Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
You both bring forth great points, Lee, and Seekir.
Seekir...
"could have chosen less harmful means to make their point."
maybe it was a 'point' to them to vandalize the 'little guy' ... trying to say that no one is safe who propagates GMOs, whether big or little.
^ the above is pure speculation...
Posts: 526
Threads: 11
Joined: Oct 2006
quote:
Selective breeding--like folks have been doing with plants and domestic animals for millennia--is not the same as genetic modification, which involves laboratory exchange or enhancement of genes.
So if someone pollinates a tomato in a lab is it not a "laboratory exchange or enhancement of genes?" Of course it is.
I was uncertain whether to pursue this topic further in this thread, but I guess I just don't get the anxiety level over inserting a gene in a lab versus inserting entirely new genes via lab pollination that creates very new characteristics in the progeny. For instance, many of our common vegetables are now crosses of heirloom or more recent varieties with "landrace" species, the very earliest forms of these plants which look and taste totally nothing like what we eat today. That is how valuable characteristics such as disease resistance (perhaps like fusarium or verticillium wilt resistance in tomatoes) came about. The heirloom varieties have no such resistance, so new (to the heirloom) genes were found in the landrace species and "inserted" via pollination. These genes never ever existed in the heirloom varieties, but now they do in progeny that are widely used for vegetable production.
The objection then moves to the idea that GMO-inserted genes come from other sorts of plants or animals. The ringspot resistance gene for papayas was derived from a fly of some sort. This reminds me of a quote I saw in an article from a person at a Puna GMO meeting who said this sort of gene mixing is "unnatural." Actually it isn't. Viruses insert genes all the time into non-virus genomes. This is how genetic modification in humans is carried out to correct inherited gene-based diseases. A virus has the normal (non-disease causing) human gene inserted into it and the person is infected with a weakened virus. The virus enters cells and in the normal churn of intracellular activity the new gene becomes incorporated into the person's genome and (with luck, the technique is very new) the disease is mitigated and possibly cured. In fact there seems to be a consensus these days that large parts of the human genome (and obviously the species that went before us) incorporate ancient viruses and other DNA bits into what was considered nonfunctional (this is debated now) stretches of chromosomes. To go a little further, every human cell incorporates what appears to be originally an entirely separate organism, the mitochondria, which provides us heat energy via the ATP cycle.
You can incorporate undesired characteristics as well as good ones via pollination. If you grow heirloom vegetables near modern varieties and save seeds, you can very possibly be creating hybrids from your heirlooms that will turn out quite differently. I suppose via pollination and conventional breeding the dangerous chemicals characteristic of the nightshade family that tomatoes and potatoes belong to could be incorporated into these vegetables. Hopefully no one would want to do that, any more than the scientists involved in improving our food supply would want to create anything damaging.
I'll end this with the point that Japan now accepts Hawai'i's GMO papaya after about ten years of evaluations. Nothing was ever found to preclude this decision, just as there are hundreds of peer-reviewed studies of the safety of GMO crops. I'm just not sure where all the fear about GMO originates other than lack of knowledge of the wider world of plant breeding.
Posts: 1,975
Threads: 47
Joined: Jul 2012
Pete, I think it's more of a distrust of their fellow humans who work for corporations than a mistrust of science. I agree with you that most folk don't know diddly-squat about genetic modification, and a myriad of other topics related to GMO (politics, patents, land-use, water sheds, etc). Most probably only know whatever 'charged' / 'polar' often times sensational information that is reported through our media. Sorry to be rude earlier in the post if thats how you took it pete, I often times post on a mobile device and don't have the time/patience to type out adequate replies on a 2x4 in. screen. By adequate replies I mean typing out my questions or disputes about points you made. On the other hand I straight up put my foot in my mouth making assumptions about you...as wax pointed out. Anyways I appreciate seeing your opinion, even if we disagree, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply to my first post. And even if you are Pro-GMO its obvious you care about the future farming economy/industry of this island, which I can also appreciate.
Aloha mai kakou
Posts: 153
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
quote:
I guess I just don't get the anxiety level over inserting a gene in a lab versus inserting entirely new genes via lab pollination that creates very new characteristics in the progeny.
I agree that there seems to be considerable unwarranted concern in the sometimes alarmist language and behavior many skeptics espouse. A number of the statements I've heard make little distinction between GM and pesticide use, and focus strongly on the manipulative actions and self-interest exhibited by a few GMO seed producers. Still the practice of GM is quite new, and very mysterious to average consumers like myself who are not geneticists. There is a long history of unforeseen problems arising from ostensibly "beneficial" advances, blunders that litter modern history. I do buy and enjoy GMO papayas, and consider the technique to be very promising. I believe there is a sensible middle ground, and I would argue that hacking down papaya trees planted by a hardworking farmer isn't anywhere near that realm.
Posts: 299
Threads: 13
Joined: Jan 2008
Weaponized Anthrax. Now there's some GMO.
This topic is pretty big and controversial because it covers so much ground. It's like declaring yourself as pro-science or anti-science, with no in-between.
It seems like think one of the biggest problems in the GMO controversy is that genetic modification (not just selective breeding) has the potential for both great good and great harm, but many of the examples we are exposed to are about corporate profiteers trying to hide secretly manipulated genes into our food supply and paying off politicians so they don't even have to label the foods as being genetically modified.
Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange during the Viet Nam war and now they are offering us "Roundup Ready" seeds of many of the world's major grain crops. Aside from the fact that they have been waging war and suing the very farmers they are selling seed to, they also seem to want to patent and control life itself in order to extract profit, without paying any attention to human or biological casualties. So they not only own the seeds of crops they manipulate but also own all the progeny into perpetuity. Sounds a lot like slavery, eh?
Aside from potentially doing irreparable harm to heirloom varieties of most the human food supply, if you think about the concept of roundup ready, that means that food crops may survive being soaked with pesticides and then you get pay the privilege to eat it to find out if it gives you cancer in 2 or 3 decades. And they don't even have to label it as being genetically manipulated in a lab.
Life has co-existed and co-evolved on this planet for many millions of years and part of the beauty is that nature recycles so well, but unfortunately some people have been playing god and producing products which are not recyclable because no other life for considers them a food (think plastic.) Do you really trust your future and that of your children to the loving (and quite profitable) hands of the Monsanto corporation?
Perhaps if some of the proponents of GMO science had compelling examples of humanitarian efforts that outweighed the corporate greed and political payoffs we see all around us, more people could be persuaded to listen to their arguments.
Posts: 86
Threads: 4
Joined: Aug 2012
"If it's anti-gmo ( political goal) then it's terrorism"
Wow.
Living on the side of creation.
Living on the side of creation.
Posts: 4,903
Threads: 83
Joined: Feb 2009
U.S. military research developed Agent Orange and the product was uniquely produced according to exacting military specifications for solely tactical use during the war.
Companies supplying Agent Orange to the government under the compulsion of the Defense Production Act of 1950 included The Dow Chemical Company, Monsanto Company, Hercules Inc., Diamond Shamrock Corporation, Uniroyal Inc., Thompson Chemical Company and Thompson-Hayward Chemical Company. Agent Orange was never made commercially available.
So what does this have to do with Papaya farm vandalism?
Monsanto doesn't market payapa seeds.
Posts: 14,109
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Yes, let's splice insect DNA into our food crops, so they can be more resistant to toxic chemical pesticides. Nothing could possibly go wrong, and the corporations would never lie to us about the safety of their product.
I'm not "anti-science", but I'm also pretty sure the planet didn't come with spares.
Posts: 124
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2011
quote:
Originally posted by Obie
So what does this have to do with Papaya farm vandalism?
GMO protesters were blamed for it.
Posts: 153
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2007
It's true we aren't sure (and may never be sure) what motivated the vandalism. Anti GM extremists may not be the culprits.
It's my understanding that the papaya GM is an anti-viral modification having nothing to do with Roundup or other pesticides (or Monsanto as far as I know).
|
