Slashdot Mirror
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?)."
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.
You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?
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!.
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
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.
..........FULL STOP.
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.
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?
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.
"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
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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."