Protesters threaten to destroy GMO crop 5/27/12

[geni]

In the slightest?

Nope. Rather than say salt resistance, drought resistance or similar (I did once run across a rather interesting project to boost protein content but I'm not sure it went anywhere) we have a bunch of products with pesticide resistance. Great for first world farmers but rather invalidates the starving African argument.

But hey its hardly the first time that has been the case they just chose a poor target audience.

 

[JihadJane]

That's why you test it. You don't know an invention will work before it has been made and tested... Anyways, you clearly are just trolling in an idiotic fashion.

Mmm, name-calling.

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

 

[geni]

Well the glow in the dark fish are pretty cool.

The insulin producing bacteria are generally considered a definite plus.

 

[JihadJane]

Well the glow in the dark fish are pretty cool.

The insulin producing bacteria are generally considered a definite plus.

I was interested in agricultural success stories.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Nope. Rather than say salt resistance, drought resistance or similar (I did once run across a rather interesting project to boost protein content but I'm not sure it went anywhere) we have a bunch of products with pesticide resistance. Great for first world farmers but rather invalidates the starving African argument.

But hey its hardly the first time that has been the case they just chose a poor target audience.

Those types of breeding programs are still in their infancy, but are coming along. Would you support the eventual use of such crops?

 

[geni]

Those types of breeding programs are still in their infancy, but are coming along.

Golden rice has been on the books for over a decade now. Still not happening. So worth paying attention to if you want to see some cool science but not if you want to know about actual GM deployment.

Would you support the eventual use of such crops?

Oh probably. But then I'm a chemist so I'm kinda hoping for a plant that produces chemical precursors. Well that or someone commercialising glow in the dark bacon.

For the time being though I'd suggest sitting back and enjoying the propaganda war.

 

[geni]

I was interested in agricultural success stories.

Well the squash viral resistance and cotten pest resistance appear to have sold well even if they are rather boring.

 

[Muldur]

They mention it as a hypothetical situation, not something that has actually happened. In it, they decide to use protein coding genes from a Brazil nut in order to infuse a higher methionine/cystein content to a pea. Without knowing exactly which protein is being produced by this gene and whether it can serve as an antigen in an allergic response, one cannot speculate. I'm honestly not even sure they know which proteins in nuts induce the allergic response.

Which is why nut genes have no business whatsoever being in wheat plants, or any other plants or animals at all aside from nuts.

We don't know what we're potentially doing with GMO. NO GMO product has been demonstrated conclusively safe for introduction to the environment, let alone consumption.

In fact, what we DO know about GMO products suggests that the modified genes have a tendency to get "loose" and spread outside the GMO product. This process is known as "outcrossing", and has already been documented in Mexico where outcrossed GMO genes have ruined the native maize varieties in one region.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/02/24/2499950.htm

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/mexico-confirms-gm-maize-contamination.html

Remember, it's not the responsibility of those opposing GMOs to prove harm, it's the responsibility of those promoting GMOs to prove no harm.

That's the rule with foods and drugs.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Nop you got that right - had a similar argument in the 90s with a consumer group back home that modified wheat shared similar DNA with peanuts and therefore the wheat was a danger to those in society with nut allergies.

The old saying a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing never rang truer

Unfortunately, the same is usually exemplified by those criticizing it based by their own too little knowledge.

Actual cases of copying too much from one plant to another have actually happened. E.g., a case of transferring a gene from Brazil nuts to soybeans in the 90's did end up actually copying a gene too many, and unfortunately it was actually the allergen that was the gene too many. So, yes, it was a danger to people with an allergy to that specific nut.

The problem of how much you copy is a very real one, and the reason for much of the regulation and for that matter of the research and testing costs.

If such concerns sound stupid to you... well, maybe now you know at what end that problem of too little knowledge is

 

[Muldur]

Really? We've been eating GM wheat for over a century now.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/wheat
So far, so good.

There is a huge difference between natural crossbreeding of plants (or animals) where natural processes result in natural combinations of genes and GMOs, where genes are "cut-n-pasted" together using artificial techniques to introduce utterly NON natural genes from other plant and animal species.

 

[Muldur]

I really really, don't understand why someone would destroy a GMO test crop. It seems like this goes against the whole safety issue as, well, they are testing it to see how it fares and will probably then test it's health and safety stuff after the crop fruits...

Because those test crops are not in biohazard-sealed labs that prevent the GMO genes from outcrossing into native plants. GMO has not been proven safe for use, and should not be in an uncontrolled environment until such proof is forthcoming.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds.

How come none of the farmers I know have abandoned their land? You realize this is a skeptics forums, so I shouldn't have to ask for evidence.

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

Every crop currently growing is a GM success story.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

There is a huge difference between natural crossbreeding of plants (or animals) where natural processes result in natural combinations of genes and GMOs, where genes are "cut-n-pasted" together using artificial techniques to introduce utterly NON natural genes from other plant and animal species.

What I find interesting is the nutwads automatically assume the latter is somehow worse.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Mmm, name-calling.

Calling it like I see it. First, you claim GM crops are primitive. Then you fail to defend that claim and instead highlight the obvious (that inventions need to be tested) as if it means something.

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

Name one farmer that has abandoned their land. Claiming that herbicide resistant crops are primitive b/c of superweeds is like claiming that antibiotics are primitive because of resistant strains. It just doesn't make any sense on any level.

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

There are many varieties of virus resistant crops in use, golden rice is coming onto the market soon, and there are others.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Because those test crops are not in biohazard-sealed labs that prevent the GMO genes from outcrossing into native plants. GMO has not been proven safe for use, and should not be in an uncontrolled environment until such proof is forthcoming.

You need some common sense. It's not like they are adding some dangerous chemical to the plants. They are adding a pheromone that is already in peppermint and other plant species... There is no bio hazard danger to it.

 

[jj]

GM crops, so far, have shown themselves to very primitive.

Really?

So cauliflower, broccoli, mustard, chard, turnips, cabbage, rapa, etc, are all "primitive".

They are all the result of direct human genetic modification.

 

[BravesFan]

What I find interesting is the nutwads automatically assume the latter is somehow worse.

Don't worry, he thinks science works together to stop bigfoot from being shown to the world. So, this is no surprise.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

Remember, it's not the responsibility of those opposing GMOs to prove harm, it's the responsibility of those promoting GMOs to prove no harm.

That's the rule with foods and drugs.

I disagree with you that the standard is no harm. Very few types of food and most drugs would meet that standard.

 

[quarky]

Seriously?

What's the alternative?

Oops. Sorry about the poor writing. I meant gmo's , not ag in general.

Imho, this questionable practice is taking over, before we even began to explore other plants much less integrated pest management.

there are thousands of edible plants. Many have much better nutrition profiles and much lower need than the five or so plants that make up the vast majority of the gmo foods.

 

[Battman]

These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

Again, really? I've lived my entire life in the middle of farm country and the only farms that I've ever seen "abandoned" are the ones that got swallowed up by ever expanding cities in which case they were sold off to the developers. Sure, some farmers go broke, but it's generally due to factors like floods, droughts, excessively high input costs like fuel or simply bad management like not growing some sort of GM crop. Farming is a business after all and some GM crops like canola can be very profitable for the farmer.