Activists Destroy Scientific GMO Experiment

Freggy writes "In Belgium, a group of activists calling themselves the Field Liberation Movement has destroyed a field which was being used for a scientific experiment with genetically modified potatoes. In spite of the presence of 60 police officers protecting the field, activists succeeded pulling out the plants and sprayed insecticides over them, ruining the experiment. The goal of the experiment was to test potato plants which are genetically modified to be resistant to potato blight. It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research."

Comments

A great day for human beings

[rubycodez]

I think the submitter of this article is a little unclear on the concept of what companies like Monsanto are trying to do, they are trying to control the food supply, to get a "piece of the action" like a Mafia every time you take a bite of food, and no one who doesn't pay them will have food. They are evil, and this little incident is nothing compared to what should be done to those parasites on humanity. Think of Monsanto and their ilk as the MIAA/RIAA of food.

Lack of background, nuance

[mhermans]

The comment "It's a sad day for the freedom of scientific research", misses the complexity of the debate surrounding the inherently political balance between technological advances driven by private interest and the opinion and interest of the larger populace. A colleague a has published extensively and recently on this very subject, the debate and issue of GGO's in Belgium, these two publications, available from his homepage are highly recommended:

• Maeseele, P. (2011) On News Media and Democratic Debate: Framing Agricultural Biotechnology in Northern Belgium. International Communication Gazette 73 (1-2): 83-105.
• Maeseele, P. (2010) Science journalism and social debate on modernization risks. Interview by Filippo Bonaventura. Journal of Science Communication 9 (4): C02.

Re:Sounds like

[blackraven14250]

You can't just "not buy it", or "not grow it". There's a big issue here in the states with Monsanto and their GM crops being cross pollinated into smaller, local farmers fields. Monsanto can go to court, then force the farmers to pay for the right to grow those crops that now contain their gene.

While not 100% relevant in and of itself, it emphasizes how easily cross pollination can occur, and how it's a huge problem to plant a GM crop anywhere near a non-GM crop and keep there from being cross contamination

Re:GMO scientists, who do you think you are?

[Attila Dimedici]

Apparently you haven't heard of things called hybrids. Have you ever eaten a blood orange? How about a grapefruit? Both of those exist because someone intentionally cross-fertilized fruit bearing plants (which for those of you who don't know is the process of inserting genes from one species of plant into another species of plant in order to create a third species of plant with characteristics from both parent species).

Re:Sounds like

[improfane]

Selective pollenation and crossing is not GMO.

Re:Sounds like

[sperxios10]

I'd also like to point out that you have been eating GM plants your entire life. Wheat? Hundreds of years of selective growing of only the best stock. Its the same thing it's just been done on a farm instead of in a lab.

Do not spread diss-information.
These are not genetically modified, crops, they are artificially-sellected crops.

Re:Stopping Science = Stopping Thought. GL,HF

[camperdave]

For those over 25:
GL;HF = Good Luck; Have Fun
QQ = cry (supposed to look like eyes with tears)

Re:Different plants are DIFFERENT

[Khyber]

"Potato plants are at even less risk of outcrossing because they are propagated clonally"

Not always. I always carry a stock of true potato seed. Guess what caused the blight in the first place? Lack of genetic diversity and natural selection.

Looks like where the poster above slept through biology, you slept through history and critical thinking. You apparently slept through biology as well, as potatoes are nightshades and spread pollen like wildfire with their particularly light and fluffy pollen.

Re:Sounds like

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had read the article (yes, I know, I know...) you would realize that many of the protesters are local farmers. So they probably already worked a few years for local farms. But please don't let facts interfere with your knee-jerk reaction.

We have very different definitions of "natural"

[MaizeMan]

There is no natural (as in wild) corn anywhere in the world. The wild ancestor of corn, teosinte, can still be found in some places, but you would not have any luck trying to eat its seeds the way you would corn kernels. The beautiful photos illustration the vast genetic diversity of corn are all breeds of corn that have been under artificial selection for thousands of years by farmers from Chile to Canada.

You are correct that "The wheat and corn from 50 years ago is NOT genetically modified in the modern sense of the word" however I believe the point the GP was making is that the changes made by artificial selection were equivalent to, if not greater than, those that are now being produced with genetic modification "in the modern sense of the word."

The genome of B73, a completely un-genetically modified variety of corn, was published back in 2009 and I've had my head buried in it ever since. I've seen broken genes, moved genes, genes missing the sequences that should control when and where they are turned on, even frankenstein genes assembled from the pieces of other genes. All these changes occurred naturally in individual corn plants and are found today in B73 as the result of either artificial or natural selection.

For example, and yes, this is real, they make crops that have weaknesses so that you need to buy more pesticides of the kind they sell.

Citation needed. I know there are GM crops resistant to certain herbicides, but in the absence of those herbicides they grow identically to their unmodified siblings. I don't even know how an effect like the one you describe could be produced. But if you can back it up I will certainly look into it.

Re:Sounds like

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Coincidently what we call a potato is a result of centuries of cross pollination. Technically you could say there were never really any non-GM potatoes, since cross-pollination is just an old technique for genetically modifying crops.

Re:Sounds like

[IonOtter]

Ah, precisely WHAT "billions of people"?

Have a watch of "We Feed The World", by Erwin Wagenhofer.

Have a look at precisely what happens to all of this spectacular bounty of surplus food we could be using to feed starving people. Pay particular attention at 52:10, where Karl Otrok, Director of Production for Pioneer in Romania, explains how things REALLY are...

"It can be preserved, it could be sent to third countries, to countries that really need it, but it doesn't get sent there. It gets sent back to us, and we've got more than enough to eat...and don't need it at all."

At little later, he explains things a bit more clearly...

"When 100,000 people die of starvation, its said we can't feed them, or is it just that we don't want to feed them? From where does the money come from? From the poor! The rich won't let go of their money, only the poor. That's how it is. And it's the same with food; we let them die so we can live. "

After you get done with that, you can comment on the billions of farm subsidies the US and EU governments pay to industrial farmers, so they can undersell everyone else by two-thirds.

Re:Sounds like

[Hylandr]

To those who haven't been paying attention to the world seed market, this may appear to be an appropriate response. Granted, they hardly did us any favors by taking this path, but their intentions were honorable. Don't Mod me until you have read the rest of this. I have references.

Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year. As in, You can't save a few ears of corn to re-plant next year. You have to rely on the corporation with the patent on the seed to allow you to buy more.

In some countries this is illegal, however precedence has been set where one filed of non-altered plants were rendered sterile by another field of steile-altered-plants and the victim with the non-sterile plants ( to start with ) was sued in court and *lost*.

We have grown accustomed to our freedoms being legislated away but this has dangerous implications on the sustainability our food supply.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology

http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/genetically-modified-plants.html

For the record, and Heirloom seed is a seed that is not genetically altered.

- Dan.

Re:Sounds like

[Hylandr]

then I trust the free market to make the right decision and choose the seed that is best for the food supply.

That, actually, is a mistake in an era of regulatory capture and corporatism. You think that only applies to the phone company and ISPs?

Screwmaster's This sentiment is correct. Monsanto, specifically, has been suing farms not using their seeds as well. Here's the details:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Goliath_and_David:_Monsanto's_Legal_Battles_against_Farmers

http://nelsonfarm.net/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml

So much for a free market...

- Dan.

Re:Sounds like

[Hylandr]

"Genetically altered plants have been engineered in such a fashion that future generations of food bearing plants are *sterile* requiring you to *buy new seeds * every year."

I thought that was proven to be a myth. And that Monsanto simply relies on contract law, mostly.

No Myth, and still moving forward:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seed_controversy

- Dan.