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

[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

[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".

Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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.

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

[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

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

[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.

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.

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: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

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.