Europe, Germany I think, found alien DNA in his corn.

Falcon

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[VENONA]

Is there any chance of being able to subscribe to a pizza-bush? I'd sell out in a heartbeat if I could subscribe to a pizza-bush...

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[GameboyRMH]

found alien DNA in his corn.

I knew it! The aliens were doing breeding experiments with our crops the whole time! Crop circles were markers for the different test sites! PETA was in cahoots with them, trying to steer the world's population onto a diet of nothing but the tainted crops! This confirms all my suspicions! Somebody alert the world leaders, and FOR THE LOVE OF GOD don't eat any fruits or vegetables!

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[MightyYar]

One thing the 20th century has taught us is that corporations are not to be trusted with the safety, health and well-being of the world. The 20th century also told us that governments are not to be trusted with the safety, health, and well-being of the world...

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[fredmosby]

The whole basis of monsanto's case was that Percy knew the seeds he was planting were roundup ready. The case had nothing to do with accidental contamination.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[kestasjk]

GMO does not mean Monsanto. The problems with GMOs are the legal issues, which is why people relate GMOs to Monsanto. If the legal issues around GMOs can be resolved there's nothing worrying about GMOs themselves. GMOs could be the key invention that lets us continue to use more and more arid land to grow crops as global warming happens.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot, you don't know shit about farming. Well, maybe "farming" for turds in public men's rooms--I grant you that.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[The_Wilschon]

Yes, I know it has already happened. I view this case (and the potential others like it) as one of the biggest (and only?) problems with GM crops. However, if you stuck a gene in there which would prevent the GM seeds from germinating without a chemical which you buy from Monsanto, then accidental contamination could not occur. The contaminated seeds would not germinate, and only the heritage varieties would survive into the next generation, unless you were intentionally growing Monsanto crops, with permission from Monsanto.

Now, yes, someone could synthesize whatever chemical in their barn. If they were, it would be extremely strong evidence that they were intentionally violating Monsanto's patents, unlike the case you cite, in which the contamination could have been accidental and could have been intentional (see discussion under other replies to you.).

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto is indeed a very evil corporation.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[obeythefist]

Strange that... the GMO's don't bother me nearly as much as the companies that make them...

What about all that stuff floating around a couple of months ago about killswitches being built into crops and seeds? To make sure you keep buying from the company instead of "pirating" life itself...

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[Keith_Beef]

However, if you stuck a gene in there which would prevent the GM seeds from germinating without a chemical which you buy from Monsanto, then accidental contamination could not occur. The contaminated seeds would not germinate,

This is precisely the big problem.

Imagine for a moment the hypothetical backyard farmer, saving his four or five ears of maize for replanting.

Unfortunately his maize has been cross pollinated with the GM maize from the next farm. Let's imagine that 25% of seeds are the result of this cross pollination.

The terminator gene ensures that the contaminated seeds do not germinate. Great, our backyard farmer cannot be sued for having grown proprietary GM crops without license, but he has just lost 25% of his crop.

Beef.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[The_Wilschon]

First, some (not so small) percentage of seeds fail to germinate in any case. This is why farmers and gardeners put down seeds with a much greater density than they actually want plants in, and then after they start coming up, thin out the crop to the desired density. They destroy a significant portion of the plants that do come up already!

Second, the vast majority of seeds come from self-pollination, or at least pollination from plants in the same field. Actual inter-field contamination is really quite small, almost certainly (without actually studying it, I admit) much less than 25%.

So, he wouldn't lose any crop to speak of, and if he did, it would be a lot less than 25%.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[zenkonami]

I can't argue that.

Though that's a lesson that's been present since long before the 20th century.

A step in the right direction

[MaizeMan]

The article summary is deceptive. Inserting a gene into the current genome of crop is just as permanent a change as added a new mini-chromosome. In either change the changes will be inherited by the offspring of the individual plant.

The main difference between this technology and currect methods on inserting genes is that more than one gene can be added as easily as a single gene, whereas in the previous system "stacking" multiple genes required much more effort than a single gene, since each had to be inserted individually and then combined using conventional breeding.

I for one think this technology is a step in the right direction, as it will make it easier to create artificial species barriers, which require two-five genes to be inserted, but would prevent GM crops from crossbreeding with traditional varieties in the field. THIS IS NOT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY! The plants would still be fertile, just only with others carried the added chromosome.

But couldn't they have found someone besides Monsanto to implement it?

Re:A step in the right direction

[falconwolf]

would prevent GM crops from crossbreeding with traditional varieties in the field

How does this technique prevent crossbreeding?

Falcon

Re:A step in the right direction

[nicolastheadept]

Because if its sterile, funnily enough, it can't breed.

Re:A step in the right direction

[MuChild]

Yeah, it might, overall LESSEN the dependance of farmers on genetically modified, terminator organisms which they have to buy from the evil corporations every year.

Re:A step in the right direction

[Trinn]

Simple, two organisms with differing numbers of chromosomes cannot crossbreed (barring extraordinarily exceptional cases, and not including cases of simple duplication of a "normal" chromosome, usually). When the germ cells try to unite to form a diploid cell that becomes the offspring, it simply fails because things don't "line up"

Re:A step in the right direction

[Anonymous Coward]

From the quick read of the news article, I'm not sure there is anything in this system that would prevent plants with the extra artificial chromosome from being fertile with plants without the art. chromosome. You can find the paper here:

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0030179

A quick skim of the abstract indicates that the chromosome can, in fact, be transmitted to wild-type plants (in other words, "normal" corn plants). It would be surprising if this wasn't the case. Otherwise, you would need to introduce two artificial chromosomes in the initial transformation event to generate fertile offspring. Reading further in the paper indicates that at least some of the initial transformation events were monosomic for the art. chromosome.

Let's review this a bit

[Anonymous Coward]

When you integrate a gene into a chromosome, it is integrated randomly.

This means that it has unpredictable effects on the existing plant. It also means that you might have disruptions of the transgene in future generations including (but not limited) to: changing the amount of transgene produced, changing the location it is produced, and changing when it is produced.

If you have an artificial chrosome you have
1)Less (possibly none) disruption of existing genes
2)The gene is isolated, so it should stay stable
3)An ability to control exactly when/where it is expressed, since you can control the promoter
4)A transgene that has a smaller chance of being passed to other plants (since unmatched chromosomes are removed)

All these things are of course BAD, because....?

Enlighten me.

Re:Let's review this a bit

[smoondog]

When you integrate a gene into a chromosome, it is integrated randomly.

Not really true. Even though an integration might be close to random (it really isn't), we can choose the offspring with specific locations of genes pretty easily.

Re:Let's review this a bit

[umghhh]

As for science of things - I recall that there was a time when it was proven (scientifically) that no object heavier than air can fly.

If the technology is so perfect why not publish all the results from existing trials - how about doing a proper research on effects of Bt Cotton and bollworm's Bt resistance for instance? If the history were to teach us anything it is the following: if an individual can privatize the profits and nationalize the costs and risks then the individual will do it and the society will pay the price. Till now in extreme cases survivors from failing societies had usually a chance to settle somewhere else. Now that the earth is all occupied this option is not as available as it used to be. If we fuck it up (and you must admit that monsanto record is not very good) there may be nowhere to go. The problem can and most likely will not be as drastic as that but judging on the way things are the tax payer will pay for damages and profits will be limited to Monsanto owners and bosses.

Of course I appreciate the progress in food production, medicine development etc and I think that GM technology is there to stay and maybe even necessary if we all are to continue to lead our comfortable lives. But I see no need for another 100 types of tomato that tastes nothing but looks good on the shelves especially if possible costs and risks are not assessed properly. It would be useful if we had full information so that we could have a meaningful discussion about merits of the technology. As it is now we are not going to get it. For me this is sufficient reason to ban the company and send its managers to Guantanamo Bay or shoot them and send their kidneys on the spare parts market.

The real problem

[einhverfr]

is that what was once a commodity market (food) could become an intellectual property driven market.

Piracy will include growing unauthorized crops. This is not good for anyone except for companies like Monsanto.

Re:The real problem

[m0rph3us0]

It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.

Re:The real problem

[nicolastheadept]

Economics wins again!

Re:The real problem

[falconwolf]

It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.

The bell has tolled. Monsanto has already sued, and won, a Canadian farmer for growing Roundup Ready corn on his farm. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, was sued by Monsanto for growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn on his farm. He did not plant any RR corn, instead he did what farmers throughout the world throughout the history of agriculture did, he saves seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Unfortunately for him, what he didn't know was that RR corn from another farm had crossbred with his corn. When Monsanto sued he lost his crop.

Falcon

Re:The real problem

[gemada]

what colour is the sky in your world? First, agribusiness is dominated by a few large companies that act in a monopolistic/cartel fashion (almost all of them have been accused and convicted of fixing prices - see ADM). Second, the upfront investment needed by farmers to participate in this kind of agriculture (having to buy new seeds each year instead of keeping some from the previous crop, massive $600,000 tractors, sprayers, etc) mean that most farmers are in debt to banks for life and the only thing that sustains this type of agriculture is subsidies by protectionist governments. this type of agriculture has not been proven to reduce the price of food. Agricultural subsidies by governments keep the prices low, which suits the large agribusinesses just fine, as farmers are able to buy these expensive seeds/chemicals and the agribusinesses are able to buy the crops from farmers at low prices to feed their high-margin cabohydrate industry.

Re:The real problem

[Cosmic AC]

It already is an intellectual property driven market, by those standards. It's just that you haven't seemed to notice. Before there was genetic modification, there were patents on hybrids. Nobody cares if you grow a few patented strains in backyard. But if you have a large commercial operation, and try to sell the seed as your own, you will be sued. It's been this way for years.

Re:The real problem

[ChrisMaple]

These plants are patented, not copyrighted. Patents expire in 20 years, so a patient farmer need only wait. Farming doesn't move as fast as computers; not all small farmers have to use the newest product.

Re:The real problem

[einhverfr]

Not really.

Aside from trade secret law which applies to every industry, hybrids have *no* intellectual property protections beyond the possibility of plant patents which only apply to asexual reproduction (and hence seeds are non-patentable).

I have actually watched the apple, rose, and stonefruit industries for a while. Those areas have a lot of plant patents, but the patents have a shorter lifespan than the plant's genetics so, strains fall back into the public domain fairly quickly. Of my 20-some-odd rose bushes, only 2 are patent protected. None of my three fruit trees are.

As for grains and vegetables, you do have a number of hybrids, but there is also a resurgeant heirloom vegetable industry (at least for the local-targetting agricultural businesses including garden centers). Heirloom varieties are great because the seeds *can* be reused. The problem with GMO's is that you have the possibility of inadvertant patent infringement by doing so and thus you have the evisceration of the last remaining checks and balances agaisnt the huge suppliers to agriculture (such as Monsanto).

Re:The real problem

[einhverfr]

1) Seeds do not retain vitality for 20 years.
2) New varieties will contain new patents, thus preventing you from doing that regarding a variety that is about to move into the public domain.
3) Accidental cross-polination would still be patent infringement.

One big difference

[einhverfr]

is that normal plant patents (at least in the US) only cover grafting, budding, cuttings, and other forms of asexual reproduction. Basically you can't patent a natural genetic variant you discover and then prevent people from using it as breeding stock.

Hence you can buy a patented rose bush, breed it with another patented rose bush, and be the exclusive patent holder of the offspring (or decide to let the offspring be patent free). This is a big check on the power of plant patents

This changes with GMOs. With GMO's, offspring which carry the artifical genetic structure are subject to the control of the patent holder. This means that farmers now have a great deal more to worry about in terms of being sued for intellectual property violations simply by growing their own seed crops. This is a large deal because it effectively decommoditizes the food crop industry and turns it into something much more similar to the proprietary software industry....

Re:One big difference

[Anti_Climax]

This is a large deal because it effectively decommoditizes the food crop industry and turns it into something much more similar to the proprietary software industry

That's really a very apt analogy. Taking it a bit further: Even with GM crops occupying the space of proprietary software, others are still free to use the "Open source" alternative. Which is the best choice is something to be left to the person growing; they can weigh the benefits, drawbacks and costs and go from there. There are some caveats though.

It's my understanding that companies are getting patents on specific genes. As these are instructions for building a certain protein they are akin to the over-reaching business process patents we see as opposed to less problematic implementation patents. If someone were to black box engineer a trait that exists in a GM crop, it seems there's a greater chance they would be successfully sued.

Another is cross contamination. I recall hearing about a roundup ready crop's genes showing up in an adjacent crop owned by another farmer. We know it's possible for this to happen naturally, and I haven't seen anything to indicate the second farmer had knowingly or purposefully grown GM crop. He was taken to court over licensing and had to pay up. It's like SCO all over again. Though this time the code actually crossed over (and without human intervention)

That's really the only issue I'd take with GM crops. Farmers getting sued for licensing fees on a crop that was contaminated without their consent shouldn't bee happening. If anything it should be the other way around.

Re:One big difference

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the part where the software granted IP legal protections is a virus or worm. And you can go about suing the people which have their systems infected with your malware. Isn't racketeering great when it provides an unwanted service or a cost to an otherwise free if not subsidized service and has the backing of the government? Bad enough that we're seeing this in entertainment (RIAA) and transportation related (tollway, towing/impound) industries. Do we need it in food production too?

Of course if things like this keep this up, everyone should start doing what people did when we decided to be a country independent of jolly ol' England... You know, that whole taxation without representation bit.

Re:One big difference

[einhverfr]

Aside from the fact that this would almost certainly be patent misuse....

A larger real concern has to do with farmers in third world countries. The goverments will be pressed into granting identical patent rights as exist in the US, and will be unable to do a lot about it. Then the foreign corporation basically uses this to take a percentage of what was once purely domestic trade out of the country. This is *very bad* for the developing world.

BTW, there is not, and has never been, a global shortage of food production. Most famines are caused by trade disruption (mostly things like civil wars), not natural causes. There is no need to try to address a mythical looming global food shortage except through working to stabilize the global population (through things like building schools).

Re:One big difference

[falconwolf]

Basically you can't patent a natural genetic variant you discover and then prevent people from using it as breeding stock.

Actually corporations something like this. Western companies constantly seek out plants and chemical constituents they can patent. This is getting to be a big deal with some aboriginal or native people, they share their knowledge with someone then that person comes and applies for a patent. Biopiracy is getting to be a big issue: "The new piracy: how West 'steals' Africa's plants"

Falcon

Re:One big difference

[tm2b]

Farmers getting sued for licensing fees on a crop that was contaminated without their consent shouldn't bee happening.

Cute. :)

Re:One big difference

[einhverfr]

If you read the article carefully, you will note that it doesn't contradict what I wrote.

1) Pharmaceuticals are the product of articial processes. While it would be nice to have international treaties which would provide royalites to countries where the original plant was used, that is very different than patenting the plant itself, especially in the context of food production.

2) The Impatiens variety they were discussing (Spellbound) would actually be grown by cuttings. Hence we are talking about a clone which is asexually reproduced, and there is no downstream restrictions on gardners doing their own crossbreeding.

So while there are social equity issues that need to be dealt with, this doesn't even approach the danger that genetic engineering poses to the world's food and plant supply.

BTW last spring I was shopping for rose bushes when I found what looked like a nice attractive Rugosa hybrid. I passed up buying it because it was patented, and rugoses are sufficiently invasive that one would be *very* tempted to dig up rhyzomes (which would be illegal if you let them grow or give to friends).

Re:One big difference

[falconwolf]

If you read the article carefully, you will note that it doesn't contradict what I wrote.

Perhaps I chose the wrong case, but what I was replying to, about patenting a plant variety, still happens. Now in one case patents were revoked only after they were contested, RiceTec was granted patents for strains of Basmati rice. These strains are native to India and India fought the patents and eventual won.

Falcon

Re:One big difference

[nebosuke]

This is wrong. You can patent a 'naturally' developed cultivar with enough SNP markers to uniquely identify the cultivar's genetic fingerprint. This is in fact how the various seed companies protect their germplasm.

Human testing

[ocelotbob]

Can we start splicing chromosomes with humans please? I want my catgirl, dammit. What use is bringing food to the masses when I don't have my fucking catgirl?

Re:Human testing

[Anonymous Coward]

We know how much you want to be "fucking catgirl[s]", but until there is more demand for such things, there won't be a market for it!

Re:Human testing

[jimicus]

So you want a girl that's only interested in you when she's hungry, leaves hair everywhere and licks her own backside in polite company?

Wow.

Takes all sorts, I s'pose.

Re:Human testing

[ocelotbob]

Hey, it's a step up from my ex. You don't even want me to go there...

Re:Human testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, why not? Gene therapy could be so much more fun...

Sorry Ron, you tiger now!

Re:Human testing

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you have never heard of the furry community.

Re:Human testing

[Kelz]

The number of furries in the world just tripled :P

Monoculture

[bidule]

I have nothing against GMO per se. It is a new, untested approach to hybrid plants and we won't know how well it does for some times, but in 20 years we'll have the proper methodology to do so safely. For that reason, I will cheer for every new discovery in that field as I feel it is a step toward 20-years-down-the-line.

But the current GMO are about as safe as unpatched Windows on the internet. The only reason why it has worked fine is that natural evolution is akin to monkeys and typewriters: random, dumb and repetitive, while crackers are anything but.

I believe trashing GMO per se is nothing but fear-mongering, same for irradiated food.

No, I have nothing against GMO but everything against gene patents and the monoculture brought by Monsato. I believe they should be held responsible for polluting neighboring fields.

whats the motivation for consumers?

[cliffski]

what problem are monsanto pretending to solve? apart from improving their bottom live, what is the point? is this corn cheaper / tastier / healthier? faster growing?
it seems to be a very dodgy experiment in fucking around with the basic genetic structure of one of our most vital foods just to make a certain dodgy company richer.
so, speaking as a consumer, I'm not impressed.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Nephilium]

The problems they're attempting to solve are:

1) Plants that are resistant to pesticides.
2) Plants that are more resistant to insects.
3) Plants that are more resistant to fungus.
4) Plants that are more resistant to droughts.
5) Plants that have additional nutrients in them.
6) Plants that have higher yield.

Assuming no possibility for cross breeding (which they test the hell out of, just so that their modifications don't get out into the wild), I see no issue with these goals.

Nephilium

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Well it's simple, really.

"Natural" grain per hectare using "traditional" farming : 130 to 250 tonnes
"Natural" grain per hectare using modern farming (read : insecticides, machines, automation, ...) : 1060 tonnes
GMO grain per hectare using modern farming : 2500 tonnes

So unless you want to cut the food supply in half. GMO grain is where it's at.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[sdsucks]

You should inform the farmers in Saskatchewan about the "no possibility for cross breeding".

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[sdsucks]

Assuming no possibility for cross breeding (which they test the hell out of, just so that their modifications don't get out into the wild), I see no issue with these goals.


http://www.saskorganic.com/oapf/pdf/stmt-of-claim.pdf
I happen to know more than a few farmers effected by this.
..... Scared to hear you have so much faith in Monsanto.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Plants that are resistant to pesticides.
2) Plants that are more resistant to insects.
3) Plants that are more resistant to fungus.
4) Plants that are more resistant to droughts.
5) Plants that have additional nutrients in them.
6) Plants that have higher yield.

Yes, plants that will spread and spread and spread, no matter how hard we try to kill them. I can see it now: any one of these given plants mutates, causing it to take over, killing other plants and pushing itself into other areas. And because the plant is resistant to pesticides, insects, fungus, droughts, and grow more seeds, it becomes damn near impossible to get rid of once it's into the wild. Or it causes cancer/tumors/poisoning due to strange mutations. Need I say more?

Life is always changing, you can't count on your altered plant to not mutate. Just look at the antibiotic resistant superbug.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe, given the USA'S huge obesity problem, people could just eat less?

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Freultwah]

There's also this neat thing of giving tons of seeds as a "gift" to some African government, watching in wonder how said seeds grow up and eradicate all the original plant varieties, then pulling some levers to get rid of the original farming tribes that inhabited the lands, then having all those vast testing fields in the wild at their disposal for free. No problem! Monoculture 0wnz. (I won't say that the fungi, diseases and parasites have a way of, well, retaliating. And then it's only the monoculture to wreak havoc in, easier than ever!)

I also see a tiny problem with those involved in the testing trying to make a quick buck by selling the GMO in secrecy to people in areas where GMO is prohibited. Another sack of untested GMO rice in the wild in Asia, unaccounted for. Verynice!

Penn and Teller will probably tell you it's for the greater good, give all those starving people eat. I tend to differ.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Nephilium]

You mean the guy who saved the Roundup Resistant seeds until his crop was 95%+ resistant, and couldn't show he used anything other then Roundup to treat his crops? As well as claiming cross pollination from crops 5 miles away?

Nephilium

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[ChrisMaple]

Resistance to insects is the biggest potential problem for humans, because that often means the plant manufactures its own pesticides. Sometimes, these pesticides are toxic to some humans; sometimes they are toxic to beneficial insects such as honeybees.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

"people" ??? why not start with you ... you seem so convinced by this ... why don't you skip dinner every money from now on. That's a start, but obviously really eating less means skipping EVERY dinner.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[sdsucks]

He was a seed farmer. Did you expect him to toss his seeds because they were contaminated?

Medicine factories, custom-flavored foods

[davidwr]

I don't know about foods, but for drug manufacture this is great news.

I can see the day when made-to-order viruses and bacteria make and release medicines at the site of the illness, greatly reducing side-effects.

Not only that, but if the drug itself is not easily stored or shipped, then there's no problem, since the drug is literally manufactured as needed where needed.

When it comes to things like wine, beer, cheese, yogurt, and other fermented products, a customized bacteria can tweak the flavor. Purists may have a heart attack but it will become generally accepted within a generation or two.

Re:Medicine factories, custom-flavored foods

[Dunbal]

I can see the day when made-to-order viruses and bacteria make and release medicines at the site of the illness, greatly reducing side-effects.

      The problem with that is - how do you control the dose? There is such a thing as "too much of a good thing can kill you". Of course eventually I guess we'll find ways to use feedback inhibition, simulating actual physiological systems. But just turning a bunch of viruses loose in someone's body, having them infect cells and start producing insulin (for example) at random is not going to be very helpful. With most (but not all) diseases, not only do you need an ON switch, but you need an OFF button too.

Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[smoondog]

I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?).

I'm not sure how a PGMO differs from today's GMOs which, I believe, can pass genetic modifications to offspring (they are present in the germline). The article summary contains a bias that GMOs are somehow inherently bad. Look, lots of things in our food contains risky things, and people seem to want blame GMOs for many ills. At some level of intake everything is risky. There are tons of studies outlining why some foods are bad for you. Alcohol is bad for you. Marijuana is bad for you. BBQ is bad for you (polyaromatic hydrocarbons, other bad things in charred foods). French fries apparently contain acrylimide. Saturated fats are associated with obesity, the development of heart disease. Sugar is associated with the progression of diabetes. Salt is associated with high blood pressure, heart disease. Acidic foods (ie diet coke) are bad for your digestive system. You get the point.

How many of these do you overindulge in occasionally? Similarly, assuming all GMOs are bad for health reasons is short sighted (although they may be bad for political reasons -- that is another matter). Many foods we eat are engineered in some way, usually with a sledge hammer by classical means, no one seems to complain about that. We already use pesticides on crops, perhaps resistant GMOs might reduce pesticide use? Perhaps GMOs might have better nutritional components than their non engineered counterparts? Perhaps GMOs can be developed that make some of the risky foods in the previous paragraph less risky? GMOs should be evaluated like everything else, carefully. While I understand their fears, I wish the GMO protest community would spend a little less time worrying about GMOs and more time worrying about very real food risks (see above), heavy metals in imported goods (including foods) and the things around us that are really worth our concern.

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[value_added]

How many of these do you overindulge in occasionally?

You need to ask the right question: To what degree are corn ... soybeans, and canola part of your or your children's diet?

I prefer to be able to pick my own poison.

If there's any shortsightedness with respect to GMOs, I'd say it's on the side of those who hold economic interests above others which, regrettably, includes our legislators.

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[jberryman]

I agree that the notion, which seems to be popular in the "organic movement", that GM food are inherently less healthy than their traditional counterpart is probably not true. But I also believe that we need to realize that any tampering with the genes of an organism can and probably will have consequences that we could never have predicted. A mild example (which I'm sure was anticipated beforehand) is the way Bt Corn led to resistance in pest populations to that toxin. This is what scares me about technology: 40 years ago it was within the power of the two world's super powers to literally destroy the world. Now one of the smallest nations in the world (Israel) has that capability. At the point that it becomes feasible for a small and determined group of people to, say, create self-replicating nano-bots that can eat all of earth's biomass in a week, what's to stop it from happening?

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[noidentity]

"While I understand their fears, I wish the GMO protest community would spend a little less time worrying about GMOs and more time worrying about very real food risks (see above), heavy metals in imported goods (including foods) and the things around us that are really worth our concern."

There are some unique aspects: many GMO proponents don't want to label their foods so that a consumer can choose non-GMO foods, and nearby non-GMO plants can pick up the genetically modified organisms. Normal foods with lots of artificial crap can be easily avoid by just reading the label.

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[PrvtBurrito]

I understand this and agree this is the bigger issue. Regulation likely needs to happen. As these technologies become cheaper and more accessible, small companies are going to start putting who-knows-what on the market. People should be able to choose not to eat GMO, however, if you do some homework you might find that it is really hard to define GMOs from other agricultural products.

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[nicolastheadept]

Wrong.
Unforunately governments tend to be rather bad at Economics, which is why most Central Banks are, thankfully, moving out of government control.

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[nicolastheadept]

Why would you do that though?

Re:Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[DerangedAlchemist]

A mild example (which I'm sure was anticipated beforehand) is the way Bt Corn led to resistance in pest populations to that toxin.

How has this been going? I remember about 8 years ago telling one of my friends this was the real danger of Bt Corn, given what we knew about genetics and evolution. (Bt is an incredibly safe, very specific natural toxin. Resistance had never emerged because the short lifetime when used as a spray, prevented prolonged exposure needed to produce a selective pressure to develop resistance.)

But remember:

evolution is just a theory

GMOs are always bad

Natural is always good

Complex answers to complex questions are only used to confuse you

;)

Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[Thrustworthy]

"...One of the people who suffered anaphylactic shock after eating an enchilada made of yellow corn, Californian Grace Booth, said she was still convinced she had a reaction to StarLink (genetically engineered corn)."

"Everything else I ate in the 72 hours before I got so sick, I've eaten again with no problem," she said. "Frankly, I don't trust the tests."

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/StarLink-Cleared-AllergiesCDC.htm

Anyone remember this? Some people don't have the necessary enzyme to properly metabolize the Cry9c protein in genetically engineered corn.

Also, "In September 2006, PUBPAT filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents owned by Monsanto Company that the agricultural giant is using to harass, intimidate, sue - and in many cases bankrupt - American farmers."

http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm

Re:Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[mrjb]

"Everything else I ate in the 72 hours before I got so sick, I've eaten again with no problem," she said. "Frankly, I don't trust the tests."

Maybe the shock wasn't food related. Has she re-eaten the corn?

Re:Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[Anonymous Coward]

If by enzyme, you mean an acidic stomach, yeah, the bitch may not have had one, and she may actually be an alien insect disguised as a human, or maybe she just got food poisoning. You idiots need to learn the biology before you go off spouting about things you don't know. BT absolutely NEEDS both the alkalaine gut of an insect and specific proteins to process it to make it toxic, NEITHER of which would be found in humans. Yes, our gut gets more basic after the stomach but not high enough and by then BT is denatured. Damn hippies, get off my GMO lawn!

Re:Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[yndrd1984]

So you're saying:

Someone got sick after eating at Taco Bell.
Someone else filed a lawsuit against a large company.
A product that isn't allowed to be used as food might make people sick.

I'm shocked that:

People manage to eat at Taco Hell and don't get sick.
More baseless lawsuits aren't filed against big companies with bad public images.
With more than 80% of the soy and corn currently grown in the US being genetically modified, people still think it's going to kill us all.

Re:Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[prollifik]

It turns out they won http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm/

Re:Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[alexo]

> Has she re-eaten the corn?
Gross.

shhhhh you are using logic..

[falconwolf]

Without all the data needed to make informed decisions, which is not logical.

Falcon

Re:shhhhh you are using logic..

[nicolastheadept]

Then be a Mentat.

There's always a new angle...

[Anonymous Coward]

for fear mongering. Congratulations.

X Factor - Dangerous

[Zapped.Info]

Consider that mankind really hasn't been around that long: Especially in comparison to plant-life.
Consider that mankind is 100% dependent on plant-life to survive.

Altering the genetic structure of our food may seem like a great idea in the short term for many positive reasons, including the elimination of famine.

The problem is we simply do not have the foresight to know what will happen thousands of generations after the epoch of our genetic manipulations: Not only to the plants, but to those who consume them.

Genetic diversity is good, it is necessary for survival. What happens to that diversity when a super-plant is created that dominates all the species around it? Including those that consume it? Will the only thing we can eat a thousand years from now be corn?

Most of the miracles of medicine have been gifts from nature and much of what has been discovered was right in front of us the whole time. Gee that's weird...I ate that piece of moldy bread because I was starving and now I feel better! I thought that mold was going to make me sick.

What if I wasn't starving? What if I had an abundance of bread, because that bread was genetically engineered to resist blight. Since there is no blight, I'm not hungry enough to eat moldy bread, but there isn't even any mold on the bread because mold can't grow on the genectically resistant grain it was made from.

So the whole population becomes fat and happy until a super-bug comes along and knocks out 99% and I die because I didn't eat my moldy bread.

I for one would at least like to have a choice, but presently there are no incentives or laws (that I know of) motivating companies to inform you, that they have completely screwed you over, by screwing up the genetic code of what you are eating, just so they can add a few percentage points to their profits, so that the stock price will go up, so that Daddy CEO can retire next year; and that they really don't know what will happen ten years from now, but your generation seems like the perfect guinna pig.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Samrobb]

The problem is we simply do not have the foresight to know what will happen thousands of generations after the epoch of our genetic manipulations: Not only to the plants, but to those who consume them.

I may be going out on a limb here, but if you're speaking in terms of "thousands of generations", then I'm going to guess that the vast majority of "those who consume them" will be deader than the proverbial doornail.

Of course, that's the same thing I'd expect from someone who consumed non-gentically altered plants, but hey - you've made your paoint. Over 1000 years, just about everybody who consumes a GMO will die, die , DIE!!!

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[posterlogo]

OMG. Chill out. I've been in molecular biology for a decade now. I'll gladly eat any GMO knowing that it is free of pests and costs less and imparts stability to global food availability. Humans are living longer and healthier now than at any point in history. This trend will not make a u-turn. There isn't going to be some big "oh shit our genetic manipulations have rendered us all sterile and the human race is going to die out". But you've illustrated a very important point. The scientists have clearly failed at something -- educating the public.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Molecular Biologist, I think about these issues quite a bit. I'll grant that the direct editing of the genome of *anything* should give one cause for concern. Yes, when undertaking genetic manipulations the possibility unforeseen consequences does exist. We have minimized these risks so that they haven't caused any real problems to date, but that doesn't mean that this will always be.

So why take these risks? My answer is that the risks of genetic manipulation and GMO food are far outweighed by the rewards. But perhaps the term 'rewards' isn't adequate here. See, without a large jump in the technology of our daily lives the population of the earth isn't sustainable. We're already seeing the effects of carbon pollution on our environment. The effects of this will continue to get worse. We need to find ways to make and transport food to people in a vastly more efficient manner, or large swaths of people will be doomed to starvation within a few centuries at best. Assuming that we don't figure out cold fusion or some other way of generating massive amounts of clean energy, we'll need to grow food with far less fertilizer, pesticides, and oil. The only way to do this is to breed plants that are more suited to our purposes. Selective breeding is far too slow - we need these better crops now.

In short, we have two options. The first is to continue on as we've been for generations. This will lead to the destruction of civilization. The second option is to roll the dice on new technologies. Yes, perhaps this gamble will also lead to the deaths of individuals. But there is a far greater chance that it will save us all. Like it or not, our future depends on advances like genetically modified organisms. In absence of a worldwide 'one child' policy within the next decade, there is no turning back on technology.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you eat that moldy bread and somehow your body virus genetic absorb that mold DNA and create a new strand of deadly virus, and you pass that on to someone else, and so on ...etc

Gee, you're the root of the deadly viruss that kill 1/2 the populations of the world, by eating that moldy bread.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Zapped.Info]

We certainly have more than two options. This is not an on or off situation. I am grateful for the freedom I have in this society to choose what I eat, but that choice is being taken away from me. The buzz word at the special grocers these days is "organic" It seems all too ironic that we'll end up paying more to get food that somebody didn't go mucking around with in a laboratory AND that a chain of custody on food will need to be established similar to a drug test container headed to a laboratory, just to ensure you're not getting frakenfood. There are other technologies at our disposal to increase food output and we are far from the point of having to tweak things at the genetic level: IMHO that should be an option of last resort: Like if we enter an ice age...which the sun is now showing signs of, being presently flagged as "too quiet" Perhaps all this global warming and extra CO2 is like the world putting on a jacket, getting ready for a long winter...I digress..

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Zapped.Info]

Unless of course you have read Doug Adams - "So long and thanks for all the fish." The fourth book in the Hitchhikers Guide Trilogy. (Is that right?) The exact opposite happens when a 6 month old moldy sandwich eaten by Author Dent actually saves the planet: Unknowingly. This sort of thing happens all the time throughout the book.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, we formally have a multitude of options available to solve our current issues. But all of them fall into the two buckets: 1) technology as it is today or 2) new technology.

All new technology brings with it new risks. GMOs are no exception.

In regards to your post, if the genetically altered food can be produced with less fertilizer, energy, etc, you *should* be paying less for it and more for the more-difficult-to-grow stuff. As the environment deteriorates, this gap will grow until the only viable option is the GMO stuff. This movement will be accelerated if/when we start to fully pass along environmental costs in the cost of production.

If we wait to make big changes like GMO foods etc. the benefits to the planet will come too late. We need to drastically cut the emissions of chemicals, CO2, etc into the environment. This simply won't happen without drastically different crops.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

How are you safer by eating RoundUp Ready shit?

By knowing they can spray the pesticide on the plant in abundance without hurting the crop? All the pesticide (aka poison) will still be there, it's just that the poison will not affect the plant. Nowhere is it guaranteed the poison will not affect a human eating it.

Re:X Factor - Dangerous

[budgenator]

I think that is about to change, when I grew up everything was OMG red dye #2 and artificial preservatives are so bad. now our kids are going to school hooked on amphetamines for ADD, asthma is epidemic. Clearly the mycotoxins in our food are alot more toxic than the preseritives that were taken out; maybe Grace Slick had it right when she sang "what's preserving your food maybe preserving you".

Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[falconwolf]

One without foreign genes or chromosomes inserted.

Falcon

Re:Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[Troed]

Define "foreign".

Then study biology.

Re:Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[falconwolf]

Define "foreign".

Not native, in this case not naturally occuring in corn.

Then study biology.

Though not a biologist I have studied biology. Actually I almost went into biology. In high school some friends of mine and I scuba dived and we were talking to one of the biology teachers who also dived. We asked her about the school offering a class in Marine Biology so she brought it up with the school administration. They told her that if enough students signed a petition to pledge to take the class if it were offered then they'd offer the class. It only took us a few days to get enough students to sign so the following year it was offered. At the same tyme we started a marine science club with the teacher as the adviser. To graduate hs the only science required was one year of bio however I took that, 1 1/2 years of chemistry, the 1/2 year of marine bio, and another 1/2 year of ecology. So I took 3 1/2 tymes as much science, 1 1/2 of which was bio, as was needed. While taking Marine Bio we took a field trip to Mote Marine Lab, where 3 of us including me were offered jobs there. They told us that if we wanted to work there and major in marine biology or science in college they would help us get accepted into college and help pay for it. I wanted to so bad but I also wanted to, and decided to, major in Computer Engineering instead. And while it wasn't required I still took bio in college.

Falcon

Re:Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[Troed]

If foreign is bad, and foreign means everything "not naturally occuring in" at a specific moment in time - then I guess you do not believe in evolution?

Think about it, then try again ;) While you're at it, check up on what the mitochondria in your cells really are from the beginning.

Re:Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[budgenator]

Inserting foriegn chromosomes into plants was my high school science fair project and I graduated in 1973! With a little colchicine you can get some realy bizzaro plants.

Re:Yup. Corn itself is a hybrid mutant.

[evultrole]

First, I would like to say that "high school biology courses" does not count as studying biology. Not in any stretch of the imagination. You also, I would wager, did not take the math courses aimed at biology students (yes, calculus for biology majors and calculus for computer science/engineering are two different courses, one deals with how to think about problems like this, the others deal mainly with Newtonian physics). Taking a couple beginning level courses does not a study of anything make. I doubt you had enough "electives" (or whatever they chose to call them at your campus) to allow you to get into any higher level courses... and given your long winded direction-less babble about marine biology in high school, I would say that is a fair doubt.

Define "foreign".

Not native, in this case not naturally occurring in corn.


...Corn is not naturally occurring! They bred it out of grass, the whole plant is a "natural abomination." There is nothing "naturally occurring" in it.

Even corn itself is a splicing of several different plants (grasses), that's how hybrids work. One plant (of similar genetic lineage) happens to be resistant to bugs, so we cross breed what we have with that plant. One happens to have big seeds, while another has sweet seeds, so we try to cross them.

Now, in many cases where we might do that, the food part of the plant may get smaller. It may end up bitter. It may produce versions of "corn" that do not mature the same way, causing the plants to be genetically viable (able to reproduce) but unpalatable (ever eaten a yucca seed?)

So, if we take the gene that makes one plant resistant to bugs, insert it without changing any of the rest of the plant, then eat it, what exactly is the difference? OH NO! IT WAS SCIENCE! WE'LL ALL DIE! What is with this new trend in western culture to fear things simply because science gave them to us.

Idiots.

I'm so tired of people who have no understanding of genetics, agriculture, or anything else relevant to a topic talking about how "dangerous" these things might be to ingest. If they don't cause problems fairly early (within, say three years) they really aren't statistically likely to. Yes, we may find it to be carcinogenic in extremely high doses, but most things we eat now are as well (apples?... normal corn?). There is no logical argument against any of this, it's all poorly educated lunk-heads eagerly running away with the "it's bad cause it's not natural" crap that marketing firms have been shoving down your throats.

You're all just like the people who complained about irradiated beef (as if somehow running doses of microwaves through the food made the proteins in the dead cow mutate in dangerous ways), and I assume most of you worried about this are the same people because you are the same sort "lets not bother to think about it and just be afraid because it's different" morons. The same folks who decided not to vaccinate your children because a poorly done study claimed a correlation between a vaccination and autism (a correlation that was not, in fact, there).

No please, don't bother to educate yourselves on this, just go right on with your "OH NO! SOMETHING MIGHT POSSIBLY MAYBE GO WRONG!"

Yes, there is a danger of cross pollinating corn and weeds, given that we bred it out of weeds to begin with... if you happen to grow corn in the Balsas River valley in Mexico ... but somehow I don't think that is really their target customer. You see, you can't really cross pollinate corn and a potato, no matter how much you might want to. That's sort of the line for new species, i.e. offspring capable of reproducing can no longer be made between the two lifeforms. For more on this fascinating topic, see Mules.

Corn will only cross pollinate corn and certain types of grass in Mexico and Guatemala... and even then it's only a possibility. It's not randomly going to cross pollinate with t

But I LIKE The Concept of Frankenfoods!

[Greyfox]

This development advances my Evil Plan to deploy vegetables MADE OF MEAT! Vegetarians won't know what to do! World domination will be mine! Muahahaha!

heirlooms

[falconwolf]

I try to work around this by using "heirloom" seeds in the garden, rather than modern hybrids.

Unfortunately older heirlooms aren't so easy to find. They can be found at places like Seed Savers Exchange along with other exchanges. However I don't think many people know of these. I used to be a member of a group that exchanged seeds or plants, but I left years ago.

Falcon

Before people start screaming

[Arthur B.]

The wheat you eat is already a man made chromosomic monster, it's hexaploid!

Finally! My dream

[jtgd]

So will we finally be able to splice the THC gene from cannabis into the E.Coli that lives in our guts so that once we're "infected" we are perpetually high?

High fructose corn syrup

[Pigeon451]

I have news for you, HFCS is used extensively in North American products. Corn is commonly "modified", either by selective breeding or scientifically. Either way they're both GM -- so if you want to avoid so called Frankenfoods, better cut out all that corn syrup.

I don't have a problem with the actual GM foods, it's the environmental impact they have on the ecosystem I have issues with.

Re:High fructose corn syrup

[zoney_ie]

Or move to Europe.

Even apart from GM foods not likely to become prevalent here soon, they'll be labelled too. Sure this is partly European politians realising it's a great way to acheive the twin results of happy public and protectionism from the GMO-crazy US (just like the hormone beef import ban is only partly a public health concern here, but also protectionism), but I don't really care about the motivation as long as it means the consumer here has more choice and power about what sells here.

Also HFCS isn't that common here. Sure soft drinks are still stupidly suger laden, but it's not usual for it to be HFCS. I mean, we don't have HFCS in our *TOMATO KETCHUP* here for crying out loud! I was seriously wondering last time I was in the US if there was anything there that doesn't have HFCS in it!

Actually, food here is getting better, the producers now have to put % daily intake values on a panel on the front of products (in addition to the standard nutritional tables). I can now see clearly that my breakfast cereal gives me a tenth of the salt that's recommended. Also worryingly things like a pizza giving me 60% of the saturated fat. Though a lot of products are reducing in fat and salt too recently - mostly they taste better in fact - though some have managed to mess up a bit. The food companies were threatened with having Europe-wide regulations brought in if they didn't do something themselves. Seems to have worked, though there was lobbying to have the percentage labels be colour-coded green/yellow/orange/red etc. according to how much of a given allowance was in a serving. Would have been a bit silly for things like cheese though.

The real danger is...

[machinelou]

The real danger is that this will only help Monsanto increase the number of plants they sell that are unable to produce viable seeds.

Re:The real danger is...

[the eric conspiracy]

I thought that the idea of GMO's that can't reproduce was a safety device. Why would that be a bad thing?

Re:The real danger is...

[chord.wav]

The other (dark) side of the coin is the producers have to buy new seeds from them every single season. I'm not aware of the current status but it wouldn't surprise me if the 2007 seeds wouldn't work for 2008. It's a lock-in mechanism to maximize profit.

Re:The real danger is...

[the eric conspiracy]

There are many crops that you don't want to use the seed from. Simple hybridization often produces crops that do not seed, and in any case the GMOs are unlikely to breed true. In addition the point of these crops is that the performance of these crops is far superior to the open pollinated varieties.

Personally I think the issue of seed re-use is much overstated. Basic hybrid varieties are cheap to buy and are usually much higher quality than anything a farmer could save from his own land.

Researchers have been doing this stuff 10+ yrs.

[Zymergy]

Researchers have been doing this stuff for over a decade. And there are REAL Intellectual Property issues here.
Genetically Engineered DNA sequences in many cases can be treated just like programming code.

I remember a true story from one of my Genetics Professors, Dr. Ron Van Den Bussche ( http://cas.okstate.edu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=71 )
He told our class about a genetically altered cotton strain of which he was integral in its development.
Apparently, a giant agri-industrial competitor to the giant agri-industrial company who funded the strain of cotton Dr. VDB developed,
surreptitiously obtained a reproduceable/cloneable live specimen and subsequently cloned it and used it in gross quantities for their own unlicensed use.
(I think the new strain could tolerate saltier soils and drier conditions and it grew a larger puffier bowl of cotton, oh yes, and it was Patented/Copyrighted also.)
-->Here's the really funny part, Dr. VDB and his team were expert witnesses in the intellectual property infringement lawsuit/trail against the competitor who allegedly stole the strain. (sorry, can't remember what state)
The defendants had claimed they developed the new genetic strain of cotton themselves.
This was proven blatantly false by the prosecution when Dr. VDB revealed he had spliced unique identification DNA sequences into their genetically-engineered cotton strains from a VERY Very Rare Bat species.
(which happened to be an endangered species that ONLY inhabits a single remote cave system in Texas).
Sure enough, forensic DNA testing was completed on the allegedly stolen cotton strain and it was, in fact, found to be stolen.
-Many, many, Million$ of dollars were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Needful

[Anonymous Coward]

As the human population continues to rise, our need for high volume food production also rises. The drawbacks of natural methods become more and more limiting as volume must increase.

So, genetically modifying the food to meet our nutritional needs while being practical to produce at very high volumes is an obvious necessity.

Yes, genetic modification is dangerous. But so is mass starvation.

The Road to Hell,,,,,

[Anonymous Coward]

The plants would still be fertile, just only with others carried the added chromosome.

That is perhaps what we should fear most about this technology. This is what could truely make it a Terminator in the worst way, especially with Monsanto involved. It is a shame we are not further along with space station construction abilities cause that is the only place such technology should be used. There it might possibly be contained, doing such research on Earth pretty much assures that it will not be constained. Of course growing it inside space colony farm would bring about new variables, at least it wouldn't be as likely to have problems escape. Monsanto is historically a Terminator of the mass variety.

Interesting website you have there Mr. Maize(Corn)man, it is obvious you have an interest in genetically modified foodstuffs, possibly a professional one. Curious who you work for but guess you can't say after your Monsanto comment, maybe if I spent more time on your site I would know, apparently you do at least have good intentions. This isn't intended as a personal attack, just a request to please remember that it isn't so much a question as to if we can, but one of if we should. Perhaps another question might would be: "what would happen if every *plant x* had this gene?" Worse, we won't know till it happens, especially when it combines with other such genes, provided we are still around to observe.

Wonder if Monsanto will be able to resist making their food crops addictive? After all, they have many times been successful in getting the government to look the other way.

Re:The Road to Hell,,,,,

[budgenator]

Wonder if Monsanto will be able to resist making their food crops addictive? After all, they have many times been successful in getting the government to look the other way. no its not patentable, we'd just use SG1 as prior art.

Summation = Neophobic Babble

[Raven737]

first: both my parents do research for Monsanto and i am proud of them and the work they do, not of the company itself though
next, i think people who talk about 'Frankenfoods' are poorly informed about what contemporary GM is and isn't.
For most GM modifications you take a gene that you know serves a certain purpose from one organism (plant for example) and transplant it into another.
There is nothing new, it is the same thing you could archive with normal breeding but it would take centuries and would only work with closely related species.
You see, 1+1 = 2, 1+1 != flesh eating monster
Of course this is in stark contrast to the practice of 'accelerated breeding by random mutations through irradiation' that nobody ever complained about and where most results are far less then desirable and you really have no clue on what else might have changed.

Also, any current GM Crops inherit their traits and are therefore just as 'permanent' as any created using engineered chromosomes.
Oh, and 'permanent' is of course also incorrect, crossbreeding with non-modified crops will of course weaken (and over time could eliminate) the traits and this is the same for the old and this new approach.
Of course Monstante did develop a way to prevent genetic traits to be inherited, but they ineptly name it 'terminator gene' and the whole world screamed in horror until the released it into the public domain and promised to never ever use it.
And now people complain about GM's being too 'permanent'!
In any case, the chromosomes are simply a neat way to package desired genes and it makes the 'injection' much more reliably.
And no worries, GM Plants created using such chromosomes still won't turn into monsters that eat people, really!

Re:Summation = Neophobic Babble

[Qrlx]

There is nothing new, it is the same thing you could archive with normal breeding but it would take centuries and would only work with closely related species

In other words, it's something completely new. :)

I think "Frankenfoods" is a completely apt analogy. Dr. Frankenstein chose a body for its desirable traits and the brain from another for its desirable traits. He invented his monster from whole cloth, rather than selectively breed for generations. This is exactly what you've just described.

Of course this is in stark contrast to the practice of 'accelerated breeding by random mutations through irradiation' that nobody ever complained about and where most results are far less then desirable and you really have no clue on what else might have changed.

First of all, there is a very special circle in Hell for the grad studends who work in the fly rooms. Whether or not that's true, I hope they all worry about it a little.

But second of all, the type of experimentation you describe takes place in a controlled laboratory environment. We, and our food supply, are the guinea pigs in Monsanto's experiments.

Oh, and 'permanent' is of course also incorrect, crossbreeding with non-modified crops will of course weaken (and over time could eliminate) the traits and this is the same for the old and this new approach.

After how many inbreedings is Monsanto willing to release their IP claim to the offspring?

Re:Summation = Neophobic Babble

[khallow]

I think "Frankenfoods" is a completely apt analogy. Dr. Frankenstein chose a body for its desirable traits and the brain from another for its desirable traits. He invented his monster from whole cloth, rather than selectively breed for generations. This is exactly what you've just described.

We should note also that the Monster was indeed shown superior to its creator by the end of the story.

But second of all, the type of experimentation you describe takes place in a controlled laboratory environment. We, and our food supply, are the guinea pigs in Monsanto's experiments.

That would be incorrect. They have tested this food before it enters the food supply. So while there might be additional problems with GM food, it's certainly not guinea pig level experimenting. Besides as I see it, any lingering uncertainty is outweighed by the benefits of GM food.

Re:Summation = Neophobic Babble

[sdsucks]

Glad to see you read the brochure ;)

Re:Summation = Neophobic Babble

[jotok]

It must be nice to simply dismiss all of your critics as crazy Luddites.

Personally, I think any position which does not take into account the fact that we are IN and OF the biosphere, and not outside of it, is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Re:Summation = Neophobic Babble

[Qrlx]

We should note also that the Monster was indeed shown superior to its creator by the end of the story.

In that case, we should also note that the Monster killed several people and was completely uncontrollable by its creator.

You know, I'm liking the Frankenfood analogy more and more. :)

Besides as I see it, any lingering uncertainty is outweighed by the benefits of GM food.

Of course you see it that way. Mommy and Daddy wouldn't be sending you to college without it. You're hardly an impartial judge.

Great !!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I need a corn plant that produce bigger corn kernel, and at the same time sweeter, and also
feed back into the soil nitrogen, and generating potato, the stalk should be sweet and juicy as sugar cane, so I can harvest 3 crops at once (potato, sugar cane, and corn) and need no pesticide and water.

So when can we get something like that ?

Re:Great !!!!

[Zapped.Info]

I keep thinking about the late Doug Adams for some reason today...In one of his books there is a planet where ANYTHING can be grown...there was some reference to plants that grew furniture and they had a special on matresses.

7 puppies will be harmed

[davidwr]

From your signature:

Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post. Ironically, that's the answer.

Any medication will be subject to lots of expensive testing in the petri dish and in animals before human studies can begin.

By the way, we already use live creatures for some treatments. There's leeches and maggots, and live vaccines. Sometimes these have harmful side-effects but on the whole they have proven their worth. Those that haven't never made it out of the lab or have since been discarded.

Other Important Points in the Article

[mpn14tech]

While I think the addition of a chromosome is a significant step, I think it is also very important to notice that this research is going to be published in the open journal PLOS Genetics.

Also according to the article, Monsanto has a nonexclusive license. They can not lock out the rest of the world from making use of this technique. It was probably very tempting for Chromatin to sell out, but it sounds like they have some ideals.

whole chromosomes eh?

[esecasco]

so how long until we have whole patches? I can see it now, walks into "Best-Mod", salesman walks up, "Hello sir, and welcome to Best-Mod, what can we change today?" "Well you see...I've been modded before, with the um, Vista Pack, and its um, not so great" "Well you're just in time!, Micro-Chromo just released Service Pack 1!" "Is that the chromosome that actually works? "Um...not so sure... you know how Micro-Chromo can be, but it should make that hallucination mod for spreadsheets work out great!" passerby walks up, says, "Don't trust that Micro-Shit man, you gotta go Open Source, know what you're splicing before you splice!, google up Chrimux, pick and choose" "But the hardware is so expensive, I don't know" "And that's where Chrimux really shines, you can build your own splicer" meanwhile Best-Mod employee is calling the police, in this future self-splicing is illegal.

Re:whole chromosomes eh?

[Zapped.Info]

Absolutely hilarious! What a brilliant mind you have!

ONE SENTENCE

[HeroreV]

The parent post is one sentence. Seriously, WTF? This isn't about fighting against the evolution of language, or minor grammar/spelling errors, or snobby stylistic preferences. It's about basic readability. I felt like I was running out of breath trying to read that nasty thing. I started racing faster and faster for a period or semicolon or question mark or anything, but nothing!

Re:ONE SENTENCE

[Anonymous Coward]

well strictly speaking it's a whole bunch of sentences using hyphens for punctuation, a novel it's not, it reads more like spoken words

GM humans...

[Anonymous Coward]

They drive Ford!

Handy Leftslash Evilness Scale

[xigxag]

In order of decreasing evil.

Monsanto
DRM
Dubya
Satan
Hitler
Darl McBride
Comcast
RIAA
Microsoft
MPAA
Bin Laden
Bono (he's not fooling anybody)
Rush Limbaugh
AOL
Saddam Hussein
Hillary Clinton
Bram Cohen
IBM
Castro
Bill Clinton
Any 8-bit computer except the TRS-80
God
Hugo Chavez
Al Gore
The Pirate Bay
Richard Dawkins
DVD Jon
rms
emacs
Linus Torvalds
Xerox PARC
Woz
Apple

Re:Handy Leftslash Evilness Scale

[Teppic_52]

Putting Satan above the **AA's is a bit harsh, can he sue for libel?

This comes too soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Before I say anything else, let me clarify something. I'm not in the 'Frankenfoods' camp of opposing GMO foods, I'm in the 'already knew junk DNA wasn't junk a decade before it was announced' camp.

When I first read reports about people thinking GMO foods were causing them problems, I thought these people were just going through the usual unjustified fear of the unknown. After all, I thought, these people making these things have done research, they should already know that you can get unforseen results due to genetic interaction. They should have, of course, done the testing for that and gone back and made further appropriate modifications.

Several credible scientific studies from outside parties later, and I'm not so sure anymore. Then the lid gets blown off of what Monsanto had been hiding and it was shown that they had studies which showed their GMO foods caused harmful side effects, but had no idea why, so they just kept on using them anyway. That's both insane and intolerable.

Not too long ago we get the public revelation that 'junk DNA' isn't junk. This kind of sends me for a loop. I would have thought that this would have been common knowledge for serious genetic researchers for awhile now. I'm not even in the field and, like I stated before, I already knew this awhile ago (I guess what kind of organisms you get to observe makes alot of difference).

That announcement wasn't made very long ago, and now we get this. That previous announcement should've sent genetic engineering for organisms ingested by humans back to the proverbial square one (more realistically square two, since it doesn't change the foundation work).

After all that, my point is this: It should have taken a couple of years of research with the current understanding of genetic interaction to turn out GMOs suitable for human ingestion. After reading the article, this technique only appears to take a little bit of that new understanding into account. It still appears to be mostly operating under the old understanding of genetic interaction. Don't get me wrong, they're definitely quickly heading in the right direction, but they're not there yet.

I think if this goes out into the fields as is, we'll see the same old problems appear (or they'll be covered up like Monsanto has done before). This is still too soon, the researchers who created this process need to go back and review the process and integrate the current understanding of genetics in there to perfect the process (or at least make testing for unforseen results an integral part of the process) before giving it to companies like Monsanto (or virtually anyone else, for that matter) and unleashing it on an unknowing human populace.

Re:This comes too soon.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, think of the Monsanto's hungry share owners. They need more luxury yachts and private jet trips to Paris...

Re:Finally! My dream

[nicolastheadept]

Being high is most likely relative.

It wouldn't do that anyway

[Rix]

It could only take over from wild varieties if the manipulation gave an evolutionary advantage in the wild.

We've been genetically modifying our domesticated plants and animals for at least 10,000 years, and that doesn't really happen. Our modifications, such as making plants retain their seeds rather than drop them, is in fact a disadvantage in the wild. The same is true for pesticide resistance; those chemicals aren't present in the wild, so resistance is a waste of energy.

Re:It wouldn't do that anyway

[jamstar7]

It could only take over from wild varieties if the manipulation gave an evolutionary advantage in the wild.

I'll be happy when they come up with a breed of corn that will grow out here in Arizona with minimal watering. Corn's pretty water-intensive, and it doesn't really like the heat out here either...

Well, since they can add oh so many more genes...

[esecasco]

I'd like corn that can do the following :

1. Grows incredibly quickly

2. Keeps the soil nutrient rich

3. Cooks in half the time

4. Gets a pigment based on its nutrient richness (bad batches will be yellow(normal) while red batches are like a centrum multivitamin, with Ginseng)

5. Contains human growth hormone ("Screw Steroids!, you wanna get ripped!? Eat Super Corn!")

6. Contains compounds verified by the FDA to increase virility, decrease stress levels, increase intelligence, and is anti-bacterial

7. Uses proven "junk chromosomes" so it will not cross-breed. cross-breeding should make corn that will...I don't know, blow up in a puff of smoke with a laser light show, or something as cool.

8. And a link with 100% guaranteed information on what was spliced, why it was spliced, and resources that can back these claims

So yeah, I'll take that, thanks.

No.

[Rix]

Backyard farmer now:

1. Grows crops naturally pollinated (or, in the case of many food crops, self pollinates)
2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others
3. Rinse, repeat

Backward farmer with GMO neighbours

1. Grows crops...
2. Harvests seeds, eats some, plants others
3. Grows crops who, by definition, have fertile seeds. Monsanto chemical dependant seeds don't sprout, and don't make it into next years seed.

Re:No.

[cyphercell]

so, it's ok that the backyard farmer's crop halves every year? Somehow I don't see how the farmer doesn't eventually become dependent on Monsonto. I think the general belief is that what Monsonto is doing is at the very least reckless and at the very worst an attempt to strangle the world's food supply with patents. Now I'm a man of science and I'm not particularly concerned with GM food, until it's designed to artificially deplete the food supply. It's not fear mongering, scientists have spent years dealing with invasive plants and animals that come from other countries, Monsonto is compounding the problems for their own personal gain.

Re:No.

[jamstar7]

One seed can germinate to a corn plant. The corn cob has many new seeds on it. Thus, your crop does not 'half' every year. If there's 200 seeds per cob, you can pick the best 3 or 4 cobs for planting, and eat the rest. You'll still have a good crop next year.

Re:No.

[innerweb]

Thus, your crop does not 'half' every year. If there's 200 seeds per cob, you can pick the best 3 or 4 cobs for planting, and eat the rest. You'll still have a good crop next year.

What?!?!? Three or four? I know and have worked with plenty of corn farmers. They are not planting hundreds of seeds, or even thousand, but tens to hundreds of thousands at the least. The cross pollination and the genetic alterations might not show up (and probably will not be noticeable to the untrained eye/gadget) for years. Farmers have been sued out of business already for this very kind of cross-pollination. The farmer does not have the legal means to fight a monster like one of these companies. And, these companies know they can snag more farmland and more farmers by the fear factor alone. These are very strong arm tactics. These companies have already been down this road when their product winds up growing in someone else's field. They go in and clean the farmer (victim) out. This is the same problem we worry about in open source. That commercial code might be injected as a viral *improvement* that can then be used to sue the open source out of business. Farmers do not have the tools to re-write genetic code for their crops, nor do they have the tools to control what is installed from other fields.

The other problem is the huge lack of knowledge we have about what impact this might have on the population/environment at large. Same problems with a product called corn syrup, or another product called partially hydrogenated vegetable oil. Both of these were brought into the market with not enough testing and both are turning out to be rather bad for you. The big difference is you can shut down production of these. Once GMO is in the wild, it is there. If it is designed to be dominant, then it will continue to be there.

InnerWeb

Re:No.

[jamstar7]

Thus, your crop does not 'half' every year. If there's 200 seeds per cob, you can pick the best 3 or 4 cobs for planting, and eat the rest. You'll still have a good crop next year.

What?!?!? Three or four? I know and have worked with plenty of corn farmers. They are not planting hundreds of seeds, or even thousand, but tens to hundreds of thousands at the least.

GP was talking about a garden. Don't need 160 acres of corn for a single family garden. 3 or 4 ears should do it quite nicely.

Re:No.

[innerweb]

Oops. That is what I get for skipping through the list. Forget RTFM, must RTFPs!

InnerWeb

Alternate

[Rix]

I would like to know if my food was grown by a gay man, because I don't want my children to catch teh ghey. What do they have to fear if gay farmers are safe?

It's not fucking relevant. If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.

Re:Alternate

[marcello_dl]

Gay cultivated crops are still free from patents, so your ANALogy is flawed on one important aspect. Another aspect is that you ought to give us a theory on any correlation between the sexual orientation of the farmer and the composition of the farmed food.

Thank you for trying, you miserable troll.

> If you really want non-GMO food, pay someone to guarantee that it's not.

BTW, if you want me to stop calling ya troll, ask for my paypal account and deposit a suitable sum there.

GE and GMOs

[falconwolf]

If foreign is bad, and foreign means everything "not naturally occuring in" at a specific moment in time - then I guess you do not believe in evolution?

No, foreign itself is not bad, what's bad is what it causes. And I most certainly believe in evolution, and science. I don't believe in any supreme deity, like a "God", god, or gods. I don't believe in the existence, or non existence of any; I am agnostic: "a" without, and "gnosys" belief.

check up on what the mitochondria

Yes I know what the mitochondria is, and that a person only inherits MtDNA from the mother. Try again yourself

Falcon

Re:GE and GMOs

[Troed]

I think you need to reread my earlier posts, and stop pretending that you already know what conclusion I was leading you towards.

What I did, shortly, was to prove that your opinion is based on faulty presumptions. Don't worry, you will understand if you search for the facts.

Re:GE and GMOs

[ShieldW0lf]

You're trying to manipulate things into a word-game style victory that changes nothing about the issue at hand.

The issue at hand isn't that variation in genetic material is a naturally occurring thing. Everyone knows that mutations exist.

The difference is that a mutation needs to fight from the bottom and displace everything, and it needs to do it from a starting position in which it is the only one of its kind in existence.

What Monsanto does in a lab is create sterile incubators for their creations and culture them in numbers sufficient to carpet the earth, and releases them out into the wild.

It's TOTALLY fucking different.

There is no naturally occurring example of what Monsanto does that you can point at and say "There, see, it happened over there." None whatsoever.

Which means that there isn't any data upon which to base a conclusion, but only specultation.

Our great-grandchildren will be the ones equipped to judge the effect of what was done to us, after collecting a few generations of medical data. Not us. We aren't equipped.

Re:GE and GMOs

[Troed]

Short answer, you're wrong. Your view on how a disruptive genetic change happens (through incorporation of viruses or gene transplants by bacteria) is very much 20th century and needs to be updated to the 21st ;)

It's exactly the same

[Rix]

The only difference is that we're actively producing the mutations we want, rather than sitting idly by and hoping they come along.

Anything "dangerous" about GMO could also happen spontaneously. Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.

Because if its sterile, funnily enough,

[falconwolf]

it can't breed.

Just because Monsanto says it's sterile doesn't make it so. It has been shown a number of tymes that GMOs with so called terminator technology has in fact crossbred with wild relatives.

Falcon

Read the fucking judgement, asshole

[Rix]

Percy Schmeiser did in fact specifically plant RR canola (not corn, you illiterate fuckwit).

He sprayed his farm with roundup and gathered seed from everything it didn't kill. You can argue about whether or not he should have the right to do that, but the law says he can't.

Re:Read the fucking judgement, asshole

[Khyber]

Since when did the fucking law have any forceful control over anything NATURAL, asshole? Minus the racial and corporation-based illegality of marijuana, not ONE FUCKING BIT. Were said company to try suing me, they'd be burned to the ground, and I'd take the charge. I doubt you with your big words have the fucking balls to do it. I have the balls, and I've got the criminal record to prove it. Too bad it's illegal to kill someone for being a douchebag, but hey, that probably wouldn't stop ME from knocking on your door to collect on your fat ass. Please mod me flamebait, as it's FULLY intended to be.

Re:Read the fucking judgement, asshole

[falconwolf]

Percy Schmeiser did in fact specifically plant RR canola (not corn, you illiterate fuckwit).

Np points for you, instead of simply thinking and using reason correcting you've got to start name calling. I'll debate with someone, who may affect a change in my thinking, but not anyone who can't be civil.

Falcon

Re:Read the fucking judgement, asshole

[Inthewire]

Why haven't you shot bush and willie yet? You know, based on yer principles and all. (Voted for Her Man, btw)

GE

[falconwolf]

Humans have done genetic engineering for thousands of years. For example have you ever wondered why there are so many different kinds of dogs? Or why strawberries or potatoes are that big?

Why is it so hard for people to understand there's a hugh difference between selective breeding and inserting a foreign gene into a species that does not have it?

Falcon

Re:GE

[quanticle]

Why is it so hard for people to understand there's a hugh difference between selective breeding and inserting a foreign gene into a species that does not have it?

Maybe because the difference really isn't that big. Mutation introduces genetic changes all the time. Its just that, now we can introduce desirable mutations ourselves, rather than going out and trying to stumble across an instance where nature has introduced the mutation for us (through UV radiation or whatnot).

fear of GE technology

[falconwolf]

Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.

This is pure BULLSHIT! A lot of technology can be contained in a lab, but GE companies like Monsanto are using the entire planet as their lab. Once a deadly gene enters the environment there's no way to contain it. Like of like viri and worms, once released onto the net it can become exceedingly difficult to contain them.

Falcon

Re:fear of GE technology

[Inthewire]

Seems like the falcon + wolf hybrid is something new under the sun.

You're not big on the whole evolution thing, eh?

[Rix]

A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

But don't let that detract from your loom smashing.

we aren't making new "genes" in this case

[falconwolf]

Did you RTFA? This article IS NOT about inserting genes from one species into another, it's about creating entirely new chromosomes and being able to insert them into an organism, the key phrase being "Creating an artificial chromosome".

Falcon

Re:we aren't making new "genes" in this case

[wizardforce]

Did you RTFA?

I would like to but for some reason the link goes to a subscription page.

This article IS NOT about inserting genes from one species into another, it's about creating entirely new chromosomes and being able to insert them into an organism, the key phrase being "Creating an artificial chromosome".

there is still a transfer of genes, whether it be one or many in a chromosome but this is nothing new. we've been doing this sort of thing in yeast since the early 1980's. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast_artificial_chromosome

Mod Up

[TheThiefMaster]

An Informative Anonymous Coward?

So they do exist.

you are not funny

[Anonymous Coward]

you are not funny please kill yourself

Why isn't this tagged itsroland?

[LrdDimwit]

Is this, like, a different Roland than the one everyone complains about to me? Because the summary seems to be a load of fearmongering to me.

The real problem=Monopoly

[KwKSilver]

Once all the natural varieties are driven into extinction, Monsanto can charge whatever it wants. How's a $50.00 dollar loaf of bread or box of corn-flakes sound? Monsanto has already put most non-GM rapeseed ("canola") growers out of business, owning some 80% of the rapeseed market. Think they care how many people starve or are otherwise injured as a result of their greed? If you do, think again. Remember, the new, true corporate philosophy is that their "only responsibility is to the shareholders." If hundreds of millions of human beings starve? So what? It would be good for the corporate bottom-line.

Funny, that once it was found that people could be scared into using rapeseed oil, with lies claiming that other oils, like olive oil, which has been used for thousands of years without problems, suddenly became bad for us (Bullcrap!). Suddenly, rapeseed oil became "canola" oil and Monsanto turns up with their patented, GM product. Coincidence? Wake me up when GM-rapeseed, or if you wish, "canola" oil, GM-corn, etc. have beeen tested for thousands of years. Don't let my reluctance to be a guinea-pig deter you, though: eat all you want. I'll just suffer along with butter, olive oil, and other non-GM foods.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[maxume]

Don't worry, they are hard at work on cows(not that a modern dairy cow could survive feral).

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really naive enough to think that current crop plants are "natural" in any way?

Hint: they aren't.

"Natural" corn (maize).

"Natural" cabbage (also "natural" cauliflower, mustard, turnip, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, and canola. Yes, these were all essentially the same thing at one time -- they all came from a group of closely-related species).

"Natural" carrot.

"Natural" apple.

"Natural" wheat looks like a lawn that's gone to seed. "Natural" squash, pumpkins, and melons are egg-sized or smaller.

Oh, and your "natural" olive oil? Did it come from olives the size of a pea? And how about that "natural" butter? Did it come from cows that this or ones that looked like this?

We've been Frankensteining food for millenia, my friend.

Ever notice how the "natural food" freaks are invariably brutally ignorant of the fundamentals of biology and the history of agriculture? In fact, I'd bet money that you've rarely been off pavement in your life.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[clarkcox3]

Hear Hear! Humans have been "genetically modifying" and "genetically engineering" plants and animals since the dawn of humanity. The only difference is that we called it "selective breeding", and it was seen as "organic" and good.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[nebosuke]

It's pretty bewildering to me how the population of /., which seems to be at least above-average in technological literacy in most areas, is so ignorant regarding biotech.

Germplasm/genetic construct patents expire after 20 years, just like any other patents. Also, many universities around the world maintain banks of public domain germplasm. Until Monsanto can destroy all public seed banks (hint: not going to happen), they can't even begin to hope to control all cultivars.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference was that natural processes were used, not artificial ones.

LOL @ silly false analogies.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[clarkcox3]

Natural selection is a natural process, selective breeding is not. There is a difference. Natural selection is a result of organisms with mutations advantageous to their own survival out-reproducing organisms without that mutation, selective breeding is forcing organisms with mutations that are advantageous to us to out-reproduce organisms without the mutation. By definition, selective breeding is a form of genetic manipulation; period, the only difference is the speed at which the change takes place.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[Fizzl]

I'll just eat beef and butter thank you.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[norton_I]

While selective breeding is definitely a form of genetic manipulation, it isn't true that the only difference is the timescale.

Selective breeding basically only suppresses or enhances traits the parent genome already had. It can't introduce entirely new genes borrowed from an unrelated organism, or even synthesized independently.

Selective breeding of a cow will never make it produce spider venom in its milk, but genetic engineering probably could (though unless you could make the cow immune, it wouldn't be viable).

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[clarkcox3]

Given enough time, any mutation is possible. Go back far enough and cows and spiders have a common ancestor. Given the presence of the potential for random mutations, there is nothing that we could do to a species that time and nature could not.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[norton_I]

That is true, but not the same thing. Natural selection and selective breeding are the same process, one controlled by us, and one "controlled" by nature, in which advantageous traits existing within the population become more widespread. Genetic engineering is a similar process to evolution (not the same thing as natural selection) that is guided by deliberate changed to the genome, vs. random mutation, both introducing new characteristics into the gene pool. Those traits may, through selective breeding or natural selection may become the dominant genotype.

It is also a bit silly to say "the only difference is timescale" when that difference is between 100 years and 100 million years, even if it were technically true (which it isn't).

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. Your beliefs are exactly the same as the most dullwitted variety of creationist.

The creation of crop plants had nothing to do with "natural selection". The selection involved was anything but "natural".

Get an education. Really.

Re:The real problem=Monopoly

[Anonymous Coward]

Plant GMOs currently all have bacterial genes inserted into them.

These genes typically make a conformational change to an enzyme to block the occupation of a binding site by a herbicide molecule, or they express a toxin that is lethal to insect or nematode parasites.

In the first case (as with roundup ready commercial crops) the enzyme change reduces the efficiency of the enzyme, and stunts the growth of the plant compared to a non-resistant plant in similar growing conditions. In the wild, without the herbicide being used, the GM cultivars would rapidly be outcompeted into oblivion. On farms, the non-GM plants are simply exterminated by the herbicide; the resistant GMOs survive.

In the second case (as with the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin producing GM plants) the solar power diverted into producing the insecticide puts the GM plant at a competitive disadvantage unless the parasites inflict enough damage on the non-GM cultivars that they lose even more energy feeding bugs, repairing damage, or lost energy uptake due to dead leaves.

The European corn borer (the larva of which is the main target of the B. t. toxin) and Diamondback moth populations soar in areas where there is extensive field farming mainly because large fields wipe out the habitat of predators like the Trichogramma wasps (which attack the borer) and the very few natural enemies of the D'back moth. The D'back moth also has a very specific dietary requirement -- it only eats glucosinolate-producing plants like cabbage and canola which are found only sparsely in natural environments. It's likely that the B. t. producing cultivars would be outcompeted in the natural environment because the parasite load would be massively reduced compared to commercial farming operations.

So really, what you should have said is that genetically engineered organisms are still subject to evolution, and start at a disadvantage with respect to natural selection pressures. Fortunately for them, artificial selection pressures from us humans (pesticide sprays, habitat changes, parasite transportation) help them out.

Just wait for my modified crop!

[Khyber]

Marijuana with Kudzu. Get you high, grows anywhere, grows and spreads fast, produces seeds with high oil content, etc. etc.

You can kiss genetically modified corn adios if something like this were to happen. Marijuana is unofficially one of the largest cash crops of my state (Tennessee) and I also recall some geneticist that managed to modify oranges and make them produce THC, this was back in... 97 or 98.

GMO can have many drawbacks and advantages. We can't really selectively breed them all out, or even modify them all out.

haha

[Rix]

Exactly.

This should work more like radio frequencies...

[RudeIota]

There seems to be discussion of cross pollination and the legal responsibilities of the subjected farmer...

Since it is unreasonable to expect farmers to protect themselves against cross pollination, it far more reasonable that Monsanto Company (or whoever it has been patented under) engineer it to not cross pollinate somehow. Just because your neighbor's unprotected WiFi signal reaches your home, doesn't make you legally responsible for putting up RF-blocking walls or you have to go to jail... If that were the case, watching broadcast television or listening to the radio that offers copyrighted IP could be a possible felony.

I'm all for patents etc.. But if it is impossible to enforce your patent, it shouldn't even allowed. That's not too unlike having a 'private' radio broadcast on a public frequency and suing everyone who tunes in to it. It should be YOUR responsibility to encode the transmissions or operate on some private channel that is not meant for public consumption.

Do we really know what we're doing yet?

[v1]

I understand they can do a made-to-order chromosome now, but do they really know what they are doing? I mean, they can cut and paste from one to another, a bit like adding luninescence to a housefly or something like that by cutting and pasting in the genome once they find where the code for the glow is at. But do they know how to do this from scratch?

From what I have read on the subject, they understand the basic mechanics of how DNA instructions direct protein production, but not necessarily how genes are expressed. Huntington's disease is a case where an excessive number of repetitions in a specific place in the genome causes an unexplainable cell deteriorization. They have no idea why, but they have identified the relationship. It sounds like this is more of the same. They know if they do C they get E, but they have no idea why. I suppose if you want E you can just blindly keep doing C, but it won't be until you understand the why that you can say "but I don't want E, I want something similar but slightly different, now how can I modify C to achieve this?" Right now all they can do is to play randomly with it until they get a serendipity. This seems to be a dangerous game to play if you have no idea what the effect will be and you are just "trying things".

I don't know if I'd really consider this progress. This may be a problem that's never solved. Life has so many highly abstract and complex interactions. When you look at what DDT did to bird's eggs, how could anyone have hoped to have figured that out in advance, even with today's technology and full knowledge of the cause and effect relationship in play?

monoculture is unnatural

[Anonymous Coward]

...for good reason*, and monoculture of something that has to "waste" a lot of its resources to make food for humans is extremely unnatural. If you can GM it to grow as a monoculture anyways, and mutant / hybrid version that loses some of the load on the system (e.g. makes less human food) is the new http://images.harc.edu/Sites/GalvBayInvasives/Species/Photos/PUMO_1624015.jpg Kudzu

*similar to the MS monoculture, a disease / virus that hits one spreads rapidly - in real life this creates a negative feedback loop and results in mixed populations. As seems to be happening with MS / Linux, FWIW.

A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

Can you guaranty that? Or are you just a troll?

But don't let that detract from your loom smashing.

I don't smash anything but of course you've got to makeup things about me instead of letting me know where I'm wrong.

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

His attitude may not be helpful, but he has a point - YOU are the one making claims without any sort of science to back it up.

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

His attitude may not be helpful, but he has a point - YOU are the one making claims without any sort of science to back it up.

He made the baseless claim, that I smashed looms. As for whether what I said has any scientific basis, let's try this:

"Field of RR crops have been suffering infestation of weeds resistant to glyphosate and Roundup for several years. Now, the farmers' worst nightmare has come true. The dreaded palmer pigweed has become Roundup resistant, Monsanto admits [21]. Pigweed is considered one of the very toughest herbicide resistant weeds to deal with, and palmer pigweed especially so, it can get to six feet tall."

Slashdot even had an article on superweeds:

" GM Crops Create Herbicide-resistant 'Superweed'">.

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[jamstar7]

Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly responsible for this. A RR crop can tolerate more Roundup sprayed on it. Sooner or later you'll find weeds that become resistant to it as well through forced evolution. The weeds with the greatest resistance will be the ones that survive. It's the same principle behind antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Hit bacteria with enough antibiotics and the survivors become immune. Nature has a way of filling ecological voids.

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

I have no idea how you meandered over to roundup resistance in crops. I was referring to your comment: "Once a deadly gene enters the environment there's no way to contain it."

I think that it is hard to justify that statement, and you should back it up.

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

I have no idea how you meandered over to roundup resistance in crops.

Did you or did you not say I said something with no scientific basis? Let's see... Yeap you did say that, YOU are the one making claims without any sort of science to back it up. . Now when I provided evidence you say I "meandered".

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

But your scientific evidence has absolutely nothing to do with the original claim that you made. No one was talking about roundup resistance in weeds - you made some claim about genes getting into the wild and out of control. I'd like to see some evidence that this is a real danger.

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

But your scientific evidence has absolutely nothing to do with the original claim that you made. No one was talking about roundup resistance in weeds - you made some claim about genes getting into the wild and out of control.

Roundup resistance is conferred by genes, and those genes were transfered to wild plants. So in fact those genes did get in the wild and out of control.

I'd like to see some evidence that this is a real danger.

Roundup Ready weeds are your evidence.

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

Roundup resistance is conferred by genes, and those genes were transfered to wild plants. Are you serious? Haven't you ever heard of natural selection?

You really think that the resistant gene or genes hopped between two totally unrelated species?

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

Are you serious? Haven't you ever heard of natural selection?

You really think that the resistant gene or genes hopped between two totally unrelated species?

Yes I have heard of natural selection, have you ever heard of Horizontal gene transfer? A virus uses it frequently. Humans ourselves have hundreds of genes from virii in us.

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

Okay, so you are claiming that horizontal gene transfer took place between corn and the weed. What makes you believe this? Is there any scientific basis for this at all? Is there even some virus common to the two plants that would make it likely? Is the gene that confers resistance to roundup the same in the two plants? Is there evidence of a foreign fragment of corn DNA in the weed compared to the other weeds?

Or is it more likely that plain-jane old natural selection took place and weeds are becoming resistant to roundup, just as they would any other herbicide?

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[falconwolf]

Okay, so you are claiming that horizontal gene transfer took place between corn and the weed.

No I'm not claiming, saying, it happened, I'm saying it's possible, I even included a link that explained how it could. Do you accept that it could happen or do you only accept natural selection? As for whether it did or not I don't know. And isn't that what science is supposed to do, look at all the possibilities?

Just as with Sky diving, in science an open mind is valuable. Though I can be stubborn at tymes, seeing as how the docs and therapists said being stubborn kept me alive after an accident I should of died from being stubborn can be good (though bad in my case), I try to keep an open mind and have been known to change it.

Falcon

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[MightyYar]

Keeping an open mind is a great idea - which is why I'm not going to boycott GMO foods just because they are new.

Re:A "deadly" gene wouldn't make it very far.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are turning lateral gene transfer into Lamarckism!

LGT is not performed by recombinant viral infection, except in labs.

Mae-Wan Ho has not been able to supply any evidence at all for LGT in somatic cells of multicellular organisms. None. Zero. Sadly, she has been progressively sliding into crankiness.

LGT can happen in haploid germline cells during several stages because of the non-checked (de)polymerase reactions. The transfer is always from a single celled organism to the germline cell. However, the usual result -- by a huge margin -- is a dead or non-viable gamete, a sterile organism, or one that doesn't long enough to test for fertility.

LGT also happens similarly in naturally monoploid prokaryotes.

Other prokaryotes can swap genes by emitting and intercepting plasmids. It's rare that two different species do this, but it's been known (cross-kingdom transactions involving single-celled organisms can be forced in labs).

It is plausible that DNA retroviruses could acquire extra genes after generations of dormancy, and that those genes could be inserted into subsequent hosts of a different species. However, since most such viruses are extremely species specific, this is highly improbable. In this case "horizontal gene transfer" is a contrast to "vertical gene transfer" (through germline cells), and really refers to the lack of meiosis and fertilization, rather than inter-species gene transport.

Same-species horizontal gene transfer mediated by viruses is much more plausible, and probably happens.

However since the "horizontal" component excludes germline cells, the changes carried over are not heritable. Future generations will not pick up the virally-transported gene. In fact, if the recipient is an adult, most of its cells will never pick up the virally-transported gene, so in effect this form of horizontal gene transport produces genetic chimeras in multicellular organisms.

To say it again: in sexually reproducing organisms, acquired traits -- even those affecting the nuclear material of somatic cells -- cannot be inherited. Only germline mutations are heritable.

Lamarckian assertions require very clear, and reproducible, proof.

Maybe because the difference really isn't that big

[falconwolf]

Its just that, now we can introduce desirable mutations ourselves, rather than going out and trying to stumble across an instance where nature has introduced the mutation for us (through UV radiation or whatnot).

Yea and possibly create something undesirable quickly instead of letting nature tkae it's tyme to see if any problems will be created. Yea, while nature does propagate mutations it doesn't insert fish genes into tomatoes. If you can prove me wrong do so, I'd like to see some data and studies. After reading and evaluating it I may change my beliefs. Meanwhile companies like Monsanto say gene transfer will be prevented by terminator technology yet it's already been shown it DOES NOT work. Even with so called terminator tech used genes have already been shown to crossbreed. When a UC professor took native corn samples from Mexico and showed they had Monsanto's genes Monsanto did what they could to discredit not just the research but the professor as well. Monsanto did the same to a scientist in England, or Ireland, when he showed results that a GE potato was harmful to lab animals.

Falcon

I think you need to reread my earlier posts

[falconwolf]

Using the parent link, I went up to the top to read your post, on this thread.

and stop pretending that you already know what conclusion I was leading you towards.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You told me to check up on what the mitochondria and I let you know I knew about the mitochondria. I may not, no I know I do not, know everything about it but I know some about the mitochondria.

Falcon

Re:I think you need to reread my earlier posts

[Troed]

The mitochondria now producing energy for all the cells in your body were once "foreign" - as everything else once was. You have lots of old viruses in your body, being incorporated into your DNA and a part of the human evolution. The means with which gene transfers have been made, naturally, are not at all that different from what we can do today in a lab.

studying biology

[falconwolf]

First, I would like to say that "high school biology courses" does not count as studying biology. Not in any stretch of the imagination.

If you had RTFA you would of read where I said I also took biology in college. Now if that doesn't count as studying biology I want to know what your definition of studying is. On the other hand I don't find it useful to continue this if you won't read all of what I say or you're defining word differently.

Falcon

Re:You're not big on the whole evolution thing, eh

[Nazlfrag]

One deadly to the specific organism, no. One deadly to the surrounding ecosystem, yes. The Triffids are coming.

Get over it, folks

[Anonymous Coward]

Better living through chemicals.

Who looked at a chicken and said "I'm going to eat that round white object it keeps dropping?" People take bloody risks. The planet is starving, and we can't afford decades of testing every time someone farts in the GMO community.

Everyone bemoans GMO crops as awful and horrible, leading to the destruction of the planet. Just shut up already.

cross breeding

[falconwolf]

Simple, two organisms with differing numbers of chromosomes cannot crossbreed (barring extraordinarily exceptional cases, and not including cases of simple duplication of a "normal" chromosome, usually). When the germ cells try to unite to form a diploid cell that becomes the offspring, it simply fails because things don't "line up"

Thanks for that, unlike the person who replied to me before you did, you used reason to try to convince me I made a mistake. However until I see scientific, and real world, evidence this won't happen I'll keep the belief it's possible. GE companies like Monsanto have already stated terminator technology won't allow gene transfer, however science has proven it already is happening.

Falcon

Re:Maybe because the difference really isn't that

[WhiplashII]

Your argument just doesn't make sense. Nature has ahd billions of years, randomly mutating. If after billions of years no organism has taken over completely, it is not possible. Humans cannot engineer better than nature (at least not over a billion years), and nature is trying to kill/displace us all!

Evolution - nature out to kill us all.

saving seeds

[falconwolf]

The whole basis of monsanto's case was that Percy knew the seeds he was planting were roundup ready. The case had nothing to do with accidental contamination.

If a farmer saves seeds for the next planting season it has everything to do with any and all contamination.

Falcon

Re:saving seeds

[nebosuke]

The case is nowhere near as straightforward as most people seem to believe. If you research the details, he bought massive quantities of Round-Up, which was basically the first smoking gun in Monsanto's case[1].

The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields.

The other smoking gun was the fact that his crop was 95-98% RR canola[2]. That level of 'contamination' indicates very aggressive, active selection for the target genotype. You do not get that from the trace contamination due to windblown seed or accidental cross-pollination.

I don't doubt that the first few plants were accidental, either through unintentional cross-pollination or stray seed, but once he found that they were round-up resistant, he actively worked to integrate the rr the genotype into his own populations. He probably just didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong.

Small-time seed producers have done exactly the same sort thing with non-GMO germplasm from, e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred for decades. They'd buy and plant a bag of hybrid seed, and look through the field for accidental selfs (plants produced by accidental self-pollination due to incomplete detasseling during hybrid production) to steal their inbreds from their female heterotic lines. That is just as illegal as what Schmeiser did, but you don't really hear about those guys being busted and completely ruined because Pioneer isn't run by the same type of raging pricks as the guys at Monsanto.

[1] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-54 - "Monsanto argues that in spite of Schmeiser's claims that he did not use Roundup on his crops in 1998, there is no evidence that he used Muster and Assure herbicides as claimed. Furthermore, Monsanto provides evidence that Schmeiser purchased 720 liters of Roundup in 1998."

[2] http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html - Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. ... The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."

Re:saving seeds

[falconwolf]

The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields.

That's what farmers do, they save seeds from plants that exhibit the traits they desire. Happens all the tyme.

Falcon

Re:saving seeds

[Raideen]

I don't doubt that the first few plants were accidental, either through unintentional cross-pollination or stray seed, but once he found that they were round-up resistant, he actively worked to integrate the rr the genotype into his own populations. He probably just didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong.

I wouldn't feel like I was doing anything wrong either. The reason is that if my herbicide of choice was Round-Up anyway (I'm not saying that it was his choice) and my neighbor was using RR Canola, a significant portion of my crop would eventually be RR Canola simply because it would be more likely to survive, even at lower treatment levels. Yes, it may take years or even decades, but that's not really the point. The point is that it's an inevitability if I don't actively purchase new, untainted seed. I find the whole thing to be an act of sabotage. It's a good business model for Monsanto though. Buy their seed or go out of business.

Re:saving seeds

[nebosuke]

The reason is that if my herbicide of choice was Round-Up anyway (I'm not saying that it was his choice) and my neighbor was using RR Canola, a significant portion of my crop would eventually be RR Canola simply because it would be more likely to survive, even at lower treatment levels.

This is either an honest mistake, or a deliberate to mislead. You do not spray non-rr cultivars with roundup, as it will toast down anything that isn't resistant. The only thing you can use it for is controlling weeds outside your tillable ground, or possibly preplant/pre-emerge. Any other usages are inconsistent with the product's label, and actually a punishable offense.

There is no legitimate use of roundup that will incidentally cause significant selection pressure on a crop. Lacking significant positive selection pressure, rare genotypes will only be maintained at a very low frequency in—if not disappear entirely from—a population. The assertion that the levels of the rr genotype would eventually become significant on accident, with absolutely no intervention, is false.

The only reason you would spray roundup on a non-rr crop, aside from just wanting to kill it for some reason, is to deliberately select for the rr genotype.

Make no mistake, that guy knew exactly what he was doing. He spent the better part of his life studying and refining his canola germplasm, obviously had a fairly deep knowledge of plant breeding in general, and basically walked into this with his eyes wide open. He just either didn't think he'd get caught, or didn't think the consequences would be quite so serious.

Re:saving seeds

[Raideen]

This is either an honest mistake, or a deliberate to mislead. You do not spray non-rr cultivars with roundup, as it will toast down anything that isn't resistant. The only thing you can use it for is controlling weeds outside your tillable ground, or possibly preplant/pre-emerge. Any other usages are inconsistent with the product's label, and actually a punishable offense.

Yes, it was an honest mistake. I wasn't aware that round-up basically killed everything that wasn't designed to be resistant. I'm not familiar with the farming industry or farming chemical manufacture, but I thought that herbicides were generally designed to kill everything but the desired plant or plants and that using the RR variety just meant that you could use a higher treatment level for greater effectiveness. From what you state, Roundup appears to have been designed exclusively for the use with Roundup Ready plants or they have modified their formula for that purpose. Since you seem to be intimately familiar with the case and the subject matter at hand, am I right in thinking that he was accused of growing RR Canola in 95-98 percent of his canola fields after only a year of discovering that it was on his land?

1997 - He discovers the RR Canola
2000 - Monsanto sues Schmeiser over his 1998 crop

I'm not sure what your expertise is, but since you seem to be knowledgeable in at least one of the fields relevant to the case, I'd like to know if it is possible to collect enough seed from a small percentage of a farm to seed 95-98 percent of the fields after just one year.

Further reading of your own sources shows that the quantity of Roundup that he purchased was not the "first smoking gun."

"While Schmeiser did purchase 720 liters of Roundup in 1998, as noted by the plaintiff, Schmeiser says that he used this quantity of Roundup to clear his fields before spring planting and also to clear the weeds in the roadside ditches and around telephone poles. Schmeiser testifies that he would have used 515 liters of the herbicide to chem fallow his 1,030 acres leaving 205 liters for the ditches and right-of-ways. Zakreski's final brief includes a table depicting Schmeiser's use of the chemical in 1996, 1997, and 1998, demonstrating that the amount of Roundup used in 1998 was entirely consistent with the previous two years. Additionally, Schmeiser explains that if he had planted 100 percent Roundup Ready Canola that year, following Monsanto's recommended application rate of 1 liter/acre, he would have needed an additional 1,000 liters, a claim that not one of Monsanto's witnesses attempts to challenge." (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-40#gm-40)

Therefore, I'm not sure how you arrived at this statement:

"The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields."

Re:saving seeds

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no legitimate use of roundup that will incidentally cause significant selection pressure on a crop. Lacking significant positive selection pressure, rare genotypes will only be maintained at a very low frequency in--if not disappear entirely from--a population. The assertion that the levels of the rr genotype would eventually become significant on accident, with absolutely no intervention, is false.

 

Especially since the coding gene for the glyphosate-tolerant 5-EnolPyruvoyl-Shikimate-3-Phosphate (EPSP) ligase is not endemic to the commercial crops (CP4 EPSP synthetase has a bacterial source), and it arising naturally in one of them would be an exceptionally cool case of convergent evolution. It would also make the glyphosate-tolerant plant less competitive than intolerant wildtypes of the same species, since the tolerance mechanism involves conformational changes to EPSP ligase so that the phosphoenol pyruvate binding site is no longer preferentially occupied by glyphosate. However, the conformational changes also reduce the binding opportunities for one or more intermediate states of proper ternary enzyme substrate complex.

More simply, although a tolerant type would survive exposure to roundup where the intolerant types would not, in the absence of roundup, the intolerant types will synthesize much more phenylalanine, tyrosine and tryptophan, and simply outcompete the resistant plants.

There are a variety of weeds that have some degree of glyphosate tolerance either naturally or through a forcing. They tend to be found clustered near environments in which roundup is in regular use, and are more likely to overexpress EPSPS than to express a mutant enzyme. This is directly analogous to forced resistance in a number of non-pathogenic gram positive bacteria species near environments with regular exposure to beta-lactam drugs, so is not terribly surprising.

However as there is no known case of transport of a tolerant EPSP ligase coding gene into a commercial food crop except by the splice-and-breed method, and there is no known case of naturally arising glyphosate tolerance (whatever the mechanism), there is almost zero chance of selecting for roundup tolerance through breeding survivors.

The microscopic chance comes from the possibility of a random, unexpected, and novel change to the production of aromatic amino acids that overcomes -- or outright avoids -- glyphosate interference, or to sequester glyphosate into suitable molecules taking advantage of its punning with glycine rather than the phosphonic portion, while being neutral to beneficial in environments in which significant amounts of roundup is not found. An engineering approach would probably favour sequestration (e.g. construct new glycine rich proteins analogous to collagen or the existing cell wall GRPs, for example -- this would also benefit the plant in terms of wound response, for example). If you're a plant that can use a herbicide as a source of nutrients, you win!

One step closer...

[urcreepyneighbor]

to tomacco!

I would like to but for some reason the link goes

[falconwolf]

to a subscription page.

I sometimes get the same thing. In cases like this I find News Google a friend, searching for Researchers make chromosomes to order returns 19 articles. The first is the same one as /. links to. And the second is /. Hope this helps.

Thanks for the wiki link. I wonder if it's used in zymurgy, the study of making beer and wine. I might be tempted to use one of these yeasts but there are plenty of fine yeast to use now.

Falcon

You almost got it

[Foobar of Borg]

The same is true for pesticide resistance; those chemicals aren't present in the wild, so resistance is futile

I had to fix that for you. And you call yourself a geek!

Re:You're not big on the whole evolution thing, eh

[falconwolf]

One deadly to the specific organism, no. One deadly to the surrounding ecosystem, yes. The Triffids are coming.

Don't you mean Tribbles?

Falcon

How can we get rid of PMOs?????????

[Rockin'Robert]

In 1945 it was decided the only option with the heat and power to obliterate the Japanese:
anthrax at Nagasaki and the chemical poison agents at Hirshima -
was nuclear incineration.

Apparently - with aggressive de-population and profit motives of PMGOs,
plus wind-born contamination - that option appears to be moot.
http://www.answers.com/moot+point&r=67

RR
"We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." Native American Proverb.

Re:You're not big on the whole evolution thing, eh

[Nazlfrag]

No, I meant Triffids, a fictional GMO that destroys civilization.

RIAA of crops

[mrops]

What really scares me with this type of stuff is if there is a lobby like the RIAA.

Songs is something you do not need for survival, but if you can push around laws that restrict what people can eat, then the society is really screwed. All of a sudden you go back 5000 years where slaves are forced to work for food. You still go do a desk job, but after a months pay all you can afford is food, every thing at your local grocery store is copyrighted and you have to pay 100$ for a loaf of bread. You bake your own bread and you get sued because the wheat was pirated.

Re:RIAA of crops

[Raideen]

Next-up: Human genetic modification for curing diseases and requiring licenses to have children (and for your children to have children).

Re:Maybe because the difference really isn't that

[falconwolf]

Your argument just doesn't make sense. Nature has ahd billions of years, randomly mutating. If after billions of years no organism has taken over completely, it is not possible. Humans cannot engineer better than nature (at least not over a billion years), and nature is trying to kill/displace us all!

I think you don't understand. With nature nothing, well not many things, happen instantly however put a human in charge and things can change in a blink of the eye. What can take nature a long tyme to create that's deadly a human can to do quickly. Nature didn't make soy that could cause death for humans but humans did. Some people are allergic to Brazil nuts, which could cause death, so those who are allergic avoid them. When a company inserted a gene from the nut into soy it was found that people allergic to Brazil nuts was also allergic to the new soy. Now what would have happened if it had escaped into the wild, like some Windows Viri? It could of led to the death of many people. Allergic people would have to avoid soy as well for fear it may contain the gene. Then take a binary chemical weapon. Two chemicals separately are relatively save but when combined are deadly. Now who's to say GMO 1 plus GMO 2 won't be deadly as well? Nobody can because nobody tests it.

Falcon

Great, maybe they can fix HFCS

[eudaemon]

Great, maybe they can fix HFCS so that Coke no longer tastes like I'm licking a corn on the cob
covered in malted battery acid.
I would prefer the traditional sugary sweet malted battery acid.

Well, my source was Science

[falconwolf]

So was my source. Though it was an article from Reuters, it was about what "Ivette Perfecto, a professor at the University of Michigan's school of Natural Resources and Environment" found out. Does your article count as science but not mine?

Note, for example, that while Mexican corn farmers are going out of business, Mexican Avacado farmers are doing well. Mexico's total exports to the US have more than doubled since NAFTA.

Do you have any links I can read? I try to keep an open mind so it's possible it can be changed. With 1 exception, Chapter 11. A good example of why I don't like it is given in the wiki article:

"Methanex, a Canadian corporation, filed a US$970 million suit against the United States, claiming that a California ban on MTBE, a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of methanol. However, the claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs[36]"

If Methanex had won California would have to allow Methanex to sale a known cancer causer in the state where it could pollute more drinking water.

Falcon

Re:Well, my source was Science

[cfulmer]

The Avacado thing came from http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/01/eveningnews/main1773839.shtml

The text of Chapter 11 is at http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-111.asp. It's absolutely horribly written, but my read says that, basically, you can't treat foreigners differently than you treat your own citizens. Where I think most people get angry at chapter 11 is that it prevents a lot of thing that countries would do to protect their own industries. Now, often, that happens circuitously by raising environmental concerns about the foreign entrant. But, environmental concerns are often real, so Article 1114 has a huge carve-out that allows countries to establish actual environmental standards.

I'm not too worried by a case where somebody wanted to pollute, complained under NAFTA, and was told that, indeed, they could not pollute. That's a bit like saying "If Charles Manson had won his murder case, he would have killed more people. Therefore, the process that allowed Manson to have a trial (instead of just being sent straight to jail without one), is bad." The only way Methanex could have won was if there's no scientific basis for banning MTBE, only a basis based on keeping out foreign competition.

There are two real NAFTA questions:

(1) Are the parties to NAFTA better off with it than without it? I think the answer to this is clearly yes -- trade among the parties has increased enormously, which means that consumers in each country have a better selection of goods & prices than they did before NAFTA.

(2) How do you (or do you) compensate the losers under NAFTA? E.g., the Mexican corn farmers driven out of business by US corn producers, U.S. employees at clothing companies who can't compete with their lower-priced Mexican competition, etc....

This (2) is the tougher question to answer.

Re:Well, my source was Science

[falconwolf]

Thanks for the avocado link.

I'm not too worried by a case where somebody wanted to pollute, complained under NAFTA, and was told that, indeed, they could not pollute.

But what they are told they can pollute?

That's a bit like saying "If Charles Manson had won his murder case, he would have killed more people. Therefore, the process that allowed Manson to have a trial (instead of just being sent straight to jail without one), is bad."

No, they are compleatly different. If you lock someone innocent up you are denying them their rights. However there is no right to make a profit, all people have is the right to try to make a profit. Profits aren't guarantied.

Falcon

Re:Well, my source was Science

[cfulmer]

Well, in theory at least, they will never be told that they can pollute. What happens is that the community will say "We have an environmental reason to keep X out," and X may say "No you don't. Your claimed environmental reason is completely bogus. You just want to keep us out of your market." The tribunal's job, then, is to decide whether the environmental concern is actually completely bogus or not.

The end effect of this is to shift the ability to make decisions about which claimed environmental reasons are bogus away from state and local government and into a NAFTA tribunal. And, the NAFTA tribunal is (presumably) a lot harder to lobby. The NAFTA tribunal, however, is not the end word -- there's an appeals process, and (if it's a serious enough issue), the U.S. could just refuse to comply. The problem with the California example is that it shows that the process is working as intended.

Re:Well, my source was Science

[falconwolf]

Ok

Falcon

Re:I would like to but for some reason the link go

[wizardforce]

indeed, the reason we use baker's yeast is that it is a model organism. it's a very simple, well understood, genetically sequenced organism that is easily growable in a lab environment. we understand enough about it to start actually encoding artificial amino acids in it's genome as well. in that case, we use one of the lesser used stop codons [the amber codon in particular seems to be in common use to my knowledge] and evolve an artificial rna aminoacylase that recognises both the stop codon and our new amino acid. then we insert genes that have the newly utilised stop codon and genes to make the new amino acid and voila, the yeast can now use at least 1 extra building block in its proteins. that could in principle be used to make a super strain of yeast to make alcoholic beveragers etc. though it's a very rube goldberg way of doing it. We can already breed yeast strains capable of nearly doubling the amount of alcohol without distilling. [21% was the highest I've heard used] The real interesting thing we can do is start evolving new proteins that do things that nature is really not equipped to do at the moment. proteins that are very slippery, new enzymes, stronger materials, biopolymers, organic fuel production etc... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharomyces_cerevisiae

Triffids

[falconwolf]

No, I meant Triffids, a fictional GMO that destroys civilization.

Ok, I don't recall ever hearing about the book.

Falcon

US regulations of GE and GMOs

[falconwolf]

Ok, thanks for sharing those. So FDA, EPA, and USDA all regulate GMOs. A day is wasted if nothing is learned.

Falcon

destroy opium

[falconwolf]

Of course, it makes you wonder, why couldn't they create some disease to kill the cane toad off? Or destroy opium poppies etc.

They better leave their hands off of opium! It's the only source of money some have, the US and Aghan gpvernments promised aid so they could make money from other things but the aid was never provided.

Here we have the Taliban in Afghanistan benefiting from the opium trade, yet early in his first term Bush gave the Taliban US taxpayer money supposedly for fighting against opium.

Falcon

I apologize

[Rix]

But I'm really getting sick of the luddite lobby's convenient blinders.

One of his hired hands testified that he helped Schmeiser spray one of the adjacent fields with Roundup, gather the seeds and send them off for treatment to be planted the next year.

Now, personally I think he should have every right to do that, but he didn't "accidentally" use the GMO crop, he specifically gathered it.

Please tell me you're joking

[Rix]

I'm pretty sure Monsanto isn't working on canola that can get up and eat you.

That was one of my favourite childhood books though, along with The Chrysalids.

Brazil nut gene inserted into soy

[falconwolf]

A mistaken, but often-quoted, example of GM foods causing new allergies concerns genetic material from Brazil nut plants that was inserted into a soy plant to improve its nutritional qualities

This is mistaken? You may want to inform Washington University and some professors there: IDENTIFICATION OF A BRAZIL-NUT ALLERGEN IN TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS(pdf). Now I never did say the soy was released, only that it's possible something like it could happen. I'd rather be proactive than reactive, "opps, I'm sorry" just doesn't work, unless you're Exxon or Union Carbide.

Falcon

Re:Brazil nut gene inserted into soy

[yndrd1984]

Now I never did say the soy was released, only that it's possible something like it could happen.

But you did imply it when you said "Don't think it won't happen? It already has." People who know what's going on would know that "it" meant "a gene for an allergen was transfered into a GMO", but your use of multiple hypotheticals makes it look like "it" means "people have died because of GMOs". Either you just didn't think of that interpretation, or you were trying to make GMOs look scarier than they are - either way it's appropriate for someone to make sure that people get the correct story.

I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

Isn't this the perfect case of being proactive? A possible danger existed, was looked for, and when found was avoided without incident. This is no scarier than some Toyoda designers thinking about a modification to improve mileage and discarding it when simulations showed that it would lower passenger safety.

Your numbers are off

[Rix]

As I said, many crop plants self pollinate, and even those that don't will tend to pollinate from nearby plants.

I tend to agree with you about hobbling agriculture for intellectual property reasons, but that's hardly a good reason to throw out GM as a whole.

Re:Your numbers are off

[cyphercell]

Few plants actually self pollinate. The mechanism is seen most often in some legumes such as peanuts. In another legume, Soybeans, the flowers open and remain receptive to insect cross pollination during the day; if this is not accomplished, the flowers self pollinate as they are closing. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pollination

Cross pollination can't be stopped, cross pollination with GM foods cannot be stopped. GM foods disrupt the environment in ways that we don't really understand. Not to mention the fact that cross pollination estimates are considered grossly underestimated at best.*

*http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcontamination.php

I think it's an intriguing technology and it certainly has potential, but these companies have no clue what kind of a mess they're making. All they understand is that when the mess is made they will own it. Oh, here's another question, if I never buy GM seed but my crop reaches 14% GM contamination how do we assess my patent fees? If I'm a certified organic farmer I'm pretty sure I could sue, but otherwise I would be using patented technology.

BBQ

[falconwolf]

As I said in a previous post, BBQ likely causes a risk of cancer, every BBQ'ed item you have ever eaten. Why are you concerned about a hypothetical risk and not a real one?

Because BBQ gator tail and wild boar tastes so good.

Falcon

yeast

[falconwolf]

the reason we use baker's yeast is that it is a model organism. it's a very simple, well understood, genetically sequenced organism that is easily growable in a lab environment

Forget a lab, yeast is easy to grow in the home, say the kitchen. Just add some mash, or fruits, to water then add the yeast. The yeast will multiply happily.

We can already breed yeast strains capable of nearly doubling the amount of alcohol without distilling. [21% was the highest I've heard used]

Increasing the alcohol is good especially for fuel. For beer or wine I think 21% may be a bit high though. Usually when I've made beer I got around 6%, I don't recall what I got for wine. Gosh, thinking about it I want to setup my fermentation equipment and start brewing again, unfortunately the place I moved into is small.

Falcon

It's rather unlikely...

[Rix]

That it would out compete local flora. We're just not that good at it.

Russia

[Aleksej]

40 days from now, "piracy" will include that in Russia, too.

how about the insects and fungus

[Anonymous Coward]

poor insects and fungus, what shall they live on.

Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[falconwolf]

responsible for this.

More like directly responsible, if there wasn't Roundup Ready crops then Roundup wouldn't be used so much if at all and without it being as much native plants would have as much an opportunity to become resistant. Therefore no RR crops mean less resistance.

It's the same principle behind antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Hit bacteria with enough antibiotics and the survivors become immune. Nature has a way of filling ecological voids.

Actually it works the opposite, though over use of Broad Spectrum Antibiotics leads to drug resistance the opposite is true as well. Improper usage of antibiotics, which includes not using the full prescription, leads to antibiotic resistant. Which is one why I oppose the use of antibiotics in household cleaners. The other reason is that the immune system in children isn't given the chance to buildup biotic resistance in a sterile environment, "Questions about antibacterial cleaning agents, acne medication, and probioticss". But the fact is is if a drug treatment course isn't finished it can lead to antibiotic resistance. "Finish treatment only when microbes were wiped out."

Falcon

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[jamstar7]

More like directly responsible, if there wasn't Roundup Ready crops then Roundup wouldn't be used so much if at all and without it being as much native plants would have as much an opportunity to become resistant. Therefore no RR crops mean less resistance.

Indirectly. Monsanto didn't splice the genes into the weeds.

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[falconwolf]

Indirectly. Monsanto didn't splice the genes into the weeds.

Cross pollination is a basic fact of nature and Monsanto knew any genes inserted into a GMO could cross pollinate with wild plants. So it is directly Monsanto's responsibility. It's no different than if I aim a pistol at someone and squeeze the trigger. I may not intend to kill the person but that does not affect the outcome. And yes, I specifically used this example. While I was enlisted in the US Army a friend of mine had this fear he would be shot and killed. Sure enough, one day he was in the armory cleaning weapons when the armorer who was also cleaning weapons pointed one at him and pulled the trigger. My friend died of a head shot that should not of had happened. It was ironic, our MOS, Military Occupational Specialty was 11B, Small Arms Specialist, aka grunt or infantry and he died in while we were enjoying peace not in combat.

Falcon

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[jamstar7]

Indirectly. Monsanto didn't splice the genes into the weeds.

Cross pollination is a basic fact of nature and Monsanto knew any genes inserted into a GMO could cross pollinate with wild plants.

Corn with pigweed??????????? Not bloody likely. Two WAY different species. RR canola with run-of-the-mill canola? Highly likely, if the run of the mill canola is within a few miles. Don't expect pollen to travel a couple thousand miles.

our MOS, Military Occupational Specialty was 11B, Small Arms Specialist

Back in The Day, '11 Braincells' was Combat Infantryman.

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[falconwolf]

Corn with pigweed??????????? Not bloody likely.

Can you show me where I say anything about pigweed?

Two WAY different species.

As others have pointed out, and corrected me, gene transfer from one species to another happens regularly. One /.er point me to Horizontal gene transfer. And another brought up virii, a virus can transfer genes from one organism to another, that is one of the methods used in genetic engineering. I made the same mistake earlier, if not in the threads about this article then in another on /. and said genes don't move from one species to a different species.

Back in The Day, '11 Braincells' was Combat Infantryman.

After I decided to enlist and took the ASVAB when I said I wanted to go into infantry the person almost freaked out. The person said that with my ASVAB scores I could go into any MOS I wanted to, why would I want to go into infantry.

Falcon

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[jamstar7]

Cross pollination is a basic fact of nature and Monsanto knew any genes inserted into a GMO could cross pollinate with wild plants.

Corn with pigweed??????????? Not bloody likely. Two WAY different species. RR canola with run-of-the-mill canola? Highly likely, if the run of the mill canola is within a few miles. Don't expect pollen to travel a couple thousand miles.

Can you show me where I say anything about pigweed?

GP was talking about the increased resistance to Roundup that pigweed is developing. Pigweed & corn are two different species. Cross pollination isn't gonna happen.

As others have pointed out, and corrected me, gene transfer from one species to another happens regularly. One /.er point me to Horizontal gene transfer. And another brought up virii, a virus can transfer genes from one organism to another, that is one of the methods used in genetic engineering. I made the same mistake earlier, if not in the threads about this article then in another on /. and said genes don't move from one species to a different species.

Yes, I'm aware of horizontal gene transfer. In nature, it's not an easy thing to do above the level of single-celled organisms. The odds are against it, although sometimes you get lucky and hit the jackpot. The kind of odds I'm hearing make the Powerball look like a slam dunk sure thing.

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[falconwolf]

GP was talking about the increased resistance to Roundup that pigweed is developing. Pigweed & corn are two different species. Cross pollination isn't gonna happen.

But cross pollination does happen, even if you want to ignore it. I used to say the same thing however someone else pointed out Horizontal gene transfer. And a few years ago David Quist of UC Berkley found contaminate corn in Mexico, because Mexico is the home of corn they banned GE corn.

At first, Mexico rejected the claims of contamination which were published in Nature by Ignacio Chapela and David Quist, of the University of California at Berkeley.

But the government went on to take samples from sites in two states, Oaxaca and Puebla, said Ezequiel Ezcurra, the director of the institute of ecology at the ministry of the environment in Mexico. The states are the genetic home of maize.

A total of 1,876 seedlings was taken, and evidence of contamination was found at 95% of the sites. One field had 35% contamination of plants.

Falcon

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[jamstar7]

GP was talking about the increased resistance to Roundup that pigweed is developing. Pigweed & corn are two different species. Cross pollination isn't gonna happen.

But cross pollination does happen, even if you want to ignore it. I used to say the same thing however someone else pointed out Horizontal gene transfer. And a few years ago David Quist of UC Berkley found contaminate corn in Mexico, because Mexico is the home of corn they banned GE corn.

I'm not ignoring cross pollination of corn. You keep insisting that corn cross pollinates with pigweed. It doesn't. Period.

Horizontal gene transfer is possible, but not that common. If it were as common as you seem to believe it is, there'd be no species differentiation anywhere below the phylum level.

And I don't mind your source so much as it seems to have a very specific bias against anything that even gives the appearance of genetic modification. Rather biased there, isn't it? Seems to me they came up with a position and gathered facts to support it, totally ignoring anything that might suggest they might be mistaken unless it's to destroy them. Hardly seems to be good science to me.

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[falconwolf]

I'm not ignoring cross pollination of corn. You keep insisting that corn cross pollinates with pigweed. It doesn't. Period.

No I don't insist corn cross pollinates with ragweed no matter what you say, instead I admit I don't know what happened. I also admit Horizontal gene transfer is possible. Oh, and if it's impossible for unrelated plants to cross pollinate, perhaps you should tell Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena that as well as other scientists:

"Transgenic pollen and baby bees"

"Prof. Hans-Hinrich Kaatz from the University of Jena, is reported to have new evidence, as yet unpublished, that genes engineered into transgenic plants have transferred via pollen to bacteria and yeasts living in the gut of bee larvae(1)."

"If Prof. Kaatz' claim can be substantiated, it indicates that the new genes and gene-constructs introduced into transgenic crops and other transgenic organisms can spread, not just by ordinary cross-pollination or cross-breeding to closely related species, but by the genes and gene-constructs invading the genomes (the totality of the organisms' own genetic material) of completely unrelated species, including the microorganisms living in the gut of animals eating transgenic material."

"This finding is not unexpected. Some scientists have been drawing attention to this possibility recently(2), but the warnings actually date back to the mid-1970s when genetic engineering began. Hundreds of scientists around the world are now demanding a moratorium on all environmental releases of transgenic organisms on grounds of safety(3), and horizontal gene transfer is one of the major considerations."

"Some of us have argued that the hazards of 'horizontal' gene transfer to unrelated species are inherent to genetic engineering(4). The genes and gene-constructs created in genetic engineering have never existed in billions of years of evolution. They consist of genetic material originating from bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance genes. They are designed to cross all species barriers and to invade genomes. The spread of such genes and gene-constructs have the potential to make infectious diseases untreatable and to create new viruses and bacteria that cause diseases."

Notice where is says "completely unrelated species".

Rather biased there, isn't it?

And not accepting it because it has a bias isn't being biased either? I admit it's one thing to falsify data or whatever, but are they doing that?

Hardly seems to be good science to me.

And your not doing the same? If it's wrong, what's wrong with it? The same with the Horizontal Gene Transfer linked to above (Transgenic pollen)?

Falcon

Re:Monsanto's GMO crops were only indirectly

[jamstar7]

From the referenced article:

Despite the misleading title in one of the publications,(40) a high gene transfer frequency of 5.8 x 10-2 per recipient bacterium was demonstrated under optimum conditions. But the authors then proceeded to calculate an extremely low gene transfer frequency of 2.0 x 10-17 under extrapolated "natural conditions", assuming that different factors acted independently.

This means a 1 in 50 chance under optimum lab conditions. And 1 in 200,000,000,000,000,000 chance in the wild. See why I'm not too worried about it?

Further:

Transgenic lines are notoriously unstable and often do not breed true (33). There is a paucity of molecular data documenting the structural stability of the transgenic DNA, both in terms of its site of insertion in the genome and its arrangement of genes, in successive generations. Instead, transgenes may be silenced in subsequent generations or lost altogether (34).

If the genes are silenced or lost altogether because they're so notoriusly unstable, why you getting your panties in a bunch? Or did you just skip over these passages?

genetic engineering and terminator tech

[falconwolf]

Yes, I know it has already happened. I view this case (and the potential others like it) as one of the biggest (and only?) problems with GM crops. However, if you stuck a gene in there which would prevent the GM seeds from germinating without a chemical which you buy from Monsanto, then accidental contamination could not occur. The contaminated seeds would not germinate, and only the heritage varieties would survive into the next generation, unless you were intentionally growing Monsanto crops, with permission from Monsanto.

Ah but can they guaranty terminator tech will work? They'd be foolish to state it will, after all nature always has little surprises.

Falcon

protein behavior still very difficult to predict

[peter303]

Specifying base pair sequences is still as much as a crap shoot as conventional background mutations - people really dont understand how changing an amino acid here and there changes biological function. Im guess the main uses is taking somethign with know function and tweeking it, or importing a protein wholesale from elsewhere.

Not Possible

[Jane Q. Public]

That is simply not possible. They CAN'T prove that "there are no adverse effects", because nobody can know for sure what those negative effects might be. You can't prove a negative. And even if you could, such negative effects might not even show up for many generations (corn or human).

Not In The Public Interest

[Jane Q. Public]

I agree. There is little that is "in the public interest" here. Only dangers to the public in exchange for corporate profits.

Bad idea.

You know that this has already been tried in South America? In at least one village Monsanto told the farmers that their engineered corn would outproduce the varieties that they commonly used there. It was not until after the fields were planted that the farmers found out that saving seed corn would not work. The corn would not grow when planted. They would have to buy more seed from Monsanto every year...

That is really, really nasty.

Well put

[DerangedAlchemist]

Another important point; normal food-plant breeding is dangerous. It's not that GMOs are not dangerous, but that normal selective breeding is much more dangerous than people think. For example, a celery strain bred for pesticide resistance through normal means, was canceled after workers were developing severe blisters. The pesticide resistance selected for was a naturally produced, dangerous carcinogen.

Many crop plants naturally produce toxins but have had these traits bred out of them. For example, wild almonds are filled with cyanide as a plant defense against the seed being eaten. Tomatoes and potatoes are part of the deadly nightshade family (and have toxins, just not in the edible portions). This also means that these traits can revive in normal selective breeding practices.

All new crops can and should be subjected to extensive testing for safety, not just genetically engineered versions. If anything, GMOs are safer because the changes are better understood and can be subjected to more targeted testing.

Re:Maybe because the difference really isn't that

[quanticle]

Yea and possibly create something undesirable quickly instead of letting nature tkae it's tyme to see if any problems will be created.

What do you mean "problems"? Do you mean poisons? Plenty of "unengineered" organisms secrete poisons.

Yea, while nature does propagate mutations it doesn't insert fish genes into tomatoes.

And how is that more dangerous than making new alleles from scratch? That's exactly what happens when mutations occur in the wild. Genetic engineering simply introduces a new source of mutation. There's nothing inherently good or bad about it, just like there's nothing inherently good or bad about solar radiation.

Wikipedia is not a reference source

[Rix]

Do not use it as a citation.

I was basing my assertion on claims made in Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Re:Wikipedia is not a reference source

[cyphercell]

Hadn't realized that book covered GM foods, anyways, my sister's a microbiologist that's been working with invasive plants for the past six years, basically if there were GM versions of "her" plants she would be fucking livid right now. Imagine going out for the tenth year to discover that suddenly your sample data shows even just 6% GM contamination. Suddenly, her "problem" might be solved, compounded, or her data would simply be rendered irrelevant, furthermore she wouldn't exactly be able to collect new data because the GM percentages will likely change. From a scientific point of view alone, Monsanto is pissing in the test tubes we've relied on for thousands of years. It might all balance out in the end, but at the same time it might not, fact is these assholes don't really know what kind of genetic defects they might be introducing into the food chain and they don't care.

Re:Wikipedia is not a reference source

[Rix]

It devotes a full one of three sections to the rise of agriculture. While it isn't the main topic of the book, it's a far sight better than an offhand Wikipedia stub (population of African elphants, et cetera) which doesn't even back your point. The Wikipedia entry does say that most plants don't self pollinate, but most plants aren't commercial crops. Of the examples for self pollination it gives, all of them are commercial crops.

While I'd sympathize with your sister if she was trying to study non-GM crops close enough to GM farms for cross pollination, it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen. Why should GM strains be singled out for this sort of treatment? Wouldn't your sister be just as annoyed if she was trying to study a GM crop and found it "contaminated" with non-GM cross pollination?

Re:Wikipedia is not a reference source

[cyphercell]

Why should GM strains be singled out for this sort of treatment?

for the same reasons that fires should be controlled.

My point was that plants that self pollinate are not necessarily safe from contamination. (how does my quote not back my point?) Please don't quote "contamination" that's what it's actually called.

...it isn't in any way reasonable to demand that it not happen.

So, cross pollination isn't a problem worth looking in to? I think there are some patent holders that would strongly disagree with you.

Anyways, of course my numbers were off, I pulled them out of thin air, but still don't see how you can defend Monsanto's right to destroy neighboring crops at any percentage.

Re:Wikipedia is not a reference source

[Rix]

How is it any way comparable to a fire? You neo luddites love to wave your hands about the "dangers" of GM food, but you never actually point to them.

No one outside of the lunatic fringe uses words like "contamination" or "frankenfood".

If you want to make charges about specific instances of GM, I'll listen. If you just go off the deep end and rant about the practise in general, which we've been doing for longer than recorded history, I'll just write you off as a nutbag.

Re:Wikipedia is not a reference source

[cyphercell]

WTF, do you work in marketing? Politics? or what? You're vary good at avoiding my points, calling me names, and avoiding intelligent conversation, if you don't work in politics may I suggest it? Oh, and welcome to the lunatic fringe douchebag.

I couldn't care less what you call me

[Rix]

I'm amused, as I wasn't aware simians had been taught to type.

You've made my point for me. Just as someone who wanted gay-grown food to be labelled would need to demonstrate a negative effect, so should we require neo-luddites to demonstrate a negative effect with GMO foods.

Re:Maybe because the difference really isn't that

[falconwolf]

And how is that more dangerous than making new alleles from scratch? That's exactly what happens when mutations occur in the wild

But nature takes a long tyme which allows any kinks to be worked out If a GMO escapes into the wild though there is no testing taken over a long tyme.

I have...

[Rix]

Addressed all your salient points. You've yet to make any credible charges against GM plants.

Re:I have...

[cyphercell]

nobody that makes GM plants knows EXACTLY(- highly credible) what they're doing, they're just releasing it (- credible it's common knowledge). the things that they are doing on purpose can be confusing (kill gene, in our food supply?) and highly litigious (food patents?).

As long as there is wind, there will be cross pollination that is not accounted for. A good portion of science surrounding GM foods is not being done in accordance with the scientific method, that good portion is the part that can land in your backyard, welcome to test group "A" - hope someone's doing research. BTW almost everyone reading this is in test group A (do you eat vegetables from the grocery store?), now if they feel like they're releasing this DNA into an "ocean" they're probably about right, but someone ought to be gathering good statistical data that proves or disproves their theory - it's not happening.

Now if you could pull me in from the lunatic fringe long enough to eat my GM, Steroid bred, "preserved", irradiated, $2-Super-Fast-Patent-Pending-Cheeseburger, then maybe you could tell me why the logical science isn't being done.

Suddenly I regret calling you a feminine hygiene product, you're more like an anal probe - of the medical kind.

Re:Maybe because the difference really isn't that

[quanticle]

Again, what do you mean by "kinks". There's no rule that says that evolution has to be "progressive" (whatever that means in this context) or that evolution has to result in organisms that are helpful to the survival of homo sapiens. What genetic engineering does is introduce a new source of mutations. These mutations, in addition to rigorous selective breeding programs, are supposed to push organisms to become easier to cultivate, more disease resistant, etc.

If a GMO escapes into the wild, then most likely it will be wiped out by the native species. GMOs are pushed by selective breeding to be dependent on humans for survival. That dependence makes them ill-equipped to survive in the wild, where there is no steady supply of herbicide and insecticide applied to kill off all competition. If the GMO does happen to survive, then c'est la evolution, I guess.

GMO food

[falconwolf]

Keeping an open mind is a great idea - which is why I'm not going to boycott GMO foods just because they are new.

Good for you. As for myself, I want choice and if I want to wait until GMOs are thoroughly tested I need labels stating if an item is or uses any GMOs. Can we agree on labeling? But if you ask Monsanto or other providers and venders they are against labeling for GMOs. If GMOs are so good these people would be fighting for labeling, they could use it as a selling point saying how good GMOs are. Companies lobbied in Europe though to stop mandatory labels. When the EU required mandatory labeling though the US and US businesses sued the EU in the WTO against it: "Final WTO Tribunal Decision on GMO Policy Reaffirms Lower Panel: WTO Wades into Food Fight, but Stops Short of Ruling Against Underlying GMO Policy"

Falcon

Re:GMO food

[MightyYar]

I don't understand the need to label produce all of the sudden. Why not take the approach that organic growers have and label the food "non-GMO" for the people who care. In fact, it is my understanding that in order to qualify for the "organic" label, you have to use non-GMO seeds... so why not just buy produce labeled "organic". I don't see the need to label GMO food just because it is some people's pet cause. Other people have pet causes about insecticide and herbicide... should those show up on the label, too?

I can't even imagine what the label on Rice Crispies would look like if you had to list every person's pet cause on there: "Rice (Montsato Oryza sativa with chromosome 2 deletion 1a, Alachlor(pesticide), Methoxychlor(pesticide), Atrazine(herbicide), Endothall(herbicide), NutriSphere-N(fertilizer)), etc"

Frankly, that is too much information and consumers would not be well served. Only a farmer would know what all that stuff is, and people would be scared when they see "manure" listed as a fertilizer on the ingredients list. Instead, I would prefer a system where the new GMO products are reviewed and approved by the FDA, and people who distrust GMOs can continue shopping at Fresh Fields or Whole Foods, or simply buying the plentiful "organic" products available at the local supermarket.

Re:GMO food

[falconwolf]

I don't understand the need to label produce all of the sudden

Food has been labeled for a long tyme. I went shopping a little while ago and just grabbed one of the containers I emptied when I got back, it's a box for butter and it lists all ingredients, "pasteurized organic sweet cream (milk), microbial culture." A person might that that's because it's organic but the fact is is all processed food has to have a label listing ingredients. I challenge anyone to find a package of processed food in any grocery store in the US without such a label. Requiring GMOs to be labeled as well does not raise a significant bar.

In fact, it is my understanding that in order to qualify for the "organic" label, you have to use non-GMO seeds... so why not just buy produce labeled "organic"

Yes, organic certification does bar GMOs, however it also bars petrochemical herbicides and pesticides, and so call conventional farmers in the US use lots of them. Here's the top 50 "Pesticide(s) Use on Corn in 2005". The last I heard the only crop in the US that uses more is cotton.

I don't see the need to label GMO food just because it is some people's pet cause

Question, if you're so sure GMOs are safe are do you oppose labeling of GMOs? Cost isn't a real issue so the only reason to oppose it is because of fear people won't buy it.

Frankly, that is too much information and consumers would not be well served.

Labels are very important, and while not everyone reads them, a lot of people do read labels. Some, like me, are required to read them. Being hyperglycemic I have to watch my carbohydrate intake. And the only way to know what it is if I read labels for ingredients that have carbohydrates. For instance the butter above has none. But according to you, if someone is allergic to a food item they don't need to know if food has it. Some are allergic to peanuts, but peanuts shouldn't be listed on a label.

Falcon

Re:GMO food

[MightyYar]

pasteurized organic sweet cream (milk), microbial culture. That's fancy-pants labeling done on something "healthy" or trying to appeal to the natural/organic crowd. All that is required is "cream, culture". I have no problem with voluntarily labeling something as GMO-Free to appeal to that crowd.

Question, if you're so sure GMOs are safe are do you oppose labeling of GMOs? A few reasons. One, it implies that they somehow have some different effect on your health, which is not necessarily true. Two, other things are not required to be disclosed - such as whether the crop was sprayed with pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc. It's not even required that country of origin be disclosed.

Each of those things is important to someone out there, just as GMOs are important to you. Can you imagine the size of the ingredients list if all of those things were addressed?

I much prefer voluntary labeling, where people like you who care about GMOs can be catered to and the rest of us can just eat our food. I don't even mind if the FDA does something similar to their organic labeling rules such that only truly non-GMO food can be labeled as such.

Re:GMO food

[falconwolf]

That's fancy-pants labeling done on something "healthy" or trying to appeal to the natural/organic crowd. All that is required is "cream, culture". I have no problem with voluntarily labeling something as GMO-Free to appeal to that crowd.

Milk cream is only one type of cream, as is milk culture only one type of culture. So "milk" is in fact needed otherwise a person won't know what type of cream or culture. But I guess you've never had a cream topping on ice cream. Me, I've used different cultures when brewing beers and wines, yes I used to homebrew. And none of them were milk cultures.

Each of those things is important to someone out there, just as GMOs are important to you. Can you imagine the size of the ingredients list if all of those things were addressed?

I see this as noting more than a copout, as if people don't need all that labeling garbage.

I much prefer voluntary labeling

So food that has peanuts in don't need to ba labeled as containing peanuts?

I also noticed you didn't even respond to whether GMOs were needed, I provided evidence they weren't needed at all.

Falcon

Re:GMO food

[MightyYar]

Milk cream is only one type of cream, as is milk culture only one type of culture. So "milk" is in fact needed otherwise a person won't know what type of cream or culture. But I guess you've never had a cream topping on ice cream. Me, I've used different cultures when brewing beers and wines, yes I used to homebrew. And none of them were milk cultures. You somehow missed the "organic sweet" part, which is DEFINITELY not required by law.

I see this as noting more than a copout, as if people don't need all that labeling garbage. How is it a copout? If you are worried about people's health, then you need them to read the ingredients. The humble masses clearly don't read them now, or don't care, or everything in every aisle wouldn't be full of sugar or corn syrup. 100% whole wheat bread - good for you, right? Yeah, what about if the 2nd ingredient is sugar? GMO foods are very far down the list of public nutrition worries. Making labels easier to read is more important, IMHO.

For the few that ARE worried about GMOs, there exist numerous niche non-GMO products, as well as just about anything you want in an "organic" version, which will also not contain GMOs.

So food that has peanuts in don't need to ba labeled as containing peanuts? I think you are being disingenuous - has anyone's throat suddenly closed up due to a GMO? Peanut allergies are nasty and widespread enough to note it on a package. If anyone is allergic to GMO products, it seems to be a small fraction of the population - and they can stick to the very plentiful organic products on the market.

I also noticed you didn't even respond to whether GMOs were needed, I provided evidence they weren't needed at all. I didn't respond to it because it has nothing to do with the conversation. But I'll address it anyway. There are still a billion people starving. GMOs may actually help those people - but I think the government(s) needs to be more involved... funding crops that will work in areas other than where rich farmers live. The Green Revolution was mostly a government and university project, and is what has allowed Asia to emerge as a real developed region. I'm not going to defend the use of GMOs where they aren't suitable, but anything that knocks down the use of pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer has to at least be given a fair shake. Anything that reduces the cost of food production is also quite welcome.

Re:GMO food

[falconwolf]

You somehow missed the "organic sweet" part, which is DEFINITELY not required by law.

And you missed where I quoted you as saying All that is required is "cream, culture". While "organic sweet" isn't needed the "milk" part is needed. And seeing as how Organic Valley is organic it makes since they want to stress it. Another thing, if it's so hard the add GMO to labels then how can a business add "organic"?

How is it a copout? If you are worried about people's health, then you need them to read the ingredients

But you advocate not labeling, and guess what, the ingredients are listed on the label.

Making labels easier to read is more important, IMHO.

If people don't read labels then making them easier serves no purpose whereas not including information prevents those who do read labels from making an informed choice.

I think you are being disingenuous - has anyone's throat suddenly closed up due to a GMO? Peanut allergies are nasty and widespread enough to note it on a package.

You were the one advocating not requiring labels not me, and if noting the presence of peanuts on the package isn't labeling then what is it?

Falcon

Re:GMO food

[MightyYar]

I have no problem with a food manufacturer voluntarily adding stuff to their label that is not required by law.

However, I think that it is important for labels to be a simple as possible. Adding information about everything from GMOs to herbicides, fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics, and country of origin would make the labels completely unreadable to most people.

Further, there is no scientific basis to single out GMOs for labeling. People who want to avoid them can do so today by buying products labeled as "No GMOs" or "Organic".

Here's an example:

Required ice cream label by today's standards: "Milk, cream, sugar, vanilla extract"

Adding all the above information: "Milk (cows were fed rGBH growth hormone and pirlimycin hydrochloride antibiotic, feed contained animal biproducts and grains containing genetically modified corn and soybeans sprayed with food-grade phosphoric acid as fertilizer, ad nausium..."

Alternatively, you could make a handy little chart with checkmarks in the appropriate categories:

(imagine a table - I can't get slashdot to take it)

Category | Produced With?
                            |
  Chemical Fertilizer | Yes
  Animal Feces Fertilizer | No
  Insecticide | Yes
  Herbicide | Yes
  Hormones | Yes
  Antibiotics | Yes
  Genetically Modified Seeds | No
  Imported ingredients | Yes

Easy to read and understand, no? Too bad none of those things actually matters when it comes to public health. Certainly not as much as the sweeteners, fat, and empty carbs that go into products.

I don't think that public health is your concern, though - I think that you are just on a crusade against GMOs.

what do you mean by "kinks".

[falconwolf]

Anything that has an adverse effect.

If a GMO escapes into the wild, then most likely it will be wiped out by the native species.

Then superweeds resistant to Roundup don't exist? I just realized something, despite all this debate on GE and GMOs nothing has really been said about any need for GMOs, the fact is is they are not needed.

Falcon

Re:what do you mean by "kinks".

[quanticle]

Then superweeds resistant to Roundup don't exist?

That's weeds evolving to deal with Roundup pesticide. I'm talking about the fact that Roundup-ready corn, which is the genetically modified organism in this instance, will be pushed out by native species if we stop applying Roundup. We didn't genetically engineer the weeds to be resistant, just as we didn't engineer antibiotic resistant tuberculosis or insecticide resistant mosquitoes.

I just realized something, despite all this debate on GE and GMOs nothing has really been said about any need for GMOs, the fact is is they are not needed.

The fact is, GMOs are the logical extension of the green revolution that has been in progress from the '60s. Industrial farming is the only reason fewer people starve today than in 1960. To continue these gains, we need GMO crops that allow us to utilize otherwise unarable land.

You cannot feed 6 billion people through organic, non-GMO farming.

Re:what do you mean by "kinks".

[falconwolf]

I'm talking about the fact that Roundup-ready corn, which is the genetically modified organism in this instance, will be pushed out by native species if we stop applying Roundup.

So invasive species don't exist? People would argue with you that native species will push out non native species, just ask some people about the Kudzu invasion between eastern Texas to the mid Atlantic states. Kudzu isn't native to the US, it was imported from Japan. Fact is is invasive species are a big deal in some places and there is concern GMO corn will pose a threat to native corn in Mexico as an invasive species. Here's an article on how "Biofuel Crops Could Become Superweeds".

You cannot feed 6 billion people through organic, non-GMO farming.

BS, the biggest reasons people starve is because of conflicts, politics, and subsidies. Farmers don't want to grow crops on fields where a battle is fought. Nor do they want what they grow to be taken from them, then they need distribute the food. Politicians, like President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe can take a country that's a breadbasket and produces more than enough food for it's population, food was Zimbabwe's main export and generated enough income to pay for any imports needed, before Mugabe came to power into a nation that needs aid. Once Mugabe came to power he forced most if not all of the white farmers off their land then gave the farms to his cronies. Now once fertile land is not able to produce enough, those the land was given to didn't know how to farm. Now Zimbabwe depends on foreign aid to feed the country. The third problem are the hugh subsidies the EU, Japan, and the US give to it's farmers. The billions of dollars in farm subsidies the US gives to US agribusinesses, Japan who gives about as much, and the EU who gives even more drive poor farmers off their farms in the Third World. How can a Mexican corn farmer compete with Cargill who receives billions and can grow then export to Mexico and sell corn there cheaper than a Mexican farmer can grow it? With few exceptions all those starving starve because of money and politics.

As for whether or not organic farming can feed the world, there are studies that conclude organic farming can indeed fee the world. Some studies conclude organics produce more in the same amount of place while other show it produces a little less. From University of Michigan, Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows". From the BBC: "Organic farming can 'feed the world'".

Fact is is Genetic Engineering and GMOs aren't needed to feed the world.

Falcon

is there a need for GMOs?

[falconwolf]

Ok so I didn't read the whole thing, however as I just said in another post not five minutes ago, hardly anything has even been said about whether there is even any need for GMOs, and I contend there isn't a need. If there is no need, other than lining the pockets of Monsanto and other corporations, why have them?

Falcon

Don't be obtuse

[Rix]

In fact, we know quite a bit more about what GM plants do than we do traditionally modified plants.

Why are you insisting on more testing for GM plants? Why don't you object to being in the "test group" for traditionally modified plants?

Re:Don't be obtuse

[cyphercell]

In fact, we know quite a bit more about what GM plants do than we do traditionally modified plants.

I'd like to see you explain that.

Why are you insisting on more testing for GM plants? Why don't you object to being in the "test group" for traditionally modified plants?

What's to keep me from growing psychedelic corn and letting it cross pollinate? Honestly, I just don't understand why I can't dump antifreeze in my driveway, but my corn can be mixed with (insert designer food fad of the week) and fed to me without my knowing. I want more testing and regulation because I want to know if I'm buying patented corn or not, I want to know if my rice is sterile, I want to know that self-pollination is a misnomer used in defense of experimenting with certain crops, I want to know how many unexpected results these scientists see, I want to know why these agricultural scientists were so damn far off in their estimates for cross-pollination, I would especially like to know how any of these food patents pass the "prior art" test.

Re:Don't be obtuse

[Rix]

I'd like to see you explain that. By definition, we know at least some of the genetic makeup of GM plants. How do you know there aren't "killer" genes lurking, ready to eat your brains or whatever it is you're scared of, in regular corn?

Your corn is far more likely to be mixed with something in the regular, boring, way of just physically mixing than by scary mad scientists.

I think you may have eaten some psychedelic "corn", but I doubt it was genetically modified.

Re:Don't be obtuse

[cyphercell]

I'm not scared of any killer gene eating my brains, more like concerned that one day everything we eat is going to be spiked with Vitamins A,C,E, and THC. Basically, I have absolutely nothing against GM foods, what I'm against is these large international corporations railroading one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs in human history. It's not the scientists it's the scary mad business men. You keep saying I'm some kind of a nut, but I'd probably eat way more genetically modified freaks of nature than you would (imagine a reality show "Eat this Abomination of Nature!"). Now you say you agree that these companies shouldn't be modifying the food chain for profit, but how the hell do you propose we do that without regulation? Hell the regulation and testing should be there just because nobody but Monsanto knows what the hell it is that they are doing.

I most certainly did not say that

[Rix]

"Modifying the food chain for profit" *is* "the greatest breakthrough in human history".

Where do you think corn comes from? It doesn't exist naturally.

Re:I most certainly did not say that

[cyphercell]

now you're just being pedantic, petty, and difficult. Seriously, I get enough of this bullshit from my kids. I think in your case I'd make an exception for genetically modified patented people, you should probably have a sterility gene (oh, wait it's your face). see we can all be childish.

Excuse me?

[Rix]

So you're only ok with genetic modification if it's not done by scientists?

Re:Excuse me?

[cyphercell]

not when your parents do it, would have been nice if they had left the gene pool alone. seriously, why do you still argue?

I don't think that public health is your concern,

[falconwolf]

I think that you are just on a crusade against GMOs.

I don't see any need for GMOs, in that sense I am against GMOs. If it's not needed then the only reason for them is to line the pockets of those who create GMOs. I also want choice and well as the info needed to make an informed choice.

Easy to read and understand, no? Too bad none of those things actually matters when it comes to public health. Certainly not as much as the sweeteners, fat, and empty carbs that go into products.

I agree with the table layout, I really like it. Both with the idea of a table on a label, tables are used for nutrition facts and with /. not allowing html tables. Sometimes I think think it would be good to be able to add graphics as well. Graphics though could eat up a lot of storage but table wouldn't.

Falcon

Re:I don't think that public health is your concer

[MightyYar]

Simple economics will dictate the fate of GMOs. Sure they aren't needed to feed Western populations, but you have to remember that there are something like 700 million people who are starving.

Combine a plant with built-in pest resistance with systems like drip irrigation and I think you can really help people in the developing world.

Re:I don't think that public health is your concer

[falconwolf]

Simple economics will dictate the fate of GMOs. Sure they aren't needed to feed Western populations, but you have to remember that there are something like 700 million people who are starving.

All of whom could be fed if it wasn't for conflict or politics. All of those staving in Zimbabwe are starving because the president of Zimbabwe Robert Mugabe forced many white African off of their farms. Food grown in Zimbabwe used to be a big foreign currency earner, after being able to feed the population. But when Mugabe forced farmer off their farms he gave the farms to his cronies who didn't know how to farm. Elsewhere, 150,000 farmers in India have committed suicide because they can't afford to compeat with EU and US agribusinesses. These businesses can grow then export to India food cheaper than Indian farmers can grow food because they receive billions of taxpayer dollars. Cutting the massive farm subsides these businesses are handed will do more to help Indian farmers than giving them GE seed they would have to pay for year after year. The reason the WTO talks failed was because when Brazil, India, and other nations demanded the EU, Japan, and the US to stop giving farmers in those nations hugh subsidies, the EU and Japan refused to. The US offered to lower subsides some but not much. Some Indian farmers are calling for farm produce to be left out of any WTO deal. In a letter to the Prime Minister farmers wrote: "Till date, the government has been unable to force the United States and the European Union to scale down their farm subsidies. It has also failed to make these trading blocs reduce their import tariffs and stop dumping subsidised agriculture commodities into India markets. Instead of a bad deal that fails to protect the interests of the farmers, it would be better to keep agriculture out of WTO negotiations,"

Falcon

Re:I don't think that public health is your concer

[MightyYar]

It's funny, because I'm a free-market guy in general - but not when it comes to food. One of the hallmarks of a free market is cycles. The price of goods goes up and down as supply and demand are constantly in flux.

I don't want my food to be in a market cycle.

Food should be a secure resource. If this means subsidizing farmers in order to keep some excess capacity, so be it - I'd rather have an inefficient system than to have shortages.

That said, it produces a major problem when it comes to trade agreements. I think these trade agreements should not try to open up markets for "excess" food. I'd rather see "excess" food either plowed under or given away as famine relief and such - not dumped on the world market.

But all of that is beside the point - even the point about the Indian farmers committing suicide. I'm talking about the millions of subsistence farmers - most in Africa - who live on a plot of land that barely provides for them and their family. Even then, they work 100% of the time trying to get some food off of their land and have nothing extra to sell. They divide up this paltry land among their sons, rinse, and repeat. Do this for a few generations and you get famine and genocide like in Rwanda - exactly like in Rwanda, since this is what happened there.

The only way to break this cycle is to give the subsistence farmers some method of increasing their productivity such that they become capable of growing some excess to sell. Once they have food to sell, BOOM, you have an economy. This is exactly what happened in Asia during the Green Revolution.

Now, the crops in the green revolution were largely bred by governments and universities - not the private sector - and I think that is what needs to be done with GMOs. Private GMOs are going to be targeted at rich first-world farmers for obvious reasons, and this simply increases the gap between rich and poor as the first-world farmers get more and more efficient. We need some GMOs that are targeted towards small farmers on marginal land. Think disease and pest-resistant crops that can tolerate dry conditions, as opposed to GMO crops resistant to herbicides so that they can be sprayed with impunity. These can be combined with cheap things like drip irrigation to relieve the farmer of manual irrigation while simultaneously reducing salt intrusion and saving water in water-poor areas.

Only governments and universities are going to "waste" money on such ventures.

Anyway, if you're still reading, my point is that GMOs are not responsible for what you describe - bad policy is.

Re:I don't think that public health is your concer

[falconwolf]

It's funny, because I'm a free-market guy in general - but not when it comes to food. One of the hallmarks of a free market is cycles. The price of goods goes up and down as supply and demand are constantly in flux.

I don't want my food to be in a market cycle.

Food should be a secure resource. If this means subsidizing farmers in order to keep some excess capacity, so be it - I'd rather have an inefficient system than to have shortages.

I too lean more towards the freemarket but like you not when it comes to food. I believe each country or region should be food independent and not be dependent on trading with others for foods stables. Most places can have food security however farm subsidies interfere with this. It's one thing for a country, the US for instance, to store excess produce for rainy days, it's compleatly different though for the US to give agribusinesses billions of US taxpayer dollars so these companies can export food to Mexico, Brazil, or India where they can sell the food for less than local farmers can grow food. Instead of handing over billions of dollars what the government can do instead is buy and store enough surplus produce in case of emergencies, much the same as the strategic reserves of petroleum. As it is now though agribusiness is paid to export food not to stock emergency rations.

But all of that is beside the point - even the point about the Indian farmers committing suicide. I'm talking about the millions of subsistence farmers - most in Africa - who live on a plot of land that barely provides for them and their family.

I'll refer to read more about what Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe, which is in Africa and shares it's southern border with South Africa. allAfrica.com has some other good examples. For instance "With an upsurge in interethnic violence in eastern Chad, record numbers of people may soon be unable to find food for themselves, food aid analysts warn." Here's a good article on the relationship of food and conflict in Africa: Africa: Many Modern Conflicts Are Food Wars, Say Experts" Specifically it states "In a 2003 study, they found that more than 56 million people living in 27 countries face 'food insecurity,' such as supply disruptions, shortages and malnutrition due to conflicts".

The only way to break this cycle is to give the subsistence farmers some method of increasing their productivity such that they become capable of growing some excess to sell. Once they have food to sell, BOOM, you have an economy. This is exactly what happened in Asia during the Green Revolution.

AH, but they have to have a market they can sell excess food in, and when a US agriculture business can import food into that nation and sell food cheaper than a farmer can grow food who's going to by from the farmer? People in Third World nations will do the same as people do in the US, they buy from someplace, like Walmart, that sells food the cheapest. A farmer who can't make a living on the farm has no reason to stay on the farm. Allow the farmer to make a living on the farm though then they can afford to buy other things from others living in the area, who because they also have an income can do the same. Demand creates more demand. But subsidies interfere with this.

Falcon

Re:I don't think that public health is your concer

[MightyYar]

AH, but they have to have a market they can sell excess food in, and when a US agriculture business can import food into that nation and sell food cheaper than a farmer can grow food who's going to by from the farmer? Yes, we agree on the bad trade policy... but even if you fix that, even if you end conflicts in Africa, you still have to do something about the subsistence farmers not having anything extra to sell. I'm not talking about huge amounts of stuff - I'm talking about a few extra bushels of bananas or breadfruit. Enough to make their income go from 0 to something.

I would even argue that subsistence farming is the root of a lot of African conflict.

subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

So we agree on some things.

I would even argue that subsistence farming is the root of a lot of African conflict.

Here is where I disagree. I don't see subsidence farming as so much a problem as is the ethnic differences. For instance in Nigeria, the Niger Delta is multi-ethnic but government policies favor some ethnic groups over others: Nigeria: Characterising the Niger Delta Struggle . In Botswana the San or Bushmen were being forced off their ancestral lands so mining companies can get at the diamonds there: Bushmen Driven From Ancestral Lands in Botswana . Luckily the Kalahari Bushmen win ancestral land case in court in Botswana. Now the question is is will the government follow the ruling. In the Congo the fighting was partially about it's natural resources of Coltan, gold, and timber among several other natural resources.

Falcon

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

I didn't mean to over-generalize. Africa is a big place, and there are many conflicts sparked by many reasons.

But I do believe that the jump to armed conflict came about in several places due to food pressures. Jared Diamond spends a great deal of time on this in his book "Collapse". In particular, he points out that the mortality rate in the Rwandan genocide remained constant even in areas where there were no people of a separate ethnicity to "cleanse". In other words, ethnic hatred alone was not enough to explain the violence there.

It's no surprise - Africa is, on balance, not the greatest place for agriculture. GMOs have a lot of promise there. For instance, it is very hard to raise domestic animals in Africa because they are not resistant to the local pests and diseases. Efforts to domesticate native animals have not been particularly successful. What if geneticists could lift the resistance of the local water buffalo and give it to domestic cattle?

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

the mortality rate in the Rwandan genocide remained constant even in areas where there were no people of a separate ethnicity to "cleanse".

Of course the mortality rate would remain the same where there was no "Others". Without others being slaughtered the mortality rate would remain the same.

Efforts to domesticate native animals have not been particularly successful. What if geneticists could lift the resistance of the local water buffalo and give it to domestic cattle?

A meat based diet isn't needed. Actually raising animals for meat causes more damage to the environment. In the US most of the corn grown is used as feed, mostly to cattle which is a ruminate and doesn't naturally eat corn. It takes something like 100 lbs of corn, and thousands of gallons of water, for each pound of meat. That corn could of been served to many more people. Don't get me wrong and think I'm a vegetarian, I'm not. I love to hunt, my favorite meats are wild boar and gator tail. Of course since moving across the country 9 years ago I haven't had either in a long tyme. But the fact is is animals and meat aren't needed as a basis of a human diet.

Falcon

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

Of course the mortality rate would remain the same where there was no "Others". Without others being slaughtered the mortality rate would remain the same. No, you misunderstand me - just as many people were killed in areas where the genocide was taking place as where there was no genocide. People were killing each other over land as well. They had more people than simple subsistence farming could support.

But the fact is is animals and meat aren't needed as a basis of a human diet. Fine, but that wasn't the point of my example. You could take local crops that haven't been through 10,000 years of domestication like wheat has, and increase the yields. Alternatively, you could try to splice in some genes from hardy local grasses into domesticated wheat. Don't like wheat? Okay, take any grain or bean then. The specific example doesn't matter - my point is that Africa leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to farming traditional crops. They didn't evolve there and so they don't have any resistance to local conditions. Things like corn require a lot of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, etc - and that is in their "native" environment! These are not suitable for the subsistence farmer, who has little to no access to fertilizer (especially if you take away the animals!) or chemical treatments.

A government-funded or university-led GMO development program could really help these subsistence farmers by either modifying their existing crops to increase yields, or by adding pest resistance to already productive crops. Combined with cheap and efficient irrigation systems, these subsistence farmers might even see a small income.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

No, you misunderstand me - just as many people were killed in areas where the genocide was taking place as where there was no genocide. People were killing each other over land as well

Oh, ok.

Africa leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to farming traditional crops. They didn't evolve there and so they don't have any resistance to local conditions.

They don't have local predators or pests either. Fact is is when many non native species are introduced into an environment they can overtake native species and out compeat them as with Kudzu between eastern Texas and the Mid Atlantic states. Native to Japan Kudzu has crowded out native species in man places in these states. Or take Zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. Being native to Asia they have no predators in the Great Lakes and so are able to negatively impact the native mussels in the Great Lakes.

Things like corn require a lot of fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, etc - and that is in their "native" environment!

Corn is not native to Africa, though grown throughout the Americas it's native to Mexico. And it doesn't need a lot of chemical inputs. Do you live in the US and know what Thanksgiving is about? Early settlers were shown how to grow corn by the Native American Indians. Organic farmers use no chemical input and they are able to grow corn along with all other crops.

These are not suitable for the subsistence farmer, who has little to no access to fertilizer (especially if you take away the animals!)

You don't need to take animals away, just don't raise animals as a main source of food. Actually animals are needed, they take plants, organic matter, and converts them to fertilizer for more crops. Where animals are a problem is where there is more of them in an area that can't feed them all.

As for subsidence farming, I used to be able to grow a lot of my own food where I lived. Living in Florida I was able to garden 9 to 10 months a year during which tyme I was able to harvest three tymes with some crops. It would of been possible to grow enough in the backyard to raise half of my food with plenty left to trade with others what I didn't grow. And I still had plenty of tyme to work full time. The longest amount of tyme involved was sowing, from preparing the garden to planting seeds or seedlings. Harvesting didn't even take too much tyme, when cooking I could just go out and pick what I wanted. Or I could spend a couple of hours to harvest then cook and can what I wanted. In much of Africa there is an even longer growing season. A person could grow some food, both to eat his or herself and to trade. Then they could also build furniture to sale, with the wood scraps added to the compost. Or a person could make for sale clothing. In Uganda Gulu Landmine Victims Earn a Living From Clay" making pottery. Some are using pottery to purify water.

If it wasn't for conflicts and politics many would be have enough food without GMOs or chemical inputs.

Falcon

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

Fact is is when many non native species are introduced into an environment they can overtake native species and out compeat them as with Kudzu between eastern Texas and the Mid Atlantic states. You are right, and invasive species are a huge problem.

HOWEVER, to my knowledge, no domesticated agricultural food product has become an invasive species. Plants like domesticated wheat and corn have no hope in surviving in the wild. They expend WAY too much energy on fruit/seed production to be viable in the wild, and they usually have "broken" reproduction systems. For instance, we like wheat because it's a grass with a mutation that doesn't break open and spread it's seeds out. That makes it easy to collect the seeds, since they aren't scattered about, but makes it almost impossible for wheat to survive in the wild. Many of the hybrids that we grow as food produce pretty useless seeds when they reproduce.

I don't think that we should worry too much about domesticated agricultural food products overtaking the environment.

You don't need to take animals away, just don't raise animals as a main source of food. Actually animals are needed, they take plants, organic matter, and converts them to fertilizer for more crops. Where animals are a problem is where there is more of them in an area that can't feed them all. Well, GMO'd work animals would still be beneficial. If you could get the local disease resistance of the zebra with the domestication and utility of a mule - that could be very useful.

As for subsidence farming, I used to be able to grow a lot of my own food where I lived. I'm willing to bet that you occasionally shopped at the garden center. Imagine trying to grow a garden to feed yourself with no tools (other than some scavenged items), no irrigation, no fertilizer, no hybrid seeds. Then imagine wild animals constantly getting into your garden - monkeys and other such things. Now imagine that you have to feed 12 members of your family - not just you. Oh, and when your son is of age, you have to split a chunk of your meager land off for him. You have 5 sons. Now you are getting closer to what African subsistence farmers have to deal with.

If it wasn't for conflicts and politics many would be have enough food without GMOs or chemical inputs. I strongly disagree. Even the West would have trouble feeding itself without chemical fertilizer - and even that would require giving up most meat and grains. Grain in particular is very dependent on chemical fertilizer. In the West we could survive, though, because we can afford it.

Conflicts and politics ARE responsible for a lot of Africa's problems, but a lot of the conflicts are exasperated - even sparked, but quality of life and food issues.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

I'm willing to bet that you occasionally shopped at the garden center.

Some but I also saved seeds. Where I live now, in Minnesota which shares a border with Canada, I pretty much have to buy seedlings. Now if I had a greenhouse I could start seeds perhaps a month before the last frost date in the greenhouse then I wouldn't need to buy seedlings. Or I could garden hydroponically all year, there's a hydroponic garden store within a few blocks of me. Fertilizer? I compost everything I can, I even add old food or peels such as from bananas and grind any bones to add. I have 2 cats and the corn based litter I also put in the compost. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle.

Well, GMO'd work animals would still be beneficial. If you could get the local disease resistance of the zebra with the domestication and utility of a mule - that could be very useful.

In the Andes of South America many people such as Native American Indians use llamas for this, no GMOs needed. They are used much like mules for hauling cargo. Some places in Africa and Southeast Asia use elephants for the same thing. If instead of slaughtering elephants for the ivory more were domesticated they could be used the same way.

imagine wild animals constantly getting into your garden - monkeys and other such things.

At one tyme I used fox urine to control deer where I lived. It was also good for rabbits. Farmers in Africa are catching on to the use of peppers and other natural methods to control pests. Here's a study on the use of Indigenous Technical Knowledge and Use of Forest Plant Products for Sustainable Control of Crop Pests in Ogun State, Nigeria.

If it wasn't for conflicts and politics many would be have enough food without GMOs or chemical inputs.

I strongly disagree. Even the West would have trouble feeding itself without chemical fertilizer - and even that would require giving up most meat and grains. Grain in particular is very dependent on chemical fertilizer. In the West we could survive, though, because we can afford it.

Do you have any evidence? Here's some links, including scientific studies, to support my position: A study, "Comparisons of organic and conventional chemical farming systems" shows that organic farming can be just as productive, if not more so, as conventional western farming. Another shows organics can produce 3 tymes as much as conventional. An article from "New Scientist" is about how "Organic farming could feed the world."

Falcon

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

The studies that you linked all would require that we change our eating habits. They also completely ignore things like labor and dollar cost. In particular, the last story measured productivity by using "calories". Well, yeah... I mean the cassava (yucca) is the highest yielding plant in the world if you count calories/acre. And guess who grows it? Yup, the developing world.

Of course, you can eat 2000 calories of cassava/day and still suffer from protein deficiency. That is, if you can afford to eat 2000 calories of cassava. It also requires a tremendous amount of labor. And few in the West eats cassava (though I love the stuff).

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre? I'd wager that it doesn't fare quite as well. Plus there is the small issue of where all of this organic compost is going to come from.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I can't possibly hope to become an expert and sort it all out. I instead rely on balanced reporting from sources like Scientific American, who have a nice skeptical attitude on most subjects. My opinion largely mirrors theirs. Going to anti-GMO websites is not likely to get a balanced view.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

Calories is a stupid measure. How about protein/acre?

Calories is a stupid measure, yes. While protein/acre would be better it still leaves out vitamins and minerals. However whereas modern conventional western agriculture depends on a monoculture organic farming as well as permaculture best uses a mix of plants or produce. Instead of growing just say corn, strawberries can be grown on the same land. And/or squash. In temperate zones where citrus will grow, underneath the orange trees other fruits and veggies can be grown. The same with other fruit trees. Using companion planting one crops' pest can be repelled by other plants. For instance marigolds repels aphids which feed on other plants. Or plants that attract Coccinellidae, or ladybugs can be used, aphids are natural prey of ladybugs. At the same tyme ladybugs control pests they also pollinate the crop.

We can play the "point to studies game" if you want. Here's a British study from 2007.

I noted the last paragraph has this to say, with no rebuttal:

Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, which promotes organic farming, said "business as usual" intensive farming would not be possible in future because of the fossil fuel costs and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with nitrogen fertilisers. Organic farming could equal and sometimes even exceed the yields of chemical intensive farming systems. "The challenge that global agriculture confronts today is to research and develop these systems, because we are on the threshold of a post-fossil fuel era."

Scientific American

Organic or Conventional? For Wheat, It Might Not Matter
...Although some organic crops have proved more nourishing than their conventional counterparts, wheat--one of the world's biggest cereal crops--shows no difference, according to the results of a new study.

Organic Farming Generates Longer-Lived Plants
When Mary was asked How does your garden grow, she didn't compare the relative merits of conventional versus organic farming. But results published online this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggest that her silver bells and cockleshells could have lived longer and better under sustainable agriculture techniques.

Organic Farms More Fertile, Study Finds
Organic farms are more efficient than their conventional cousins and leave soils far healthier, researchers report today in the journal Science. In a long-term study comparing productivity, environmental health, biodiversity and energy consumption of organic cultivation to conventional methods, Paul Mder of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture in Switzerland and his colleagues discovered that the organic approach used significantly less energy to produce the same quantity of crop. Although organic farms typically produce lower overall yields than common plots do, their ecological benefits are greater--a larger number of pest-eating creatures and other advantageous organisms live in soil farmed organically, and decomposition occurs more efficiently on these lands, releasing much needed nutrients into the soil.

Analysis Finds Greater Profits from Organic Farming
Doing the right thing can be profitable after allat least when it comes to g

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

I'm not denying the sustainability advantage of organic farming. What I'm saying is that it needs to be made more productive in order to feed the world. Specifically, it needs to be more productive while not increasing the labor or cost.

Organic production is the ONLY option for subsistence farmers, since they have little or no access to chemicals. I am only asking that GMOs not be dismissed out-of-hand, since they may provide a much quicker path to creating plants that are suitable for Africa than traditional breeding.

The articles that you picked out are an excellent example of what I was talking about. The first talks about how - at least when talking about wheat - there is no nutritional advantage to organic... not something you would see on a website promoting organic...

But somehow you've turned this into an organic discussion, when we WERE talking about GMOs. My hope is that subsistence - and by extension organic - farming can be improved by GMOs. Subsistence farmers are already using organic techniques, so you aren't going to get much improvement on that front - though I'm certain that improvements can also be made through education. But I wouldn't get too cocky - these farmers probably know their crops and environment far better than you think.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

What I'm saying is that it needs to be made more productive in order to feed the world. Specifically, it needs to be more productive while not increasing the labor or cost.

A truly free market would take care of this. Many people leave farms, such as in China and India, to move to cities where they can make more money. However if food prices would rise more people would have the motivation to live on farms, in small communities, or grow some of their own food. Throughout the world city farms are cropping up. In Cuba a lot of food is grown in city farms. After the collapse of the Soviet Union Castro encouraged residents of Havana and other cities to start growing food. Here's a link to a page on urban agriculture from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations with what's being done or is capable of being done throughout the world.

The solution to feeding the world is to improve the root cause of starvation not to create something to sale. By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities. And with city farms those in cities can grow some of their own food. Actually this past summer there was an article on /. about building a highrise tower farm. Using /.'s search I didn't find it but Goolge has another about how Cities Built on Fertile Lands Affect Climate. These cities built on fertile land take the land out of food production.

Organic production is the ONLY option for subsistence farmers, since they have little or no access to chemicals. I am only asking that GMOs not be dismissed out-of-hand, since they may provide a much quicker path to creating plants that are suitable for Africa than traditional breeding.

Africa is quite capable of growing more food without GMOs. For instance I'll refer back to what I said previously in this tread about what President Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. Here's another post I wrote on it on 19 April 2007. Simply when Mugabe came to power he took Zimbabwe from being a net food exporter, agricultural produce was Zimbabwe's largest foreign exchange earner, into a nation that needs aid to import food to feed the population. Politics created a nation that couldn't feed itself out of a nation that could feed not only itself but others as well.

But somehow you've turned this into an organic discussion, when we WERE talking about GMOs. My hope is that subsistence - and by extension organic - farming can be improved by GMOs

I brought in organics to show that the world can be fed without any need for GMOs. Since the topic is GMOs showing organic farming, which bars GMOs, can feed the world it means that GMOs are NOT needed. Simply solve the root causes of starvation; conflicts, politics, and massive subsidies, and GMOs are not needed. Thinking like this is similar to what a systems analyst does and includes a life cycle analysis.

Falcon

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

I don't think that you'll be able to break the subsistence cycle in Africa without first letting subsistence farmers have some income. Eventually, they can gave a few farmers producing food for the bulk of the population - even using organic farming and non-GMO crops.

But something needs to happen to "kick off" the whole process. This happened in Asia during the green revolution - so we even have a model for it. Asia needed better crops and they got them after some intensive breeding. Africa needs the same type of thing, and I just feel like it is silly to delay the whole process by restricting yourself to old-fashioned breeding for no scientific reason... just fear.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[falconwolf]

I don't think that you'll be able to break the subsistence cycle in Africa without first letting subsistence farmers have some income.

I thought I said a subsistence farmer should be able to make a living on the farm, yes here is it "By making sure people can make a decent living on farms more people will stay on them, then they could grow plenty for those would decide to live in cities". By allowing farmers to grow food they can then sale in cities they should be able to make a living. As it is one reason farmers can't afford to stay on farms is because they can't compeat with a big agribusiness that gets handouts from the EU, Japan, or the US. Ge rid of the subsides as I've said a number of tymes then indigenous farmers could make a living on their farms.

But something needs to happen to "kick off" the whole process. This happened in Asia during the green revolution - so we even have a model for it.

The Green Revolution only temporarily increased crop yields, crop yields have leveled off. Here's a paper with some of the problems of the Green Revolution. Then as this page says the boom in crop yield owns a lot to the use of petroleum. Petroleum is needed to fuel the machines, then herbicides and pesticides are made from petrochemicals. What happens when all the oil is pumped? No more herbicides and pesticides thats what. With the end of cheap petroleum the only way enough food will be grown is organically. Just a few hours ago I heard oil broke $90 a barrel, guess what that means for farmers who depend on it? Bad news. However organic farmers who don't use petro based herbicides and pesticides will still be able to grow food.

Africa needs the same type of thing, and I just feel like it is silly to delay the whole process by restricting yourself to old-fashioned breeding for no scientific reason... just fear.

Talking about science, as I have repeatedly laid out there is no scientific basis for a need for GMOs. Yet people keep saying they are needed despite being shown evidence, including scientific evidence, GMOs are NOT NEEDED.

Yes I am fixated on organics but despite being shown science you are fixated on GMOs. There is no fear involved, it comes like this, are GMOs needed to feed the world. And science has answered NO.

Re:subsistence farming and resources

[MightyYar]

I thought I said a subsistence farmer should be able to make a living on the farm, yes here is Right, but the point that I am trying to convey is that right now they have nothing extra to sell! They are actually starving slowly because they don't produce enough on their tiny little farms to even feed their families, let alone have something left to sell. I'm with you on the economics of it, remember? We agree!

I'm not denying that there were problems with the green revolution, but it's hard to deny that it was the event that sparked Asian development. Prior to the green revolution, Asia was just as hopeless as Africa (well, maybe not QUITE as hopeless... at least you didn't have AIDS). Even a temporary bump would be welcome, as it could lift enough people out of the subsistence cycle to get the African economy going.

There's no scientific basis for the NEED for GMOs? That's a ridiculous thing to say - you have no idea what kind of crops they might come up with. At best I'll give you that "there's no scientific basis for a need for CURRENTLY AVAILABLE GMOs". It would be like saying that there is no scientific basis for genetically engineered drugs just because few effective ones have been found yet.

More to the point, there is no scientific basis for dismissing GMOs as a legitimate way to domesticate crops. So far, their are fears based on theories with no experimental basis.

I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[falconwolf]

Isn't this the perfect case of being proactive? A possible danger existed, was looked for, and when found was avoided without incident. This is no scarier than some Toyoda designers thinking about a modification to improve mileage and discarding it when simulations showed that it would lower passenger safety.

It wasn't particularly proactive when, because of Roundup Ready seeds from Monsanto, farmers were able to drown crops in Roundup leading to superweeds that Roundup wasn't able to kill. Now there's even a Roundup Ready coca, the same plant used to make cocaine. Now instead of spraying Colombian villages and crops with Roundup they'll be using even more poisonous or toxic chemicals on villages.

Falcon

Re:I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[yndrd1984]

It wasn't particularly proactive when...

an unrelated incident occurred. Thank you for admitting (by omission) that the Brazil Nut incident is a good example of being proactive and responsible. :)

Re:I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[falconwolf]

an unrelated incident occurred. Thank you for admitting (by omission) that the Brazil Nut incident is a good example of being proactive and responsible. :)

It may of been proactive in this case but businesses aren't proactive in others. Despite being warned there were problems at Union Carbide's plant in India nothing was done, which caused the death of about 23,000 people in Bhupal. Fishermen in Alaska still haven't been compensated when their livelihood was ruined after the Exxon Valdez oil spill.

Falcon

Re:I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[yndrd1984]

It may of been proactive in this case but businesses aren't proactive in others.

You're evading the point. All I'm saying is that if you want to demonstrate that corporations are bad or that GMOs are dangerous, choose an example that actually shows that, instead of trying to use deceptive phrasing to make good behavior look bad. The rest of your posts show that you could have found a decent example (if one exists) quite easily.

Re:I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[falconwolf]

You're evading the point. All I'm saying is that if you want to demonstrate that corporations are bad or that GMOs are dangerous, choose an example that actually shows that, instead of trying to use deceptive phrasing to make good behavior look bad.

I posted, more than once, about super weeds created by Roundup Ready seeds. And seeing as how TFA was A=about GMOs, it directly applies. However I didn't ask you just what is the need for ANY GMO? Answer is there is no need.

Falcon

Re:I'd rather be proactive than reactive...

[yndrd1984]

I posted, more than once, about super weeds created by Roundup Ready seeds. And seeing as how TFA was A=about GMOs, it directly applies.

That's fine, but it's irrelevant to this side tangent you're on. You posted a bad example and tried a little fear-mongering, and then got called on it. That would be fine, but your reply to the person who called you on it was rather unfair, and I thought it would be nice if you could see how to make your argument in a better way next time (like use your better examples first, and don't mix multiple hypotheticals and expect your meaning to be clear).

However I didn't ask you just what is the need for ANY GMO? Answer is there is no need.

Don't be silly - we might not need it in the sense that civilization will end if they aren't created, but they do have a large number of beneficial effects. Vitamin A fortified rice and transfat-free soybean oil make people healthier, drought resistance keeps yields consistent, and insect-resistant crops don't have to be sprayed with insecticides as often. You might as well say that there's no reason for hybridized corn or even traditional breeding.