Scientists Genetically Engineer the World's First Blue Chrysanthemum (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit shares an article from Science magazine: True blue flowers are a rarity in nature -- they occur only in select species like morning glories and delphiniums. Now, researchers have created a genuinely blue chrysanthemum by adding two genes to the normally pink or reddish flower. The advance could be applied to other species -- and it may mean that florists wanting to hawk blooms of blue will no longer have to dye them...

The next step for Noda and his colleagues is to make blue chrysanthemums that can't reproduce and spread into the environment, making it possible to commercialize the transgenic flower. But that approach could spell trouble in some parts of the world. "As long as GMO [genetically modified organism] continues to be a problem in Europe, blue [flowers] face a difficult economic future," predicts Ronald Koes, a plant molecular biologist at the University of Amsterdam who was not involved with the work.

Comments

It's not GMOs that people object to.

[Gravis Zero]

Informed individuals don't have a problem with GMOs, they have a problem with companies that want absolute control of GMOs. While this is a novel thing they have made, the vast majority of GMOs are to make plants resist increasingly caustic herbicides/pesticides. The problem with this is that despite how much you clean it, trace amount of the herbicides/pesticides remain on the plant and if ingested then become part of you and there is no real research into the long term effects of this. What's worse is that herbicides/pesticides don't just land on the crops, trace amounts are in the air which can be enough to kill unmodified plants. On top of that, being unable to use seeds from a previous generation of plant forces a continual dependence on a corporation which is only harmful to everyone but the GMO owner.

TL;DR: GMOs are fine but corporations are assholes who don't care if you live or die.

Re:It's not GMOs that people object to.

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Informed individuals don't have a problem with GMOs...

I think I found the flaw in your logic. It applies to vaccines as well.

Re:It's not GMOs that people object to.

[ChromeAeonium]

Your post only serves to prove that GMOs are exactly what people oppose. You mention corporate control of them, and yet, plenty of non-genetically engineered crops varieties are also patented. Besides that, those patents expire, like all patents...Monsanto's first generation of GE soybean is now available as an off patent generic...and you fail to clarify what is wrong with a system whereby one makes something superior, gains control of it for a limited time to recoup their R&D costs, then it falls into the public domain. I can only conclude that corporate control is not the real issue, or else far more than GE crops would be targeted, and the argument would be more coherent.

You then mention herbicides and pesticides. This is actually a great reason to support GE crops. There are no insecticide resistant GE crops, but there are those which resist pests, and therefore need less insecticides. As for herbicides, yes there are herbicide resistant ones, but you neglect to consider the alternatives. Do you think weeds will just go away without herbicides? Nope, but without the GE crops, you have to use harsher types of herbicides, and soil damaging tillage, to control weeds. This argument makes sense only if you know nothing of how agriculture really works. Besides that, there are non-GE crops like the Clearfield lines are also bred to be resistant to herbicides, so even if you had a point, it still would not be a reason to oppose only GE crops as opposed to crop improvement in general. So we can conclude that this justification is also wrong. You may be referring to the recent dicamba problems, which is a real problem, but that is not an issue with the genetics so much with the herbicide formulation.

Finally, you mention issues of saving seeds, which farmers haven't done since the rise of hybrid seed in the 30's. You rarely save seed anymore because it is more profitable to use seed with hybrid vigor, which does not breed true in the second generation. That's not the fault of corporations, that's just how genetics works. Again, if this were the real issue, people would be protesting much more than GE crops, so we can conclude that it is another justification.

Basically, your reasons are invalid. They sound rational enough on the surface, so I can't fault anyone for believing them, but what they really are they are after the fact justifications to make GMO denialism seem somewhat rational to those not well versed in modern agriculture or crop genetics. Keep in mind, these talking points are coming from the same groups that also lie about non-profit, publicly funded projects, like the International Rice Research Institute's Golden Rice, or the University of Hawai'i's Rainbow papaya. Those who lie to you about science will also lie to you about business.

Re:It's not GMOs that people object to.

[angel'o'sphere]

First hit on a google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/en...

Re:It's not GMOs that people object to.

[yndrd1984]

Actually it was not a cross pollination, some seeds of surrounding fields dropped on his fields. So he lost his farm for a couple of random plants. Not for a paten violation ...

Vernon Hugh Bowman bought the seeds as commodities - not as something to be planted. Then he tested them to see if some were resistant to pesticide, and they were. Then he grew them, and then planted a second generation of them. Then he sold the resulting crop. This wasn't about 'a couple of random plants' - this was someone who deliberately went out of their way to knowingly make money off of someone else's patented seeds.

The court ruled that, just like any other patented item, he could do pretty much anything he wanted with them after they were sold except make copies for profit.

Re:Next up - Na'vi

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Well, designer humans imply some fashion sense, right?

Genuine Blue?

[Zobeid]

So... Most flowers that look blue are somehow not really "genuine" blue? Could we get some explanation of that? Our local bluebells and bluebonnets look pretty darn blue to my eyes. (I did once find a few mutant "pinkbonnets", by the way! They were cute.)

The word "blue" has held varied meanings, and what computer systems today define as blue -- the B in our RGB scheme -- would have been regarded as indigo or violet in the not-too-distant past.

Re:Genuine Blue?

[careysub]

If the flowers really look blue, then they are blue. However many (perhaps most) flowers "called" blue actually have red components in their color, and are thus some bluey shade of purple of violet. Blue flowers definitely exists, but are a minority for both evolutionary and (related) biochemical reasons.

The principal claim of "few blue flowers" is really about the commercial flower trade. The major flowers sold by florists are roses, chrysanthemums, carnations, lilies, and gerberas none of whom have any true blue varieties. The blue flowers that do exist naturally are not good commercial flowers - ephemeral, small, difficult to grow, etc. This invention introduced a true blue color, with no red component, in one of the most widely grown commercial flowers.

The evolutionary and biochemical reasons for the scarcity of blue is that the reason that flowers are colorful is to contrast with vegetation. For this reds are favored since this were chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly, creating the strongest contrast so evolution has favored anthocyanin chemistry that tends to the red end of the spectrum. Given these factors red-free blues are scarce.

NB. Notice that I did not say that reds are favored because plants are "green". The reason I did not is that human visual perception is irrelevant to flower colors, which evolved to attract insects not humans or any other mammal. Humans have a very biased view of color due to the way our visual systems work - our color perception is especially sensitive to green, and insensitive to red, and in addition uses an opponent color perception mechanism that boosts the perceived contrast (green and red are opponents in out visual system). Our color perceptions are really bad measures of the actual wavelength reflectivity of things.

Re:Commercialization Trumps all other concerns

[ChromeAeonium]

Patents already cover that. Next time you're looking at potted flowers, check out how many of them have tags that say 'Propagation Prohibited' under the patent number. The floriculture industry always has something new and patented on store shelves. Sterility is not necessary for market control, unless someone somewhere is illegally violating your patent.