Genetically Modified Plants

Ben84

nodwah wrote: »

BTW if you want to not be skint all your life (like me) get out of science:rotfl: .

I'd miss the science, even if the money was better! :rotfl:

I do also entirely agree with the issues raised in the last two posts. Biofuels are not turning out to be the perfect solution to our energgy needs, there are serious land use and world food issues. Also, the GM crops that only grow one season being sold to poor countries are a big problem. However, I don't think these are GM issues, they're issues about land use, distribution of resources/wealth, and the problem with greedy companies.

Voyager2002

cave wrote: »

Corporations don't own the technology - they have patents on some things they've made with the technology, but you could do this stuff in your backyard with the right stuff, some knowledge and a bit of patience.

Not true I'm afraid.

The main method of moving DNA into a new background has been patented, and the patent is owned by Monsanto. They defend their 'intellectual property' vigorously, making it very difficult for anyone else to commercialise genetically modified plants. This is my main objection to the spread of GM, since I don't think monopoly control of agriculture would be a desirable outcome.

Voyager2002

Farway wrote: »

In my case I am more worried about the mixing of animal & plant genes, like adding jellyfish ones to potatoes, no way could you even think was somehow natural and mimicking nature

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/glowingpotato.cfm

PS, or how about eating one that produces it's own pesticide, yummy

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/10199

Personally, I don't see the objection. Bacteria are constantly exchanging genes, and have in the past introduced new genetic material into plants and animals: this is a natural process. And it is a matter of chance that (for example) genes to tolerate freezing temperatures are present in fish but not in tomatoes. Shifting those genes to produce frost-resistant tomatoes is technically easy, and the crop has not led to any problems.

Pesticide: the main form of pest-resistance introduced by GM is the ability to produce a protein that prevents certain insects from feeding. This is an organic pesticide permitted by the Soil Association: many organic farmers apply the bacteria that make it to their crops to protect them from insects. Making the plant make it themselves is more efficient, but I cannot see any disadvantages. The protein itself breaks down rapidly, so none is likely to be eaten by people.

cave_2

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Pesticide: the main form of pest-resistance introduced by GM is the ability to produce a protein that prevents certain insects from feeding. This is an organic pesticide permitted by the Soil Association: many organic farmers apply the bacteria that make it to their crops to protect them from insects. Making the plant make it themselves is more efficient, but I cannot see any disadvantages. The protein itself breaks down rapidly, so none is likely to be eaten by people.

Quite aside from that, I know 'pesticide' sounds horribly chemical and unwanted - but think about the way the biological ones work. For one type, it attacks a molecule named chitin. Insects are made of chitin (it's what makes them crunchy!) and we're not. Also, we have things in our guts (named enzymes) which break down the pesticides (because they're made of protein, like chicken).

You could sit and eat this pesticide all day, and the only downside would be that it'd get a bit boring after a while. And give you bad breath akin to that of the atkins diet (for the same reasons).

cave_2

nodwah wrote: »

Several points- it may have changed now but the technology at first used reporter genes such as antibiotic resisitance to signal that the genetic transfer has happened. Not a great idea to have these floating about in the environment - if you're a genetics student I'm sure you'll know how easily bacteria can acquire genteic material from a range of sources.

Use another reporter? GFP? No reason for that to be maintained in nature.

nodwah wrote: »

When we deliberately introduce an entirely new organism to the planet, how can we possibly know what the results will be?

But we're not. We're giving it another trait.

nodwah wrote: »

Another thing - the large companies who create GM corn or rice or whatever, create sterile strains so the 3rd world farmers cannot save seed but have to keep going back to buy more - what's this doing to 3rd world debt?

Again, projects like the GRP are developing their own strains, with the intention of helping.

nodwah wrote: »

Monoculture also has been mentioned before, when we should be maintaining biodiversity

this is very true, and I'm a massive advocate of reducing monoculture, but this is not necessarily exclusive to the argument.

nodwah wrote: »

Also these strains that have been developed to be resistant to pesticides and herbicides means that crops can simply be drenched with chemicals - not desirable surely even if you're not an ardent organic fan.

Very true, but if you can provide it with an intrinsic perticide, then chemicals (their their problems. e.g. runoff into waterways) is less of a problem?

cave_2

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Not true I'm afraid.

The main method of moving DNA into a new background has been patented, and the patent is owned by Monsanto. They defend their 'intellectual property' vigorously, making it very difficult for anyone else to commercialise genetically modified plants. This is my main objection to the spread of GM, since I don't think monopoly control of agriculture would be a desirable outcome.

They own a method of doing it, but not that it can happen. In the way that I can't build a 747 because the patent is owned by someone, but I can build an aeroplane of my own design in my shed.

nodwah

Ben84 wrote: »

I'd miss the science, even if the money was better! :rotfl:

get a shed!!:rotfl:

I do also entirely agree with the issues raised in the last two posts. Biofuels are not turning out to be the perfect solution to our energgy needs, there are serious land use and world food issues. Also, the GM crops that only grow one season being sold to poor countries are a big problem. However, I don't think these are GM issues, they're issues about land use, distribution of resources/wealth, and the problem with greedy companies.

in the end it's big business that wins out - if Big Oil wants it, it happens and not otherwise I guess it'll be the same with "Big Plant"

nodwah

cave wrote: »

Use another reporter? GFP? No reason for that to be maintained in nature.
Do you know that for sure?

But we're not. We're giving it another trait.
No actually you have invvented a new organism that would never have existed before - didn't you see jurassic park??:rotfl:

Again, projects like the GRP are developing their own strains, with the intention of helping.

this is very true, and I'm a massive advocate of reducing monoculture, but this is not necessarily exclusive to the argument.

Very true, but if you can provide it with an intrinsic perticide, then chemicals (their their problems. e.g. runoff into waterways) is less of a problem?

What if that interferes with the food web in unexpected ways?

What was your intent in asking this question in the first place??

cave_2

Out of interest really

And it's a subject I don't get a chance to talk to non-scientists and non-students about

nodwah

Oh well maybe I should butt out then.
But...when it comes to gardening I'm an empiricist and I'm not aware of any GM seeds or plants available to the amateur gardener, I might be tempted to try them if they were out there but then again I may well just stick with what I know works for me in my garden!