Genetically Engineered Wheat Found in Unplanted Washington Field(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Genetically Engineered Wheat Found in Unplanted Washington Field
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-08/genetically-engineered-wheat-found-in-unplanted-washington-field
127 comments
Good sci-fi on this topic: "The wind-up girl".
That is an amazing and disturbing story. Seconding the recommendation!
Wikipedia says it's biopunk. Judging from the cover that translates to blimps + mammoths.
I think I'll give it a go. Cheers :)
I think I'll give it a go. Cheers :)
In dubio it's also fiscal
responsible of the genetic license giver to remove unwanted organisms? Aka pay for selective herbicides?
If I was to guess someone who grew a sample field for Monsanto was careless and didn't completely clean out his wagon. It either got mixed with regular wheat at a seed plant or at the grain elevator where it was later used for seed.
What about animal vectors like birds?
Not impossible but doubtful. Every single time I know of that an investigation has been done it's traced to human carelessness.
I'm unable to find a link online but around fifteen years ago a farmer accidentally let a very small amount of some experimental GMO soybeans he was growing for a seed company as a test get into a truck headed to the local elevator.
Routine government testing resulted in a very large bin of soybeans getting purchased and destroyed. The financial hit caused the seed company to go bankrupt.
I'm unable to find a link online but around fifteen years ago a farmer accidentally let a very small amount of some experimental GMO soybeans he was growing for a seed company as a test get into a truck headed to the local elevator.
Routine government testing resulted in a very large bin of soybeans getting purchased and destroyed. The financial hit caused the seed company to go bankrupt.
Human carelessness like allowing this crap in the first place?
If anyone wants to see the nuts and bolts of how this gets done, I've been enjoying Millennial Farmer's channel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbpsfshTfr8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbpsfshTfr8
What's the big deal? It's a plant. Plants spread seed and grow?
I don't understand why GE food works people up?
I don't understand why GE food works people up?
Some people are concerned about the health effects. Others are concerned about the behemoth megacorps who own the patents for these genes may be litigious about who/where they grow.
One concern is the possibility of being sued by Monsanto. Monsanto has promised on its website not to sue farmers if there is inadvertent contamination in their crops. OTOH Monsanto has aggressively sued farmers in other cases. So I guess if you are a farmer and there is contamination happening on your fields, it would be wise to be at least a little scared. (source: https://www.cnbc.com/id/100804327)
They only sue people using their product without a license. They don't sue for natural contamination.
You might not be aware but there is a large anti-GMO conspiracy promoting the idea Monsanto sues farmers for accidental contamination. Even a little bit of research shows it’s mostly if not totally fake.
Would it bother you if someone generically engineered wild animals as they pleased and released them to procreate? Could you imagine any possible negative consequences?
Having said that I would purchase GE bananas and tomatoes that had a longer shelf life.
Having said that I would purchase GE bananas and tomatoes that had a longer shelf life.
> Having said that I would purchase GE bananas and tomatoes
you already do
you already do
It doesn't seem to be working for me...
Not even close to the same. Wheat is not native to the US, so GE or not, it is technically 'invasive' to the natural ecosystem.
So are pythons in the everglades. Can I modify those?
In the biohacker community they are trying to build a legal framework for allowing genetic modification on a personal basis. Right now they get a lot of government heat even doing private research. I think, like the majority of the HN community it seems, you don't have a very good grasp on genetic engineering or the laws around it.
Depends. How cool is your supervillain lair?
Sure, but good luck catching them.
If licensed seeds accidentally spread and grow in your farm, you get sued. That's why GMO patents are the worst. Also because they are mostly engineered for resisting their awful pesticides and herbicides instead of health and nutrition.
Ok, it's clear that I'm going to get a shit load of downvotes for what I am about to say but the level of ignorance on GE technology and the contracts around patented seeds here on HN is horrendous. I just keep seeing anti-GMO sound bytes that have no basis in reality so here it is.
Farmers don't get sued for natural contamination. Do you really think Monsanto goes around looking for single plants in millions and millions of acres all around the world just so they can try to make a flimsy case before a judge. Monsanto sues people who have significant portions of their seed in their grain stores without a license, because the only way to get that much is by purchasing it from some other farmer who is growing and selling it or by growing it and storing seed for later, which is directly contrary to the license and contract they signed and agreed to. If you can prove farmer John down the road sold it to you and you thought it was natural, then you sue him for your losses on an unlicensed product.
No one said GMO had 0% chance of spreading. What was said was that it was easy to contain because food crops don't thrive in the wild and have very high nutritional needs. So please stop spreading the "they said that it could never escape..." boogeyman sci-fi horror line. No one invested in the development of GMOs has said that to my knowledge and if they have, yes they are idiots or lying, but no it's not a big deal if some are in the wild, because they will die quickly.
Monsanto, along with the other agritech companies, don't field study crops they just whipped up in a lab last night. In the lab they go through several sequencing and single plant trials, not to mention the genes are tested before they even enter the target plant species, THEN they produce enough seeds or plantlings to test in a field. Any significant potential health problems are screened out before it even gets to the field, so no this test case is not a danger to the public. Also the article literally says they have to get permits for new trial plants, so steps are already taken to ensure the plants are a deadly threat to nature or humans.
Lastly, you may not like the whole "not even allowed to regrow them once" stipulation in the farmer contracts, but clearly farmers don't mind it because they line up to buy the stuff. As a farmer, you are either one that grows seed, one that grows product, or in some cases you grow both. They are separate business a lot of the time though. Monsanto's licensing and contract is to stop farmers thinking they can just become a competitor with Monsanto by spending a season farming seed crops and reselling to other farmers. Monsanto and others value come from the fact farmers can increase profits from using their product, if another farmer can grow and resell their product, they have no more business. The fact is, most farmers are fine with the contract and abide by it.
Farmers don't get sued for natural contamination. Do you really think Monsanto goes around looking for single plants in millions and millions of acres all around the world just so they can try to make a flimsy case before a judge. Monsanto sues people who have significant portions of their seed in their grain stores without a license, because the only way to get that much is by purchasing it from some other farmer who is growing and selling it or by growing it and storing seed for later, which is directly contrary to the license and contract they signed and agreed to. If you can prove farmer John down the road sold it to you and you thought it was natural, then you sue him for your losses on an unlicensed product.
No one said GMO had 0% chance of spreading. What was said was that it was easy to contain because food crops don't thrive in the wild and have very high nutritional needs. So please stop spreading the "they said that it could never escape..." boogeyman sci-fi horror line. No one invested in the development of GMOs has said that to my knowledge and if they have, yes they are idiots or lying, but no it's not a big deal if some are in the wild, because they will die quickly.
Monsanto, along with the other agritech companies, don't field study crops they just whipped up in a lab last night. In the lab they go through several sequencing and single plant trials, not to mention the genes are tested before they even enter the target plant species, THEN they produce enough seeds or plantlings to test in a field. Any significant potential health problems are screened out before it even gets to the field, so no this test case is not a danger to the public. Also the article literally says they have to get permits for new trial plants, so steps are already taken to ensure the plants are a deadly threat to nature or humans.
Lastly, you may not like the whole "not even allowed to regrow them once" stipulation in the farmer contracts, but clearly farmers don't mind it because they line up to buy the stuff. As a farmer, you are either one that grows seed, one that grows product, or in some cases you grow both. They are separate business a lot of the time though. Monsanto's licensing and contract is to stop farmers thinking they can just become a competitor with Monsanto by spending a season farming seed crops and reselling to other farmers. Monsanto and others value come from the fact farmers can increase profits from using their product, if another farmer can grow and resell their product, they have no more business. The fact is, most farmers are fine with the contract and abide by it.
[deleted]
Life finds a way.
— Dr Malcolm, Jurassic Park
— Dr Malcolm, Jurassic Park
It's still life, why wouldn't it do this?
We find unplanted weeds all the time, it's just a fact of life that plants spread.
Unless they pose any danger to anyone (which would surprise me), I don't see why all of this fuzz is being made.
Unless they pose any danger to anyone (which would surprise me), I don't see why all of this fuzz is being made.
What if you get sued by the IP owners for growing 'their' crops?
This question is FUD. You are probably referring to Bowman v Monsanto:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.
It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case.
What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop?
What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop?
What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
> It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale.
Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life.
Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year.
Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year.
Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
> Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong
Why is it morally wrong?
Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
Why is it morally wrong?
Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
"We've been doing it for (years/decades/centuries)" is not, in itself, an argument that something is safe, wise, or moral.
If you wish to argue that imposing patents preventing farmers from replanting seeds is moral, then it seems like it would make sense to actually make an argument that addresses the morality in any way, shape, or form.
If you wish to argue that imposing patents preventing farmers from replanting seeds is moral, then it seems like it would make sense to actually make an argument that addresses the morality in any way, shape, or form.
They signed the contract when they bought the seed. They entered the agreement willingly. No different then when you skip past the EULA on a video game saying you won't distribute it or crack it.
That...has absolutely nothing to do with patents. Or morality.
The contract is directly between the farmers and Monsanto; patents are filed with the government, and have force no matter what contracts exist.
And "they signed the contract" is a purely legal argument, it has no moral force. Particularly given your apt analogy to EULAs, indicating clearly that the large companies create contracts that are a) guaranteed to provide disproportionate benefits to them, and b) effectively impossible for laypeople to understand without assistance. Sure, it's legal for them to create contracts like this...but would you really argue that it's moral?
The contract is directly between the farmers and Monsanto; patents are filed with the government, and have force no matter what contracts exist.
And "they signed the contract" is a purely legal argument, it has no moral force. Particularly given your apt analogy to EULAs, indicating clearly that the large companies create contracts that are a) guaranteed to provide disproportionate benefits to them, and b) effectively impossible for laypeople to understand without assistance. Sure, it's legal for them to create contracts like this...but would you really argue that it's moral?
I said contract because you used patent incorrectly. You think the patent is what stops farmers from replanting but it's the contract and the licensing. The patent stops other companies from using the genes to create their own seed. (I'm incorrect here. Just took a look at Monsanto's patent page and they say they do use it to assert breeding rights. I guess the laws around DNA aren't defined enough for licensing and contracts alone.)
And yes it is moral. They are not under durress. There are plenty of competitive viable alternatives. The contract is very clear in the farmers inability to replant as so many are quick to point out. And all parties consented. Farmer gets a product, business gets money. Business makes sure they have a future by making sure the farmer doesn't regrow their product and sell to other farmers.
Tell me why it isn't moral. Are you advocating that patents and product licenses are immoral.
And yes it is moral. They are not under durress. There are plenty of competitive viable alternatives. The contract is very clear in the farmers inability to replant as so many are quick to point out. And all parties consented. Farmer gets a product, business gets money. Business makes sure they have a future by making sure the farmer doesn't regrow their product and sell to other farmers.
Tell me why it isn't moral. Are you advocating that patents and product licenses are immoral.
If a farmer unknowingly plants Monsanto seed because another farmer sold it to him. The purchaser can sue the seller for damages just like any other business. It has everything to do with contracts because the only people getting sued are the ones that have enough seed to plant a second crop. That second crop came from a farmer who signed a contract saying they wouldn't grow seed crops or resell their seed. So someone in the chain broke their contract trying to undercut Monsanto business.
Uh what. They've never sold terminator seeds. Who told you they did. And if they did why would replanting even matter if it doesn't work.
What about data then. Data can be copied and moved between devices. Should we not have IP laws around digital assets either.
They aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
All patents are supposed to be exhausted after first sale. Are you not familiar with this or are you saying it's not applicable here or that it's not interpreted correctly?
"The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U....
They still tried to patent an organism.
> They still tried to patent an organism.
There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutation...
There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutation...
Why is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
Someone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another?
Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
Most these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
Charging money for some arbitrary work isn't some natural right, granting the ability to patent something isn't some natural right. Maths isn't patentable, for a long time it wasn't obvious that computer programs were either. Patents are a construct to encourage R & D, therefore disagreeing about the patentability of something isn't quasi religious.
Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden? What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it...
So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for.
"viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms." https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm
Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden? What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it...
So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for.
"viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms." https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm
> Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
This raises the question whether advances in medicine should be able to be patented. With jacked up insulin prices causing people to risk their lives rationing doses, I'm not sure it's a good thing. I know patents create an investment incentive, but I have to wonder if there's not a better way. And government subsidized research adds another layer of complexity, although I'm not sure if that can or can't be patented in various jurisdictions.
Also, many people here are opposed to software patents (imo rightfully so), so it should be unsurprising that they'd be against patenting crops.
This raises the question whether advances in medicine should be able to be patented. With jacked up insulin prices causing people to risk their lives rationing doses, I'm not sure it's a good thing. I know patents create an investment incentive, but I have to wonder if there's not a better way. And government subsidized research adds another layer of complexity, although I'm not sure if that can or can't be patented in various jurisdictions.
Also, many people here are opposed to software patents (imo rightfully so), so it should be unsurprising that they'd be against patenting crops.
One of the promises made when introducing genetically modified plants into the ecosystem was that it was perfectly possible to control and prevent their spread. This is an obvious counterexample.
I'd like to see where you've heard that promise. The only thing close to that I have heard is that farmers can take similar steps to stop unwanted plants on their fields that they already do.
Who, specifically, made such a statement?
Because we have very little feedback on the long term effect of new bio techs. Because they have the potential to have a cascading effect on human healt and the entire ecosystem. Because the people selling them have no incentive to make sure they are safe on the long run since corporations almost never pay anything for their mistakes, and when they do it's a small percent of what they gained from them. Because the only decent thing we got out of them was the assurance, and a lie, that they can contain it.
It took 80 years from finding out asbestos killed people to banning it. Cigarets were sold as healthy, then opponents were fought to the bones. The pharmaceutical companies are making sure the US is becomming addict to opioid and prepare to sell people drugs to get out of addiction as well. Because we are talking about a country that had a president that lied about WMD to get to invade another country, and another one that govern using tweets, and they are in charge of keeping things in check. Because humans already have to face war, global warming and heavy pollution thanks to their careless nature.
It's not about morality. It's not about conviction. It's just not wanting to jump without a parachute. Powerful techs, all of them, be it AI, nanobots or GMO, should be under amazing scrutiny and people using them in a constant state of audit for the next 50 years.
That this is even questionable is beyond me.
It took 80 years from finding out asbestos killed people to banning it. Cigarets were sold as healthy, then opponents were fought to the bones. The pharmaceutical companies are making sure the US is becomming addict to opioid and prepare to sell people drugs to get out of addiction as well. Because we are talking about a country that had a president that lied about WMD to get to invade another country, and another one that govern using tweets, and they are in charge of keeping things in check. Because humans already have to face war, global warming and heavy pollution thanks to their careless nature.
It's not about morality. It's not about conviction. It's just not wanting to jump without a parachute. Powerful techs, all of them, be it AI, nanobots or GMO, should be under amazing scrutiny and people using them in a constant state of audit for the next 50 years.
That this is even questionable is beyond me.
Sounds like a bunch of boogey man talk to me. None of what you have said has anything to do with the actual practice of genetic modification. It's solely unfounded paranoia. Not a single one of those has ANY relation to biotech companies other than the fact they are companies.
You're first paragraph was also full of falsehoods.
>> have no incentive to make sure they are safe on the long run since corporations almost never pay anything for their mistakes
Money and criminal prosecution, those are some good incentives. Also, corporations are constantly being sued. Some don't correct their mistakes because the people suing aren't interested in the global welfare either their interested in money so they settle. Also, I keep seeing the "they said that it would never spread" idea, I never recall any invested proponent say that there was 100% containment. Not once.
Also it is fairly easy though to contain, most of the crops that are modified have very high nutritional demands, they need regular watering, regular nitrates and minerals, near perfect soil. I take it, from the looks of the comments, there are practically no HN community members from a farming background. Most of these plants will die without farmers or being in a field prepared by farmers. That's why weeds are such a problem for farmers, they outcompete their very needy crops. The only real exception I can think of (out of the modified crops) that can thrive on its own is potatoes, the rest of them are very needy and don't do well in the wild. Even with potatoes though they spread best by spuds, the seeds are tiny and die easy. But that's why the others were the first targets for modification, to resist the chemicals required to suppress competition.
You're first paragraph was also full of falsehoods.
>> have no incentive to make sure they are safe on the long run since corporations almost never pay anything for their mistakes
Money and criminal prosecution, those are some good incentives. Also, corporations are constantly being sued. Some don't correct their mistakes because the people suing aren't interested in the global welfare either their interested in money so they settle. Also, I keep seeing the "they said that it would never spread" idea, I never recall any invested proponent say that there was 100% containment. Not once.
Also it is fairly easy though to contain, most of the crops that are modified have very high nutritional demands, they need regular watering, regular nitrates and minerals, near perfect soil. I take it, from the looks of the comments, there are practically no HN community members from a farming background. Most of these plants will die without farmers or being in a field prepared by farmers. That's why weeds are such a problem for farmers, they outcompete their very needy crops. The only real exception I can think of (out of the modified crops) that can thrive on its own is potatoes, the rest of them are very needy and don't do well in the wild. Even with potatoes though they spread best by spuds, the seeds are tiny and die easy. But that's why the others were the first targets for modification, to resist the chemicals required to suppress competition.
They probably shot the plant's genome with gold buckshot laced with new genes. The plants survived that, they grow in the fields and then migrate like everything else. They are viable. The genes may be able to be pollinated to other plants. Maybe incorporated, but if they can't outgrow weeds better than the non gmo, then it all is on equal footing. The qualities we want in a mono crop may not cross to the wilds.
Sure.
That doesn't invalidate my point though.
Let's not trust that things will go according to plan, or that the people making the plan have the proper agenda.
That doesn't invalidate my point though.
Let's not trust that things will go according to plan, or that the people making the plan have the proper agenda.
But is there any indication, that genetically modified plants do pose a danger to health, or the environment?
I mean with cigarettes it should have been obvious, you inhale, you cough. Maybe not good.
But with plants? In the food chain they just get digested. And in the wild they are either strong enough to be a new breed, or, more likely they fail and die out.
I mean with cigarettes it should have been obvious, you inhale, you cough. Maybe not good.
But with plants? In the food chain they just get digested. And in the wild they are either strong enough to be a new breed, or, more likely they fail and die out.
It's too early to tell. But when we build a nuclear reactor, we don't just make safety systems for likely events. We make them also for very, very unlikely ones. Because the potential risk is huge.
It's the same here. The potential risk is huge. We still have a hard time with things as simple as not killing each others, so thinking we are mastering introduction of these variables into such a complex systems is delusional at best, arrogant at worst.
Given that the people in charge of this are motivated by profit, and that we have history proving such entities will not do the right thing for humanity given the chance, let's not trust them.
Audit them to the ground. Force them to justify themself for 5 decades at every step. Make it transparent, systematic, and independant.
Working on GMO is ok. Trusting them to be safe because lobbists say so is not.
It's the same here. The potential risk is huge. We still have a hard time with things as simple as not killing each others, so thinking we are mastering introduction of these variables into such a complex systems is delusional at best, arrogant at worst.
Given that the people in charge of this are motivated by profit, and that we have history proving such entities will not do the right thing for humanity given the chance, let's not trust them.
Audit them to the ground. Force them to justify themself for 5 decades at every step. Make it transparent, systematic, and independant.
Working on GMO is ok. Trusting them to be safe because lobbists say so is not.
Yes, but in a reactor you know the dangers you protect against.
What are the potential dangers with gmo?
edit: "Working on GMO is ok. Trusting them to be safe because lobbists say so is not. "
And no I don't. I just dont see any reason why they should not be safe.
(their monoculture use with pesticides excluded. that is a different problem)
What are the potential dangers with gmo?
edit: "Working on GMO is ok. Trusting them to be safe because lobbists say so is not. "
And no I don't. I just dont see any reason why they should not be safe.
(their monoculture use with pesticides excluded. that is a different problem)
Most people didn't see any danger to something as simple as sugar 30 years ago. We added it everywhere, and now have an obese US population with sky high diabetes levels.
Sugar is not complicated.
The millions of DNA pairs of the millions of species of living things, all interacting, is complicated. Also, we eat those.
So we understand probably 4 percent of it, and we tweak the settings. I don't see any scenario where this is not a serious risk.
If you play with something on a huge scale that you don't fully understand, safety first.
But the worst part for me is that we have to defend the point of view of asking for being careful. Look at this thread. All I'm suggesting is a non compromising auditing system, and it's a debate !
This is insane. It should be the opposite. If you want to opt out of the safety net of humanity, you better make your case.
Sugar is not complicated.
The millions of DNA pairs of the millions of species of living things, all interacting, is complicated. Also, we eat those.
So we understand probably 4 percent of it, and we tweak the settings. I don't see any scenario where this is not a serious risk.
If you play with something on a huge scale that you don't fully understand, safety first.
But the worst part for me is that we have to defend the point of view of asking for being careful. Look at this thread. All I'm suggesting is a non compromising auditing system, and it's a debate !
This is insane. It should be the opposite. If you want to opt out of the safety net of humanity, you better make your case.
I am so happy I'm not alone with this.
I'm totally with you. This is insane and REALLY scary...
Now I'm wondering why to be surprised if bigcorps don't care about others future when the individuals don't really care (~=want to make sure everything will be fine and not just assuming things won't break).
WDYT, what can we do about that issue? I'm totally staggered.
I'm totally with you. This is insane and REALLY scary...
Now I'm wondering why to be surprised if bigcorps don't care about others future when the individuals don't really care (~=want to make sure everything will be fine and not just assuming things won't break).
WDYT, what can we do about that issue? I'm totally staggered.
No, you generally assume that GMO are unsafe. And people would like to know, why? Any particular reason except the fear of the unknown?
Except the unknown? This is the main reason for me as well.
It's like a stranger coming to you with a pill: eat that. I'm sure I won't "just because" its unknown and there is a real chance it might go wrong. If I can't even estimate this chance its worse, it does mean I can not responsibly take the action.
It's like a stranger coming to you with a pill: eat that. I'm sure I won't "just because" its unknown and there is a real chance it might go wrong. If I can't even estimate this chance its worse, it does mean I can not responsibly take the action.
One of the big problems we always forget in the moment is that problems do not always present themselves in obvious ways. Leaded fuel is a great, and very recent, example. It remained legal for the better part of a century with numerous government declarations of its safety. One part of this was extensive lobbying and "research" from the industry players claiming it was safe, but the actual problem is that its problems manifest in very difficult to measure ways and over very long periods of time. You're not going to start wheezing and coughing around leaded fuel, at least not anymore so than unleaded fuel. And generally you'd seem to be completely unaffected given typical exposure levels.
Yet of course you aren't unaffected. Even today we we're not entirely certain of everything that leaded fuel fume exposure causes, let alone the exact mechanism for such. What we do know is that there is an apparent causal relationship between leaded fuel exposure, particularly during one's developmental years, and increased criminality, lower IQ, and other such things. But you're not going to show this in any sort of brief experiment and even over longterm experiments it can be difficult to discern the issues. I mean if we didn't already know as much, the idea that inhaling negligible amounts of gas fumes (in terms of parts per x) over years could somehow cause increased crime rates or even low IQs sounds pretty absurd. But our bodies react in ways that often belie intuition.
So you're left to look at things comparatively. How do people who do 'x' compare to people who do not do 'x' over years or decades? How do their children do? With GM crops we have a pretty ideal test suite since most of the world adopted these crops sparingly or not at all while in the United States near 100% of crops of certain crucial types are now genetically engineered. So how do young Americans, especially those born after the mid 90s, compare to those from other nations in terms of physical health, mental health, and other behaviors? Of course there are a million confounding variables here, some such as the growth of the internet can be controlled for but others cannot.
So this is something that would require extensive research and work to actively study. Presumably this would be the purview of agencies such as the FDA. Unfortunately, with our government this [1] was the last head of the FDA. A Monsanto VP lawyer who argued for things such as allowing corporations to knowingly allow at least a small amount of carcinogens into processed foods. That man determined food safety in the US for the majority of the last administration, and I doubt the current administration would have much interest in such research either. So instead we get no meaningful oversight, negligible or poorly formulated longitudinal research, and instead are left to rely primarily on the ethics of companies such as Monsanto.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
Yet of course you aren't unaffected. Even today we we're not entirely certain of everything that leaded fuel fume exposure causes, let alone the exact mechanism for such. What we do know is that there is an apparent causal relationship between leaded fuel exposure, particularly during one's developmental years, and increased criminality, lower IQ, and other such things. But you're not going to show this in any sort of brief experiment and even over longterm experiments it can be difficult to discern the issues. I mean if we didn't already know as much, the idea that inhaling negligible amounts of gas fumes (in terms of parts per x) over years could somehow cause increased crime rates or even low IQs sounds pretty absurd. But our bodies react in ways that often belie intuition.
So you're left to look at things comparatively. How do people who do 'x' compare to people who do not do 'x' over years or decades? How do their children do? With GM crops we have a pretty ideal test suite since most of the world adopted these crops sparingly or not at all while in the United States near 100% of crops of certain crucial types are now genetically engineered. So how do young Americans, especially those born after the mid 90s, compare to those from other nations in terms of physical health, mental health, and other behaviors? Of course there are a million confounding variables here, some such as the growth of the internet can be controlled for but others cannot.
So this is something that would require extensive research and work to actively study. Presumably this would be the purview of agencies such as the FDA. Unfortunately, with our government this [1] was the last head of the FDA. A Monsanto VP lawyer who argued for things such as allowing corporations to knowingly allow at least a small amount of carcinogens into processed foods. That man determined food safety in the US for the majority of the last administration, and I doubt the current administration would have much interest in such research either. So instead we get no meaningful oversight, negligible or poorly formulated longitudinal research, and instead are left to rely primarily on the ethics of companies such as Monsanto.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor
Other than leaded gas, you can look at the sugar industry.
Hemlock is viable, that says nothing about it being good to eat.
> Because they have the potential to have a cascading effect on human healt and the entire ecosystem.
No they don't. This is stuff from scifi movies. Farmers have grown GMO crops for over 20 years, and there is not even a hint of an observation or theory on how they could cause any cascading effects.
No they don't. This is stuff from scifi movies. Farmers have grown GMO crops for over 20 years, and there is not even a hint of an observation or theory on how they could cause any cascading effects.
20 years is amazingly short for ecosystems. Give it a century.
Also, it took us 40 years to realize we may be responsible for global warning, and some still doubt it, or have an agenda to spread doubt.
So you have to take in consideration that if we ever discover we messed up, inertia is going to be the doom of us.
Besides, scifi movies have proven to be not so bad at predicting how much we suck.
All in all, there is little downside to act safe, and it's very risky to not act as such. There is no emergency to get GMO everywhere, just an economic push. No, even this bs about solving world hunger, which is not a technical problem.
So let's be good citizens and don't assume things will go our way just because we want to.
GMO can arrive at a slower pace. And the very fact people are making it take the fast lane, screaming it's ok with no evidence, is a very good sign we don't have things under control: money does.
So when a big corporation tells you they can contain GMO, and you get prove they couldn't, you don't defend them. It's not rational, nor good for democracy.
Also, it took us 40 years to realize we may be responsible for global warning, and some still doubt it, or have an agenda to spread doubt.
So you have to take in consideration that if we ever discover we messed up, inertia is going to be the doom of us.
Besides, scifi movies have proven to be not so bad at predicting how much we suck.
All in all, there is little downside to act safe, and it's very risky to not act as such. There is no emergency to get GMO everywhere, just an economic push. No, even this bs about solving world hunger, which is not a technical problem.
So let's be good citizens and don't assume things will go our way just because we want to.
GMO can arrive at a slower pace. And the very fact people are making it take the fast lane, screaming it's ok with no evidence, is a very good sign we don't have things under control: money does.
So when a big corporation tells you they can contain GMO, and you get prove they couldn't, you don't defend them. It's not rational, nor good for democracy.
> Also, it took us 40 years to realize we may be responsible for global warning
There is a known mechanism for global warming: CO2. If you invoke the precautionary principle for everything without any requirement for scientifically feasible mechanism causing the imagined adverse effects, you can oppose everything. Why did we make use of the internet and wifi and cell phones right away, instead of slowly introducing them over a 100 year transition period? After all, there would have been little downside in acting safe and slow?
There is a known mechanism for global warming: CO2. If you invoke the precautionary principle for everything without any requirement for scientifically feasible mechanism causing the imagined adverse effects, you can oppose everything. Why did we make use of the internet and wifi and cell phones right away, instead of slowly introducing them over a 100 year transition period? After all, there would have been little downside in acting safe and slow?
The point of the precautionary principle is we don't know the mechanism. And that's the correct approach -- because our understanding of human health, the environment, and the ecosystem is still in its infancy.
That's why we do testing in most areas. That's the point of the FDA -- EVERY new drug must be presumed unsafe and tested. Such an attitude would serve us well if it were applied to widespread environmental concerns. Otherwise it'll be self-interested corporations with a damning track record (e.g. DuPont) making the calls[1].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont_(1802%E2%80%932017)#Con...
That's why we do testing in most areas. That's the point of the FDA -- EVERY new drug must be presumed unsafe and tested. Such an attitude would serve us well if it were applied to widespread environmental concerns. Otherwise it'll be self-interested corporations with a damning track record (e.g. DuPont) making the calls[1].
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuPont_(1802%E2%80%932017)#Con...
I'd agree with wifi and cell phones being introduced in a slower way actually.
We don't need a 100 years though, since there is only one thing to check: if it affects us directly. We don't have the same cascading effect potential, nor nearly the same number of possible interactions.
And we already know that cell phones affect us by the way: the new generation already present an attention and focus deficit because of the constant solicitation of the cell phone. Privacy is being denied more and more. We've created huge amount of electronic wastes.
So yeah, I wish we had took a little more time instead of jumping full throttle into it. Or at least follow the effects and react.
But we are not a very reasonable specie.
We don't need a 100 years though, since there is only one thing to check: if it affects us directly. We don't have the same cascading effect potential, nor nearly the same number of possible interactions.
And we already know that cell phones affect us by the way: the new generation already present an attention and focus deficit because of the constant solicitation of the cell phone. Privacy is being denied more and more. We've created huge amount of electronic wastes.
So yeah, I wish we had took a little more time instead of jumping full throttle into it. Or at least follow the effects and react.
But we are not a very reasonable specie.
Literally everything you're talking about applies to selective breeding of crops as much as it does transgenic crops (what people typically mean by GMO). It applies even more so to irradiated seeds, which - strangely - no one seems to mind or want labels on.
Randomly changing millions of base pairs: good. Precisely cutting a gene from one crop and putting it in another: bad. Baffling.
Randomly changing millions of base pairs: good. Precisely cutting a gene from one crop and putting it in another: bad. Baffling.
One is using a self-safe system that has been tuned for balance for 1000000 of years and have a proven track record and no agenda. The second one is made by a few smart people for only 20 years for money.
The second one has to prove to be safe. It's funny that all of HN hold boing so responsible for demonstrating things are safe when it affect only a few hundred people. But we have to be taking the word of people playing with new high tech toys for their own benefit that have the potential to affect the entire humanity because... ?
The second one has to prove to be safe. It's funny that all of HN hold boing so responsible for demonstrating things are safe when it affect only a few hundred people. But we have to be taking the word of people playing with new high tech toys for their own benefit that have the potential to affect the entire humanity because... ?
How do you figure it's self-safe? That implies that selectively bred crops can't be harmful, but that's nonsensical. Many selectively bred crops carry higher than natural carcinogen quantities, for instance (potatoes). And that's ignoring plants that are straight-up deadly.
And which category does seed irradiation fall into? If exposing seeds to high radiation in order to randomly mutate them is an acceptable "non-GMO" mechanism, clearly something is wrong.
And which category does seed irradiation fall into? If exposing seeds to high radiation in order to randomly mutate them is an acceptable "non-GMO" mechanism, clearly something is wrong.
Because it worked for a lot longer than 20 years. In 100 years, without GMO problems, we can label them safe too.
Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that would make it creates things like the terminator gene. We are in a very peculiar situation.
I'm open to see how it plays out, as long as we don't arrogantly pretend we know for sure everything will be ok. Because we heard this one before, and it was always stated by people that wanted to sound trustworthy or smart, never the ones that wanted to make sure we are all happy.
Besides, how asking for severe and regular audits is even a bad thing ? If one is against that, I trust their judgment even less.
Plus evolution doesn't have an agenda that would make it creates things like the terminator gene. We are in a very peculiar situation.
I'm open to see how it plays out, as long as we don't arrogantly pretend we know for sure everything will be ok. Because we heard this one before, and it was always stated by people that wanted to sound trustworthy or smart, never the ones that wanted to make sure we are all happy.
Besides, how asking for severe and regular audits is even a bad thing ? If one is against that, I trust their judgment even less.
Seed irradiation hasn't yet been in use for 100 years -- the first commercial crop to use it was ~80 years ago -- but we consider it safe, despite that it consists of forcing completely random changes to occur. Why? Because we don't talk about the safety of the process; we talk about the safety of the result.
There's no way we can ever say "GMOs are safe" because it's like saying "crops grown during the 14th week of the year are safe". It's a technique, not a product.
There's no way we can ever say "GMOs are safe" because it's like saying "crops grown during the 14th week of the year are safe". It's a technique, not a product.
Food irradiation in general is yet another issue, that deserves a different threat.
The parent isn’t talking about food irradiation, they’re talking about atomic gardening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_gardening
Anthrax is "self-safe" too. It's an organism made by evolution.
Anthrax is not cultivated by the most invasive specy of the planet, given artificial characteristics to be optimized only for economic incentive, and would have never be allowed by natural selection to have such things as the terminator gene.
I'm not saying nature is good and benevolent, I'm saying there is a difference in having uranium in the ground or in a bomb.
I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. Or would you let any company deal with uranium without serious follow up ?
I'm not saying nature is good and benevolent, I'm saying there is a difference in having uranium in the ground or in a bomb.
I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing. Or would you let any company deal with uranium without serious follow up ?
> would have never be allowed by natural selection to have such things as the terminator gene
Many eusocial insect species (ants, bees, termites) have sterile worker and soldier castes. In some cases, the soldiers have such enlarged jaws that they are even unable to eat on their own, the workers need to feed them. A sterile soldier unable to eat, that's real natural selection for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#Paradox
Many eusocial insect species (ants, bees, termites) have sterile worker and soldier castes. In some cases, the soldiers have such enlarged jaws that they are even unable to eat on their own, the workers need to feed them. A sterile soldier unable to eat, that's real natural selection for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality#Paradox
There is a purpose in that for the colony, so it evolved that way. And of course it took time, and a lot of small adaptive trials, to get there.
There is not purpose in that for the plant, hence it would not have evolved that way. And of course we just made a big leap out of it.
My point with the terminator gene is not about the feature itself, but the concept: we make fast and important changes with very narrow objectives that have zero logic into the system context. It's just for a few people's short term gain.
There is not purpose in that for the plant, hence it would not have evolved that way. And of course we just made a big leap out of it.
My point with the terminator gene is not about the feature itself, but the concept: we make fast and important changes with very narrow objectives that have zero logic into the system context. It's just for a few people's short term gain.
This is a teleological position, assuming that the end purpose carries intrinsic bearing on the worth of the process that produces that end. It's the same sort of logic behind anti-vax.
Evolution doesn't magically become dangerous just because it's been done in a lab. It's dangerous when it has measurable deleterious effects on biological systems.
Evolution doesn't magically become dangerous just because it's been done in a lab. It's dangerous when it has measurable deleterious effects on biological systems.
> I don't think asking for serious, regular, transparent, independant audit for decades is a bad thing.
You're right! It's a great thing, in fact. That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year.
Also, I'm a touch baffled by the mention of Terminator genes. 1) They've never existed. There's a patent on it, owned by a company who has pledged to never use it or allow any other company to do so. 2) It solves all the issues regarding drift, which is often a thing anti-GMO folks are concerned about. Never quite understood that.
You're right! It's a great thing, in fact. That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year.
Also, I'm a touch baffled by the mention of Terminator genes. 1) They've never existed. There's a patent on it, owned by a company who has pledged to never use it or allow any other company to do so. 2) It solves all the issues regarding drift, which is often a thing anti-GMO folks are concerned about. Never quite understood that.
- studies != audits
- most of those studies are used to demonstrate if something is doable. Few are targeting safety, even fewer are long enough or on a large scale enough to answer the previously raised concerned, and almost none are by independent entities.
- GMO have been planted and sold for consumption way before we had proof of short term and scale safety through independent studies. I have zero trust in the will to do the right thing of their manufacturers, either to fund objective studies for long term and large scale or to act humanly if those reveals something bad.
- the terminator gene is just an image I use, really, for the kind of modifications that we can think of, but that would not evolve out of a living system
- most of those studies are used to demonstrate if something is doable. Few are targeting safety, even fewer are long enough or on a large scale enough to answer the previously raised concerned, and almost none are by independent entities.
- GMO have been planted and sold for consumption way before we had proof of short term and scale safety through independent studies. I have zero trust in the will to do the right thing of their manufacturers, either to fund objective studies for long term and large scale or to act humanly if those reveals something bad.
- the terminator gene is just an image I use, really, for the kind of modifications that we can think of, but that would not evolve out of a living system
> That's why there are over 3000 studies on GMO crops so far, with hundreds more happening each year.
How many are funded by the GMO industry?
How many are funded by the GMO industry?
How many chemistry studies are funded by chemical companies?
Studies are usually not answers to public concern questions, but a way people working in a domain figure things out about that domain.
Studies are usually not answers to public concern questions, but a way people working in a domain figure things out about that domain.
How incredibly naive.
Industries funding favourable research is the oldest trick in the book. See climate change studies, tobacco, etc.
Industries funding favourable research is the oldest trick in the book. See climate change studies, tobacco, etc.
The "research sponsored by Big $Foo" is also getting a tired meme. By itself, taking in money does not mean research is biased - there needs to be conflict of interest involved. Sometimes it's easy to point it out (e.g. "roundup & cancer" studies with monetary ties to Monsanto), but that doesn't mean every study that was funded by industry is biased. People working there need to get at least some of these things right some of the time; they don't benefit from biasing a study they're using themselves to make sure their product works or meets safety regulations.
I think the larger point still stands. It's my understanding that most fruit you eat these days is clones of the exact same source.
In fact, many varieties of apples are completely unable to reproduce by seed, only by clone. It's cool that we've made these cool hybrids, but it seems like nobody is thinking about the systemic environmental risk.
In fact, many varieties of apples are completely unable to reproduce by seed, only by clone. It's cool that we've made these cool hybrids, but it seems like nobody is thinking about the systemic environmental risk.
literally almost nothing he was talking about has anything to do with the differences between GMO and selective breeding, but it was a master-stroke of debate tactics for you to lead the discussion into that and away from his actual point. good work.
> Because they have the potential to have a cascading effect on human healt and the entire ecosystem.
Why should the risk be any higher in GMOs than it is in any new species, of which there are thousands discovered every year?
Why should the risk be any higher in GMOs than it is in any new species, of which there are thousands discovered every year?
‘Discovered’ is entirely different than being genetically engineered.
Because of agenda, scale, speed, scale, intertia and power. See other comments.
This is my main concern as well. I've tried having some discussions on this with the /r/farming subreddit and I just get down-voted
We were told they could and would contain it to the designated fields. We were told that we should not worry about it spreading.
What do farmers do when those weeds are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides and pests and to grow faster and more aggressively than the desired crop, to the extent that existing weed strategies are no longer effective?
Till the ground and rip them out like they do every planting cycle already.
Ironic that so much caution is given to the harmless genetically modified plant, when the real danger is with the Roundup chemical itself.
AGREED. Upvoted.
I'm pro GMO, the science is very sound and uses techniques directly from nature to modify plants, so it's not like we are making something that can't shouldn't exist. But I've always said, its our addiction to the pesticides and soil neglect that is far more harmful than any of these approved GMOs are going to pose.
I'm pro GMO, the science is very sound and uses techniques directly from nature to modify plants, so it's not like we are making something that can't shouldn't exist. But I've always said, its our addiction to the pesticides and soil neglect that is far more harmful than any of these approved GMOs are going to pose.
How can you be so sure that new GE food is perfectly fine? Our digestive system is incredibly complex and we may not be able to know the specific interactions that is going on inside our bodies.
Yeah its also incredibly adaptive. You hardly know any specific interaction with anything you come into contact with on a daily basis, doesn't mean you hide in a bubble your whole life. The body deals with things as they come at it, thank evolution or we would have been extinct long ago. Every time our species moved to a new region we were introduced to completely new foods. GMOs are tiny variants of what we are already used to. I'm sure we'll do fine.
I'm curious to know though. What specific complexity are you worried about disrupting.
I'm curious to know though. What specific complexity are you worried about disrupting.
So what I gather from the article is that the wheat was engineered by Monsanto to resist Roundup, a Monsanto product. Get rid of Monsanto and the whole drama is unnecessary.
The only drama is coming from the GE illiterate anti-GMO crowd. They are just as bad as the Anti-Vax crowd if you ask me. They don't understand the science, it's been perfectly safe for decades, the GE toolkit is literally taken from nature because it does it all the time, and millions of dollars are spent every year to increase the effectiveness and accuracy of the modifications.
I think one concern is horizontal gene transfer, from one species of plant to another. We may end up with a weed that is resistant to roundup.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/58/1/1/515544
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/58/1/1/515544
I don't understand why that is a reasonable concern but I'm not an expert so would like to learn if there is a reason.
My logic is that Monsanto got the gene that gives the wheat its resistance to RoundUp (aka glyphosate) from Agrobacterium (see 1) which is perfectly capable of horizontal gene transfer into plants itself, without Monsanto helping (see 2). Also, there are plenty of weed species that are already glyphosate resistant (see 3). I suspect that a greater problem is that widespread and frequent use of glyphosate will increase the prevalence of resistance in weeds.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineer...
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium
3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29024306
My logic is that Monsanto got the gene that gives the wheat its resistance to RoundUp (aka glyphosate) from Agrobacterium (see 1) which is perfectly capable of horizontal gene transfer into plants itself, without Monsanto helping (see 2). Also, there are plenty of weed species that are already glyphosate resistant (see 3). I suspect that a greater problem is that widespread and frequent use of glyphosate will increase the prevalence of resistance in weeds.
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineer...
2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrobacterium
3 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29024306
Your understanding is close, they sourced bacteria from puddles that had glyphosate resistant bacteria, then they modify agrobacterium that are specific to whatever crop they are trying to modify. Every cell in a plant has to be able to fend off disease because there is no central immune system. So agrobacterium inject their DNA into plant DNA so the cells think they are not a threat. So, if you have an altered agrobacterium, then those altered genes are passed on as well. BUT, to grow a whole new plant, you have to cut the infected cells out, grow a callus, then grow an actual plant from the callus before it can even produce seeds. Very few plants can grow from clones like that in the wild AND you need to have enough cells that have the same modification for any significant chance of growing a modified plant. So the odds of a single aphid injecting agrobacterium in a cell, then that cell somehow falling off, growing in a medium that can support callus development, then also somehow developing roots in an auxin rich environment, all before the seasons kill it off so it can spread seeds are very slim indeed.
Being that all of the techniques used in the industry are based off of nature anyways, if it is plausible for GMOs to do it, then normal plants have been doing it before GMOs even existed.
Being that all of the techniques used in the industry are based off of nature anyways, if it is plausible for GMOs to do it, then normal plants have been doing it before GMOs even existed.
Good riddance. They'll have to come up with yet another pesticide. The whole way we're doing agriculture has little regard for ecology and endemic species. Palm tree crops are replacing jungle, GE crops already replaced what used to be bison prairies. The bison are an almost extinct species.
Also the EU will stop buying wheat that is known to have been GE contaminated.
Also the EU will stop buying wheat that is known to have been GE contaminated.
This is between mitochondrial genomes, not plant genomes. Unless the roundup genes are part of the mitochondrial, not the nuclear, genome, this doesn’t apply.
Surely this is why we should have caution, because if it escapes it's very hard to control. This wheat was never commercially sold, what if the reason for that was that it was a danger to human health. Do you just want it popping up anyway?
Well that's not the reason, the reason is they are testing it out and seeing if it expresses the desired traits. They do extensive testing and sequencing in a lab before it even enters an open field.
Exactly... The debate should not be if GE is good or bad (it's a tool which can be either), but instead if the individual use of GE is good or bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJiIuQyStr4
The fuzz is absolutely warranted.
Added: Monsanto licenses you seeds, you are not even allowed to grow them once (i. e. you are not allowed to use next-generation seeds). And GM plants might be more adapted, and start displace the “natural” ones. And they are all owned by Monsanto.