GMOs Perfected Down to the Chromosome Level

Roland Piquepaille writes "If don't like the concept of 'Frankenfoods,' I have bad news for you. U.S. researchers have developed an artificial chromosome for corn plants. The Chicago Tribune reports that researchers can now make chromosomes to order. These artificial chromosomes are accepted as natural by the plants and passed through generations. As the Monsanto Company bought rights to use this mini-chromosome stacking technology in corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola, I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?)."

Testing

[navtal (943711)]

Not that it will be tested enough before it is grown and distributed. It wont be long before people all over the world are breathing clouds of genetically engineered pollen. Is this bad? Maybe. But is bothers me a little.

More Bothersome - economics of it

[spineboy (22918)]

I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.
    It's not like mistakes ever happen with this stuff either. Look at Australia with it's toad and rabbit control problems, when a species is introduced out of its normal environment. What if the GM crop wildely displaces the natural crops by "accident". The company can give the growth chemical for free at first or for a nominal fee - but later on...
This should be boycotted at all costs - Food should always have the option to be grown for free, in your backyard. Yes I think I sound a little survivalist, but this can be a slippery slope, and it's easy to fall downit.

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[RDW (41497)]

'I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.'

Pretty similar things are happening already. See this for a sample:

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/crop_protection/roundup_rewards.asp [monsanto.com]

'Roundup Ready' plants are GMOs modified to confer resistance to a herbicide sold (of course) by the same company. And yes, there's an annual license and an anonymous hotline to report violators (PDF):

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/stewardship.pdf [monsanto.com]

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[VENONA (902751)]

Is there any chance of being able to subscribe to a pizza-bush? I'd sell out in a heartbeat if I could subscribe to a pizza-bush...

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[DaedalusHKX (660194)]

Actually that's the downside, it will cross pollinate, and eventually your backyard crops will not "grow" without Monsanto's "blessing".

They are supposed to have dominant genes.

This story is old, by the way.

Re:

[jamstar7 (694492)]

One seed can germinate to a corn plant. The corn cob has many new seeds on it. Thus, your crop does not 'half' every year. If there's 200 seeds per cob, you can pick the best 3 or 4 cobs for planting, and eat the rest. You'll still have a good crop next year.

Re:

[cyphercell (843398)]

Few plants actually self pollinate. The mechanism is seen most often in some legumes such as peanuts. In another legume, Soybeans, the flowers open and remain receptive to insect cross pollination during the day; if this is not accomplished, the flowers self pollinate as they are closing.

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-pollination [wikipedia.org]

Cross pollination can't be stopped, cross pollination with GM foods cannot be stopped. GM foods disrupt the environment in ways that we don't really understand. Not to mention the fact that cross pollination estimates are considered grossly underestimated at best.*

*http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMcontamination.php [i-sis.org.uk]

I think it's an intriguing technology and it certainly has potential, but these companies have no clue what kind of a mess they're making. All they un

Re:More Bothersome - economics of it

[falconwolf (725481)]

Actually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.

Ah but that has already happened. A farmer in Alberta, Canada, Percy Schmeiser [percyschmeiser.com], was found to have Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn in his field. Corn he did not plant, but it had crossbred with corn he grew. Like farmers throughout the world since the dawn of agriculture, he saved seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Even though he didn't steal anything from Monsanto when Monsanto sued [foodwatch.de] him he lost his crop. In another case an organic farmer, which bans GE, in Canada lost a shipment when inspectors in Europe, Germany I think, found alien DNA in his corn.

Falcon

Re:saving seeds

[nebosuke (1012041)]

The case is nowhere near as straightforward as most people seem to believe. If you research the details, he bought massive quantities of Round-Up, which was basically the first smoking gun in Monsanto's case[1].

The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields.

The other smoking gun was the fact that his crop was 95-98% RR canola[2]. That level of 'contamination' indicates very aggressive, active selection for the target genotype. You do not get that from the trace contamination due to windblown seed or accidental cross-pollination.

I don't doubt that the first few plants were accidental, either through unintentional cross-pollination or stray seed, but once he found that they were round-up resistant, he actively worked to integrate the rr the genotype into his own populations. He probably just didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong.

Small-time seed producers have done exactly the same sort thing with non-GMO germplasm from, e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred for decades. They'd buy and plant a bag of hybrid seed, and look through the field for accidental selfs (plants produced by accidental self-pollination due to incomplete detasseling during hybrid production) to steal their inbreds from their female heterotic lines. That is just as illegal as what Schmeiser did, but you don't really hear about those guys being busted and completely ruined because Pioneer isn't run by the same type of raging pricks as the guys at Monsanto.

[1] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-54 [cooperativeresearch.org] - "Monsanto argues that in spite of Schmeiser's claims that he did not use Roundup on his crops in 1998, there is no evidence that he used Muster and Assure herbicides as claimed. Furthermore, Monsanto provides evidence that Schmeiser purchased 720 liters of Roundup in 1998."

[2] http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html [umontreal.ca] - Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. ... The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."

Re:Testing

[zoney_ie (740061)]

Well, I'm happy that here in Europe the companies have to do lots of testing and prove there are no adverse effects.

And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs.

Re:Testing

[marcello_dl (667940)]

>And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs

AFAIK, and some googling seems to confirm, much lobbying is done to avoid such labeling even here in EU.

Which raises the question: what do they have to fear if GMO are safe?
They basically say "It's because you consumer are too stupid and bound to tradition to appreciate our offering".
I say "No matter what, I'm the friggin paying consumer and you are trying to deceive me. Besides, GMO is proprietary, so why should I support patenting what I eat after having - indirectly - to deal with patented software? no way".

The real problem

[einhverfr (238914)]

is that what was once a commodity market (food) could become an intellectual property driven market.

Piracy will include growing unauthorized crops. This is not good for anyone except for companies like Monsanto.

Re:The real problem

[m0rph3us0 (549631)]

It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.

The real problem=Monopoly

[KwKSilver (857599)]

Once all the natural varieties are driven into extinction, Monsanto can charge whatever it wants. How's a $50.00 dollar loaf of bread or box of corn-flakes sound? Monsanto has already put most non-GM rapeseed ("canola") growers out of business, owning some 80% of the rapeseed market. Think they care how many people starve or are otherwise injured as a result of their greed? If you do, think again. Remember, the new, true corporate philosophy is that their "only responsibility is to the shareholders." I

Re:Testing

[tacarat (696339)]

Selective breeding is not the same as direct splicing of genes or chromosomal insertion. At least with selective breeding you can progressively see what other traits pop up and change rather than saying the end result is perfect. I'm a bit dubious about the testing, too. You could eat whole mayo every day for decades before you have related heart attack. How are they testing the products with lifetime use taken into account?

I also want to see how long it takes the chromosomes to hop to different plants. They should sue God if that happens.

Re:

[budgenator (254554)]

Every so often there will be a mistake made by the cellular mechanisms and the nucleus will divide without the rest of the cell dividing. This results in a condition known as polyploidy, when this happens it is possible for fertile hybrids to occur, which means chromosomes can and do hope species, and have done long before GMed crows were even dreamed of. Wikipedia has a good article on Polyploidy [wikipedia.org] and which crops have which ploidy levels

Triploid crops: banana, apple, ginger, citrus [3]
Tetraploid crops: duru

Re:Testing

[oogoliegoogolie (635356)]

What you described is called breeding, which is a far cry from active and direct manipulation of your genome on a genetic level. Through basic manipulation of breeding in other species humans have been doing this for thousands of years and it has worked pretty well so far. Monsanto, Cargil, or any bio-company do this so they can develop crops that bring them profit, not for the good of mankind.

So I feel pretty safe with modern genetic engineering. At least we now know what we are doing and we test it well.
We now know what we are doing? We test it well?? If I had points I'd mod you up as funny. If you are really that naive read up on dangerous food additives and how many of them were rejected for human consumption at first, then how through corporate lobbying, donations, and political gifts, these additives suddenly and miraculously became "perfectly safe" and thus were approved for addition in all of our foods.

fear of GE technology

[falconwolf (725481)]

Objections to it are pure technophobia and should be dismissed out of hand.

This is pure BULLSHIT! A lot of technology can be contained in a lab, but GE companies like Monsanto are using the entire planet as their lab. Once a deadly gene enters the environment there's no way to contain it. Like of like viri and worms, once released onto the net it can become exceedingly difficult to contain them.

Falcon

Re:

[falconwolf (725481)]

One argument for GMOs is that they are very heavily tested

DO you have evidence GMOs are heavily tested? How can they be thoroughly tested when they relatively new and it could take generations to test? Are they also test in combinations, tested X, Y, and Z altogether? One thing may seem to be safe and so may another but put them together and they can be deadly.

it also allows farmers to use less weed/pest killers

This is entirely wrong. While some GMOs may cut down on the need for chemical inputs

Permanently genetically modified organisms

[by Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[taniwha (70410)]

the difference of course is that the hybrids we've created (since the dawn of agriculture) have used mixtures of other genes that were already around for generations - if you start just making up genes you do need to do much more carefull testing - make sure they don't mix with the plant next door and make something evil that kills all the bees or creates a super weed etc etc it's a combinatorial problem that nature has already been through and spent a few billion years of evolution on - combinatorial means that there are bullions of possible combinations of genes only a tiny few of which are usefull, most of the rest are non-viable but some will do stuff we don't want and because the state space is so large we probably can't ever predict all the possible outcomes without trying and finding out (and then it's too late if something bad happens) because the state space is so large it may take many many generations to find out

don't get me wrong I'm not a luddite as far as GM is concerned - I want to see cool new organisms for us to use - I just think we should be really really carefull and require enormous amounts of testing - maybe generations (in human time) of testing

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[wizardforce (1005805)]

if you start just making up genes you do need to do much more carefull testing - make sure they don't mix with the plant next door and make something evil that kills all the bees or creates a super weed etc etc

we aren't making new "genes" in this case, we are transferring a gene from one species to another. it's very similar to natural processes of horizontal gene transfer, even viruses can and do transfer genetic material from species to species on occasion all for millions of years. as for the danger of creating something dangerous, there are several cases where natural species can and are destroying habitats and poisoning large stretches of ocean in one case. we really should test everything regardless of whether we genetically modified it or bred it successively over many generations.

Re:

[cfulmer (3166)]

After hybrids, the next version of genetic modification, decades ago, involved irradiating the seeds, planting them and seeing what grew. When one of the plants grown from irradiated seeds produced a better crop, they saved the seeds from that plant, grew others, and sold the seeds. The same thing happens in nature, albeit on a much slower time frame. GM crops are just a way of being more selective about what you end up growing. How do you know that the corn plant your corn came from wasn't hit by cosmi

Re:

[falconwolf (725481)]

It means that farmers get better yields

Do you have any evidence or proof this is true? Here's an article about one study that shows organics, which bans GE and GMOs, produces as much if not more than conventional farming: "Organic farming yields as good or better: study" [reuters.com].

Lower prices mean fewer people starving, and more savings. It's a good thing.

Wrong. There are 3 major causes of hunger and starvation in the world: conflicts, fighting, and wars; politics; and the massive subsidies the First World

Re:Permanently genetically modified organisms

[Original Replica (908688)]

But these aren't really hybrids now are they. To make a car analogy: If you take the parts from two Corvettes and use them to make a new car it's still a Corvette. Now if you make a bunch of parts in your personal machine shop, and you build a car that is based off of the Corvette, it's still not really a 'Vette. I'm not saying I wouldn't eat NuCorn but it's not Corn, and it's not just a hybrid. It's a new different plant. I hope it's tasty.

Re:

[HW_Hack (1031622)]

I am no plant expert and have only had a few standard biology courses (recently) that covered DNA splicing / modification. But to compare the traditional hybrid process to manipulation at the genetic level is totally mis-leading statement. Genetic manipulation (and its long term effects )is something we barely understand - and its power to alter specific genes (and thus gene expression) is very powerful.

And this is compounded by the fact that unlike other genetic experiments (using mice - animals - cells) p

One big difference

[einhverfr (238914)]

is that normal plant patents (at least in the US) only cover grafting, budding, cuttings, and other forms of asexual reproduction. Basically you can't patent a natural genetic variant you discover and then prevent people from using it as breeding stock.

Hence you can buy a patented rose bush, breed it with another patented rose bush, and be the exclusive patent holder of the offspring (or decide to let the offspring be patent free). This is a big check on the power of plant patents

This changes with GMOs.

Monsanto

[heresyoftruth (705115)]

Is there anything that company can't do? I associate that name with all things that make me nervous or irritated by this point in my life.

Re:Monsanto

[Znork (31774)]

Monsanto is pretty much the poster boy for corporate death penalty. The company has been found guilty of bribery, suppression of truth, negligence, wantonness and outrage. It's poisoned people and environment with PCB, sarin, and mustard gas. The company has shown that it will knowingly and willingly expose workers and environment to toxic substances, and it will continue doing it until it's forced to stop through legal action.

This company is one that the world would far better off without.

Re:Monsanto

[ShieldW0lf (601553)]

Agreed.

If any college students get the urge to go shoot the hell out of some people and put a gun in their mouth, they should go visit Monsanto and do us all a solid on their way out.

Re:Monsanto

[DaedalusHKX (660194)]

Actually, some fellow from E.L.F. was training to shoot the executive officers of Monsanto after firebombing a Ford dealership and cutting loose some horses from a meat packing plant or some such.

Anyways, to cut a story short, one of the execs at Monsanto back then was Rumsfeld... as in Don Rumsfeld.

As it turns out, the kid was sold out by his friends, and "choked himself to death in the sheriff's jail with a plastic bag" which he miraculously held shut over his throat until after he was dead... after which he let go (some rigormortis, eh?)

Most believe he was murdered so he wouldn't inspire others to try the same trick... I don't hold any beliefs on this issue but find it very telling what taking "effective" action against Monsanto will guarantee you... a black plastic bag over your head :)

Re:

[gad_zuki! (70830)]

and I associate the name Roland Piquepaille with "whoa wtf, does that guy just submit articles all day long?"

Natalie Portman carrot?

[by Anonymous Coward]

No, seriously, if genes can be made to order, I want a Natalie Portman carrot. and before moderators mod me down as a troll, no grits are involved. I will also accept a Natalie Portman potato.

Thanks
signed,
Slashdot Anonymous Coward

Just imagine

[Renraku (518261)]

Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out the tomato causes cancer due to some unforseen chemical combo that's being manufactured. They decide to pull them all from the market. Hey, it turns out that 80% of all tomatos in the world are now this new version. But which ones? You have to test each and every plant, or just get rid of them all. And we know how hard it is to get rid of 100% of a certain type of plant. Good luck with your new cancertomatos.

Re:Just imagine

[falconwolf (725481)]

Just imagine this: Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out that the tomato doesn't cause cancer.

Just imagine people who are allergic to Brazil nuts [whyfiles.org], which can cause Anaphylactic shock [wikipedia.org] and thus kill the person. Then imagine a gene from the Brazil nut being inserted into soy [allergies-...relief.org] and having those allergic to Brazil nut having the same reaction to the new soy. Don't think it won't happen? It already has.

Falcon

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

A mistaken, but often-quoted, example of GM foods causing new allergies concerns genetic material from Brazil nut plants that was inserted into a soy plant to improve its nutritional qualities. A gene coding for a Brazil nut chemical that can cause allergies in some people was also transferred into the soy.

Scientists were aware of the possibility of this transfer, and conducted laboratory testing on the soybean before its release. During the laboratory testing procedure, the allergenic Brazil nut protein w

GMO idea

[Lerc (71477)]

I had this idea yesterday (alcohol may have been involved).

You could take the genes from geckos/skinks that makes their tails fall off when they are frightened and put it into grass.

Then you could have a lawn that you could mow by going outside and shouting Bang!.

Re:

[Jugalator (259273)]

I wonder if such grass would bear a particular intelligent shade of green?

A step in the right direction

[MaizeMan (1076255)]

The article summary is deceptive. Inserting a gene into the current genome of crop is just as permanent a change as added a new mini-chromosome. In either change the changes will be inherited by the offspring of the individual plant.

The main difference between this technology and currect methods on inserting genes is that more than one gene can be added as easily as a single gene, whereas in the previous system "stacking" multiple genes required much more effort than a single gene, since each had to be inserted individually and then combined using conventional breeding.

I for one think this technology is a step in the right direction, as it will make it easier to create artificial species barriers, which require two-five genes to be inserted, but would prevent GM crops from crossbreeding with traditional varieties in the field. THIS IS NOT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY! The plants would still be fertile, just only with others carried the added chromosome.

But couldn't they have found someone besides Monsanto to implement it?

Human testing

[ocelotbob (173602)]

Can we start splicing chromosomes with humans please? I want my catgirl, dammit. What use is bringing food to the masses when I don't have my fucking catgirl?

Maybe the worry over GMOs is misdirected

[smoondog (85133)]

I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?).

I'm not sure how a PGMO differs from today's GMOs which, I believe, can pass genetic modifications to offspring (they are present in the germline). The article summary contains a bias that GMOs are somehow inherently bad. Look, lots of things in our food contains risky things, and people seem to want blame GMOs for many ills. At some level of intake everything is risky. There are tons of studies outlining why some foods are bad for you. Alcohol is bad for you. Marijuana is bad for you. BBQ is bad for you (polyaromatic hydrocarbons, other bad things in charred foods). French fries apparently contain acrylimide. Saturated fats are associated with obesity, the development of heart disease. Sugar is associated with the progression of diabetes. Salt is associated with high blood pressure, heart disease. Acidic foods (ie diet coke) are bad for your digestive system. You get the point.

How many of these do you overindulge in occasionally? Similarly, assuming all GMOs are bad for health reasons is short sighted (although they may be bad for political reasons -- that is another matter). Many foods we eat are engineered in some way, usually with a sledge hammer by classical means, no one seems to complain about that. We already use pesticides on crops, perhaps resistant GMOs might reduce pesticide use? Perhaps GMOs might have better nutritional components than their non engineered counterparts? Perhaps GMOs can be developed that make some of the risky foods in the previous paragraph less risky? GMOs should be evaluated like everything else, carefully. While I understand their fears, I wish the GMO protest community would spend a little less time worrying about GMOs and more time worrying about very real food risks (see above), heavy metals in imported goods (including foods) and the things around us that are really worth our concern.

Engineered Corn Cleared in 17 Food Reactions

[Thrustworthy (1177055)]

"...One of the people who suffered anaphylactic shock after eating an enchilada made of yellow corn, Californian Grace Booth, said she was still convinced she had a reaction to StarLink (genetically engineered corn)."

"Everything else I ate in the 72 hours before I got so sick, I've eaten again with no problem," she said. "Frankly, I don't trust the tests."

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/StarLink-Cleared-AllergiesCDC.htm [mindfully.org]

Anyone remember this? Some people don't have the necessary enzyme to properly metabolize the Cry9c protein in genetically engineered corn.

Also, "In September 2006, PUBPAT filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents owned by Monsanto Company that the agricultural giant is using to harass, intimidate, sue - and in many cases bankrupt - American farmers."

http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm [pubpat.org]

X Factor - Dangerous

[Zapped.Info (1113711)]

Consider that mankind really hasn't been around that long: Especially in comparison to plant-life.
Consider that mankind is 100% dependent on plant-life to survive.

Altering the genetic structure of our food may seem like a great idea in the short term for many positive reasons, including the elimination of famine.

The problem is we simply do not have the foresight to know what will happen thousands of generations after the epoch of our genetic manipulations: Not only to the plants, but to those who consume them.

Genetic diversity is good, it is necessary for survival. What happens to that diversity when a super-plant is created that dominates all the species around it? Including those that consume it? Will the only thing we can eat a thousand years from now be corn?

Most of the miracles of medicine have been gifts from nature and much of what has been discovered was right in front of us the whole time. Gee that's weird...I ate that piece of moldy bread because I was starving and now I feel better! I thought that mold was going to make me sick.

What if I wasn't starving? What if I had an abundance of bread, because that bread was genetically engineered to resist blight. Since there is no blight, I'm not hungry enough to eat moldy bread, but there isn't even any mold on the bread because mold can't grow on the genectically resistant grain it was made from.

So the whole population becomes fat and happy until a super-bug comes along and knocks out 99% and I die because I didn't eat my moldy bread.

I for one would at least like to have a choice, but presently there are no incentives or laws (that I know of) motivating companies to inform you, that they have completely screwed you over, by screwing up the genetic code of what you are eating, just so they can add a few percentage points to their profits, so that the stock price will go up, so that Daddy CEO can retire next year; and that they really don't know what will happen ten years from now, but your generation seems like the perfect guinna pig.

But I LIKE The Concept of Frankenfoods!

[Greyfox (87712)]

This development advances my Evil Plan to deploy vegetables MADE OF MEAT! Vegetarians won't know what to do! World domination will be mine! Muahahaha!

Before people start screaming

[Arthur B. (806360)]

The wheat you eat is already a man made chromosomic monster, it's hexaploid!

The real danger is...

[machinelou (1119861)]

The real danger is that this will only help Monsanto increase the number of plants they sell that are unable to produce viable seeds.

Researchers have been doing this stuff 10+ yrs.

[Zymergy (803632)]

Researchers have been doing this stuff for over a decade. And there are REAL Intellectual Property issues here.
Genetically Engineered DNA sequences in many cases can be treated just like programming code.

I remember a true story from one of my Genetics Professors, Dr. Ron Van Den Bussche ( http://cas.okstate.edu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=71 [okstate.edu] )
He told our class about a genetically altered cotton strain of which he was integral in its development.
Apparently, a giant agri-industrial competitor to the giant agri-industrial company who funded the strain of cotton Dr. VDB developed,
surreptitiously obtained a reproduceable/cloneable live specimen and subsequently cloned it and used it in gross quantities for their own unlicensed use.
(I think the new strain could tolerate saltier soils and drier conditions and it grew a larger puffier bowl of cotton, oh yes, and it was Patented/Copyrighted also.)
-->Here's the really funny part, Dr. VDB and his team were expert witnesses in the intellectual property infringement lawsuit/trail against the competitor who allegedly stole the strain. (sorry, can't remember what state)
The defendants had claimed they developed the new genetic strain of cotton themselves.
This was proven blatantly false by the prosecution when Dr. VDB revealed he had spliced unique identification DNA sequences into their genetically-engineered cotton strains from a VERY Very Rare Bat species.
(which happened to be an endangered species that ONLY inhabits a single remote cave system in Texas).
Sure enough, forensic DNA testing was completed on the allegedly stolen cotton strain and it was, in fact, found to be stolen.
-Many, many, Million$ of dollars were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.

Summation = Neophobic Babble

[Raven737 (1084619)]

first: both my parents do research for Monsanto and i am proud of them and the work they do, not of the company itself though
next, i think people who talk about 'Frankenfoods' are poorly informed about what contemporary GM is and isn't.
For most GM modifications you take a gene that you know serves a certain purpose from one organism (plant for example) and transplant it into another.
There is nothing new, it is the same thing you could archive with normal breeding but it would take centuries and would only work with closely related species.
You see, 1+1 = 2, 1+1 != flesh eating monster
Of course this is in stark contrast to the practice of 'accelerated breeding by random mutations through irradiation' that nobody ever complained about and where most results are far less then desirable and you really have no clue on what else might have changed.

Also, any current GM Crops inherit their traits and are therefore just as 'permanent' as any created using engineered chromosomes.
Oh, and 'permanent' is of course also incorrect, crossbreeding with non-modified crops will of course weaken (and over time could eliminate) the traits and this is the same for the old and this new approach.
Of course Monstante did develop a way to prevent genetic traits to be inherited, but they ineptly name it 'terminator gene' and the whole world screamed in horror until the released it into the public domain and promised to never ever use it.
And now people complain about GM's being too 'permanent'!
In any case, the chromosomes are simply a neat way to package desired genes and it makes the 'injection' much more reliably.
And no worries, GM Plants created using such chromosomes still won't turn into monsters that eat people, really!

Re:

[Original Replica (908688)]

These guys sell the "terminator seeds". Grows crops once and that's it. If you wanna grow another crop, you have to buy more Monsanto seeds.

If they are selling GMO seeds it's actually a good safeguard that they are "terminator seeds". If it's just a sceme to make farmers buy more seeds every year, then let the farmers do the math and decide if it's worth the extra annual cost. As long as Monsanto isn't shutting out competition it the seed supply business, let'em sell what ever DRMed seeds they want.

Re:whats the motivation for consumers?

[Nephilium (684559)]

The problems they're attempting to solve are:

1) Plants that are resistant to pesticides.
2) Plants that are more resistant to insects.
3) Plants that are more resistant to fungus.
4) Plants that are more resistant to droughts.
5) Plants that have additional nutrients in them.
6) Plants that have higher yield.

Assuming no possibility for cross breeding (which they test the hell out of, just so that their modifications don't get out into the wild), I see no issue with these goals.

Nephilium