Controversial Trial of Genetically Modified Wheat Ends In Disappointment 188
sciencehabit writes: A controversial GM wheat trial has failed after more than £2 million of public money was spent protecting it from GM opponents. Researchers had hoped that the wheat modified to produce a warning pheromone would keep aphids away and attract their natural enemies, reducing the need for insecticides. Despite showing promise in the laboratory, the field trial failed to show any effect. “If you make a transgenic plant that produces that alarm continuously, it’s not going to work,” ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”
GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Proponents of GMOs tend to focus on the opposition to GMOs based on perceived health risks but there are many other reasons that GMOs are problematic. A huge issue is that patents are being granted on life, on genes. The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money. All GMO work should be open source and open license. This doesn't solve the many other problems but it chips away at the problems. Of course, the GMO proponents will oppose this.
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm somewhat a proponent of GMOs, being a Molecular Biologist I suppose helps, but I don't oppose what you say.
You are right that granting patents to genes is stupid - the researchers didn't invent the genes at all as they exist in nature, much like gravity exists and cannot be patented.
Rather, the novel application of a gene should be allowed to be patented, not the gene itself (and by extension all applications regardless of any innovation). Simply making everything open source and license won't solve anything, it only creates problems with RnD recovery. The real issue is that the basic discovery of a gene can be patented even if no novel use is applied, which is actually quite trivial these days (i've just done this myself, and it wasn't that hard to "discover").
Re: (Score:2)
Could you clarify what you meant by this?
Re: (Score:3)
Put frankly, you might spend $10,000 if yo
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but most of it wasn't.
Commercialization and testing are almost entirely irrelevant compared to the capital required to research and develop new technologies...particularly in biology/medicine.
As with most things, this shouldn't be a black or white "patents are good" or "patents are evil". The question is how long should patent protection last and when should patent protection start. Some people think forever, others think zero years. The answer is most likely somewhere between those two :-).
I will agree that with the rate of technological change today, the current 20 year protection is ridiculous. Technologies are typically woefully outdated by the time patents expire. IMHO patents should last significantly less time than currently (say 5 years or so), and should require that the product be commercially produced within some reasonable amount of time after applying for the patent.
Unfortunately, you can't eat, drink, live in or wear knowledge. At some point monetary compensation is required. The question is how much and how is this compensation provided.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I will agree that with the rate of technological change today, the current 20 year protection is ridiculous. Technologies are typically woefully outdated by the time patents expire. IMHO patents should last significantly less time than currently (say 5 years or so),"
A farmaceutical product can well take much longer than that between the time the compound was discovered and the time it has passed all clinical trials and gets approval.from the authorities.
I work in the high-tech industry, where it can easily
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
University research is not usually the same thing as commercial research. At a university, research is conducted by faculty in concert with postdocs and grad students, and the postdocs and grad students (if not tenured faculty) are in desperate need of publications. In this case, a university research project might find that splicing a certain gene into a certain plant gives a certain effect, and that's publishable. That's very useful, but hardly sufficient. In particular, it doesn't show that the modi
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares if it can make money or not. That is simply not the correct metric to judge whether or not a certain type of patent (or other thing) should be allowed. We should not suddenly re-align all of our interests merely to pander to the desires of a few large megacorporations.
Our society is simply not driven by the need for Monsanto to make a buck.
Re: (Score:2)
While I will respect what you are saying. I believe you are speaking outside the scope of the thread.
the metric in question is : if I spend money doing R&D, and make a discovery, can I protect it and have a return on my investment.
In reference to what you are speaking : patent judgement is to secure the idea, nothing about the revenue model is discusses. While I can not cite the old source, I believe many ideas in the early 1820's to 1860's that were patented, expired to public domain, only to become us
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, let's assume that a system in which patents last 100 years exists. Even in such a system where a company can reap the profits of their research for generations, that company would be unlikely to devote resources towards finding a cure for a condition that affects a few dozen people.
Patents, copyrights, and the notion
Re: (Score:2)
He/she means that companies won't invest in the Research & Development when they can't patent the result to help ensure they can make back their investment (and more).
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Informative)
You are wrong on the law. Isolating or identifying genes is not patentable, at least after Myriad: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Assn_for_Molecular_Pathology_v_Myriad_Genetics_Inc_No_12398_2013_
Even if you isolate a gene and use that gene to splice into another creature/plant, it's obvious to a person of skill in the art once isolated that splicing this gene will lead to expression of certain effects. To that extent it is not patentable.
Now, you might argue that the wheat failed in the above instance, so it involves experimentation. Yes the wheat failed, but not because of gene expression, but because of how the natural predators found out they were being gamed. Had nothing to do with producing the pheromones, which worked as anticipated. So, not patentable anyways.
The only trouble is proponents of GMO's have too much money and will continue to peddle, oh only isolation is not patentable, we can work around that using patent language. Look at Alice from the supreme court, where they decry the use work around language to get around judgements.
I am sorry, I have no love lost for GMO's and the companies that peddle them. They are evil as they get. They sue farmers. They even allege, if its 90% GMO crop, they own the entire bunch. You only have to look at monoculture issues like cavendish bananas to see that we could have human mass extinction, because of GMO crops and monoculture.
If you get a 20 year patent on GMO's. Unlicensed folks cannot use these plants to create other plant varieties, i.e., selective breeding. So, you are encouraging monoculture. If there is a natural predator which takes a liking to a GMO, all of the crop across the world will be wiped out in a matter of years. So, we will at best lose that one crop. Imagine if that happens to corn or wheat? 90% of the products on our supermarket shelf will disappear.
Patents on GMO's are horrible. Plant variety protection act thought of these difficulties and issues and balanced the rights of framers and the dangers of monoculture. But Monsanto had enough money to pull of the Bowman v. Monsanto win. None of these monoculture issues were highlighted in the case. Sad really.
Just so we are clear. I don't have a problem with GMO's. I have a problem with patents on GMOs and monoculture because of patent rights for 20 years. Let me give you a hint. A GMO crop won't change all that much for 20 years, and is sold as standardized seed. But the natural pathogens evolve at a frightening pace for those 20 years. It's a problem waiting to happen. PVP on the other hand gives crops a fighting chance, when farmers breed them.
Re: (Score:3)
1. It's not a 'proper' allergy
2. It's been known about, depending on how you rate sources, for somewhere between eons and centuries. [wikipedia.org]
3. That being said, there's a certain amount of 'fad diet' to it in that many people are assuming they have it without actually being tested for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Informative)
Of course they will. Because if it costs money to develop GMOs, then there had better be a return on investment. Or noone will bother.
And since GMOs, like any new drug, includes a lot of trial & error (mostly error), your successful new GMO (or drug) has to carry the costs of all your unsuccessful ones. So you have to be able to make a lot of money on any success, or noone will bother.
Note that the cost of developing this failed GMO will have to be paid, down the line, by higher costs on other products produced by the same people.
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Interesting)
People have done research before without all the greed that is surrounding GMOs. I do research. I release my results open source. No need for the likes of Monsanto to control the world. They're too greedy. Denying them patents would help.
Re: (Score:3)
I do research.
Do you do it gratis or does someone pay you to do it?
Re: (Score:3)
I do research too. Part of my research is paid for by public grants, part is paid for by companies who want me to test their (patented) products. I much prefer the public grant model, and I think research in important industries like health and agriculture should be mostly done publicly. But that's not the case now, and it's only heading towards less public funding. The cost for that is patents and proprietary techniques. You can't have it both ways.
Re: (Score:2)
It is nice to hear that you do research for free and accept no payment for your work.
Re: (Score:2)
So much lol here. I can't believe you people actually believe shit like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the problem with GMOs is that the potential damages exceed the ability of any company to actually pay fair compensation.
Re: (Score:2)
I like how the anti-GMO crowd comes out and speaks about potential damages, but then ignores the real damages (and deaths) caused by organic food:
http://www.cgfi.org/2002/06/th... [cgfi.org]
http://www.realclearscience.co... [realclearscience.com]
http://www.americanthinker.com... [americanthinker.com]
http://www.science20.com/chall... [science20.com]
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~a... [wustl.edu]
We've already had countless cases of people dying and getting sick from organic, and not a single case of anybody dying or getting sick from GMO, in spite of GMO already being consumed in bigger number
Re: (Score:2)
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
Re: (Score:2)
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my ignorant misgivings about one technique.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
And I just love how others make wildly inaccurate assumptions about my views on agriculture in general based solely on my misgivings about one technique.
So knowing that organic food does cause actual harm and plenty of evidence to back it up, with zero evidence that GMO food causes any actual harm, what prompted you to throw out a warning call for the potential damages of GMO food, as opposed to making a warning call about organic food?
Let's hear it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the topic here is GMOs. For a similar reason, I also didn't offer any opinions on favorite microcontroller, paper vs. plastic, gasahol, or nuclear vs. solar.
Re: (Score:2)
That only explains why you didn't throw out a warning call for organic food. Why did you throw out a warning call for GMO food?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you should just go and read my post again. At that point you'll either answer your own question or prove you're not worth my time.
The chicken crossed the road to get to the other side. A zebra with a sunburn is black and white and read all over. Any other silly questions you'd like to get out of your system?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, I agree with you on GMO food, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious.
We are on a website that literally prompts people to discuss subjects. The subject this time is GMO food.
What I'm more curious about is what prompted you to talk about organic foods. At time of writing, you are the only result in ctrl+f for organic on this page.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there any large industry in which this isn't true? If all Fords suddenly go berserk, accelerate as much as they can, and steer randomly while ignoring the brake pedal, Ford isn't going to be able to cover the loss.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the problem Toyota had, and they're still here. Automobiles and such aren't quite as susceptible to that scale of disaster as living organisms that can reproduce by themselves. And can cross-breed. Imagine Ford puts out a car with defective brakes and the trait starts showing up in all similar cars by other manufacturers based on which way the wind blows. Further, the trait shows up in other countries where the original defective model isn't even sold. To top it off, countries that haven't seen
Re: (Score:2)
If all failures were paid there would be only successful companies.
While you are likely trolling, no one is suggesting failing companies should be propped up with public money. But successful companies still often have many failed projects, and this is especially true for any company which relies heavily on R&D. Like they say, if you aren't failing you aren't innovating. A solvent company needs to pay for its failed R&D projects with its successful projects or it would go under.
It is very similar to running a VC company. They obviously don't think ever venture will
Re: (Score:2)
You're not making any sense. The 'they' you are complaining about being paid are the employees, the suppliers, the landlord, the utility company, etc. 'They' are not taking any risk at all, nor should they be expected to.
However, SOMEONE is paying out all that money. THEY are the ones taking a risk. If they never succeed they don't get paid, they are out their entire investment. However, if they DO eventually succeed, then it is perfectly reasonable to use the profits from that success to cover the cos
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This article, and others, make me think what is long term benefit from genetic manipulation of plants, because often it seems to be arms race with nature where GMO tends to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a more accurate assessment. Direct genetic engineering is simply the latest and most effective method of breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
And now we know that transgenic processes occur in nature too.
http://arstechnica.com/science... [arstechnica.com]
Huge differences, though. (Score:2, Insightful)
That form of transfer only occurs in a very small population and expands only very slowly, and in a situation where the rest of the ecosystem can adapt to the changed scenario.
Moreover, since it happens slowly, the bad effects can be seen before a massive problem is inevitable from the size of the mutated population.
However, in agribusiness, a billion acres of the same modified organism will be produced. So before any assessment of a problem can be found, the problem will already be massive in scale. Moreov
Re: (Score:2)
There are very important legal ones.
One allows your favorite megacorp to strip me of my personal property rights. The other one does not.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is no scientific difference.
If that were really true then there would be no value perceived in the "newer" alternative. The fact that these differences do exist despite the shrill attempts of "science fanboys" to say otherwise is why megacorps want to use these methods. At best they are a short cut. At worst, they convey unusual monopoly powers.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly, which is why GMOs, like antibiotics, should be used very judiciously, not strewn about all over the place!
Re: (Score:3)
No one says when hessian fly resistance genes in wheat are overcome by the pest, or when late blight genes in tomato fail (both being non-GE), that it means conventional breeding is of questionable benefit. But when the GE crops have the same problems non-GE crops do, then suddenly they're of questionable benefit? The problem is people don't know how much they don't know, and rather than assuming maybe there's a reason plant scientists aren't in revolt against genetic engineering, they assume they've got
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, preventing someone from making a profit is more important than having a cheap and plentiful food supply.
Re: (Score:2)
We already have a cheap and plentiful food supply.
if you think otherwise then you are highly uniformed MORON.
We have been letting food ROT in this country in order to prop up commodity prices since before you were even born. That's just the stuff that actually gets harvested. Some of it doesn't even make it out of the fields because it doesn't meet stringent packaging guidelines.
Re: (Score:2)
If what you said was true, nobody would get the GMO seeds. Farmers use them because they make more money using them, not because they want to lose money in order to doom the world.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You right, better to go back to using non-GMO plants--and getting much lower yields, needing much stronger pesticides, and letting half the world starve.
Problem SOLVED!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the "GMOs are evil because Monsanto" argument. So why do the flat-earthers attack GMO test plots that ARE open source, like that golden rice in the Philippines? Your argument is against legal bullying by corporate extension of patent, not anything to do with genetic engineering.
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep. People oppose the various big company made ones, claiming they don't like big companies. But then they'll also oppose things like the Arctic Apple (developed by a small company), the Rainbow papaya (developed by the University of Hawai'i), Golden Rice (developed by non-profit International Rice Research Institute), and Honeysweet plum (developed by the USDA), among plenty of other examples. Many will oppose university, NGO, and government developed GE crops, then say it's just about Monsanto...not buying that. Even this wheat in question was publicly funded and developed by Rothamsted Research,and what happened? This group called Take the Flour Back wanted to destroy it, which is better than what happened to CSIRO's publicly funded GE wheat research in Australia, where some book burners from Greenpeace successfully did destroy the research. All that aside, there are plenty of patented non-GE plants which vary rarely encounter controversy. The only consistent thing that gets controversy it genetic engineering, not public or private, patented or not. This controversy is not about patents, or quite bluntly any of the other common excuses for opposition to genetic engineering for that matter.
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. You use the things that were not built on patent royalties, let others pay extra for the things that were, and in 20 years, they're both the same [biofortified.org] anyway when the patent expires. Isn't that how the patent system is supposed to work, you develop something, recoup your costs (and heaven forbid make a profit), hopefully reinvest into new innovation, then eventually the thing falls to the public? What's wrong with that syst
Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved.
You have some research to do in biology. GMO genes do have a bit of a tendency to spread out. Nature and all.Eventually it will be a bit difficult to avoid the altered genes.
http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/... [gmocompass.org]
Then comes the question of who owns the now altered plant.
I'm pro GMO by the way, just wanted to make a little correction.
The Monsanto donnybrook muddies the waters of GMO, because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants. That's arguably an irresponsible use of GMO. Certainly it makes Roundup a short lived herbicide, as plants develop resistance to it. And they will.
But plants with increased nutrition, resistance to diseases, with more energy put into seed or fruit production than stalks or other inedible parts simply makes sense.
We also have to encourage "heirloom" crop growing in order to have as much genetic stock as possible. Everyone can win at this game. As long as they aren't asshats about it.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that you can't just shake some of your patented magic dust on my stuff and then claim it as your own. Monsanto got a lot of press for bullying farmers, but to my knowledge no case against someone accidentally growing a GMO has ever gone to court. In the Schmeiser case in Canada, Monsanto dropped all the claims regarding accidental contamination, probably because the court would have found against them.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
In the few cases Monsanto took all the way to court, they were found in the right. This isn't evil Monsanto attacking the poor farmer type things. It is people intentionally committing patent/license infringement to get around the patent/license and being caught.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
offtopic : Re:GMOs have so many different problems (Score:2)
I grow heirloom tomatoes on my balcony. when I buy a house, I plan to grow a lot more and try to cross different heirloom to get more amazing flavors.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it will be a bit difficult to avoid the altered genes.
Well, kind of. All genes do that in an outcrossing species (a crop that pollinates others readily, like corn or squash). In a natural population, selection pressure will influence the spread of the gene throughout the population, however, crops are not a natural population. For example, I have seed of blue, red, white, and yellow corn, and seed of all sorts of heirloom squash (orange and lumpy, bright red and smooth, pale and long). How is it possible that each of those still manages to exist, if genes
Re: (Score:2)
That is a misconception. They do not have to withstand 'big doses' of the herbicide; do you honestly think that farmers are spending extra money on seed so they can spend extra money on herbicide?
They are no tilling, and spraying herbicide to kill the weeds among the roundup ready corn, which is generally tolerant.
But aside from jumping on my use of the "big doses" perhaps you can proofread this page and let me know what is incorrect.
http://www.gardenguides.com/12... [gardenguides.com]
But to your question of what they can do......
One of the interesting methods of killing weeds among crops is being developed by the USDA, and it sounds crazy, but works.
Oragnic farmers have a real problem with weed control, a
Re: (Score:2)
...because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants.
When your field is full of non-crop plants/weeds, all competing for the same resources and nutrients in your soils as your crops, your crop yield will necessarily be lower. By preventing weeds, you are increasing your yield by definition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, GE crop labeling has failed, and rightfully so. Labels on patented crops were never an issue. Many non-GE crops are also patented. If you don't like them, don't grow them. If you want no interaction of any sort with anything patented, well, good luck with that. Even the non-GMO organic grown with patented stuff from John Deere.
Re: (Score:2)
Then ask the people who sell non-GMO products to label themselves non-GMO.
The whole label law controversy was about forcing GMO products to label themselves GMO. But that's totally backwards! Even for the people who want to avoid GMO! Because you don't want to have to look for the absence of a label, you want to look for a label, because things are easier to find than unthings.
If they don't label they must not consider it to be important, OR, they aren't confident that they aren't GMO, one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money.
At least in the USA, you're not allowed to 'patent' existing genes. What you're allowed to patent is the methodology used to detect them, insert them into a different genome, etc...
Take gene X. Well, specifically a mutation of it that causes cancer. Companies can't patent gene X, it's naturally occurring. But they can patent a test that detects it, as well as the process used to insert the gene into a lab mouse strain for further testing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and I would argue those plant patents should not be granted either. But I would disallow almost all patents or set their periods to be extremely short.
Unsuccessful experiments still have value (Score:4, Insightful)
Terrible summary (Score:3, Informative)
I would have expected better from Slashdot than to say the experiment had failed. It might not have produced the result the experimenters had hoped for, but it has produced a result (the GM crop does not significantly deter aphids) and has therefore been a successful experiment. In addition, it appears to have given them other ideas (try to make a crop that only sporadically gives off the pheromone) which will progress this area of science.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to RTFS, you just need to read the title. It doesn't say the experiment failed; it said it ended in disappointment -- as in, they were disappointed that they can't reduce pesticide use by producing the pheromone. Yes, the experiment successfully answered their question, but as you yourself said, it was not the answer they had hoped for.
Terrible criticism of the summary. I would have expected better from AC than to say the summary was terrible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The summary says the trial failed. A trial is a particular kind of experiment that's more like an engineering test than it is a basic research experiment. In trials you're testing something that you very much want to succeed.
It's NOT WHEAT! (Score:2)
It's QUADROTRITICALE!!!
Life finds a way (Score:5, Interesting)
I would agree with the "cry wolf" assessment. Having worked in pest control in my experience pheromones don't work well and/or very long; about the only good use I've found is for monitoring. I once talked to a Chemistry professor working with an Entomologist to synthesize fire ant trail pheromones (how they make paths to food) to see if it could be used to confuse workers. He told me it worked for all of a few minutes before they "figured it out" and started trailing through it like nothing happened. Smell is the primary sense for most insects and can be extremely acute (some moths can sense a few MOLECULES per square foot), so I think it will be relatively difficult to find a way to trick them in that way.
I'm glad they're trying new things, we're ganna need it along with intelligent usage so we don't end up needlessly wasting away their effective life-spans like we've done with previous pesticides and anti-biotics. Shelf what doesn't work but continue encouraging innovation (which I think the current gene patent situation is probably stifling)
Re: (Score:2)
Here is my question about the 'cry wolf' thing. In the story, the moral was not that people started ignoring the kid, it is that they ignored him even when there was a real threat. So why doesn't that happen here? Doesn't the cry wolf effect make the predators of the aphids that much more effective? Or is the problem that the predators are also a problem for the crops?
Re:Life finds a way (Score:5, Informative)
Doesn't the cry wolf effect make the predators of the aphids that much more effective?
No. The pheromone is normally emitted by the wheat when it is under attack by aphids, thus attracting predators. But the GMO wheat emits the pheromone all the time, so the predators show up, and ... no lunch. So this would make them less effective. The goal was not to make the predators more effective, but to scare away the aphids, which are normally not attracted to wheat that is already emitting the pheromone.
Re: (Score:2)
I see, thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
The moral of the story was that by crying wolf, the boy made him crying wolf the equivalent of him NOT crying wolf ever.
It is tempting, and even mostly correct, to think of bugs as little biological robots, but, they are robots that have very complex programs which have dealt with all manner of danger and trick in the past and survived. It shouldn't be surprising that they have coping mechanisms to detect bogus signals and adjust.
Just like the townsfolk recognized a bogus signal and adjusted. That adjustmen
Re: (Score:2)
Look around (Score:5, Funny)
"ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”
It's the Netherlands goddamit, use the appropriate 'the dike leaks' metaphor instead of the wolf.
In the USA... (Score:2)
Monsanto would have spent the money and had it blocked from market because it does not use any pesticides. (remember their successful round up ready approach lets them charge for GM seeds AND for the pesticides for the genetic disease they unleashed. Oh yes, it's a genetic disease, they didn't make the plant sterile for the same reason they someday will likely create pathogens where only they have the cure. )
In what way is GMO indicted here? (Score:2)
The story does not indict GMO technology in any way. It just states that a given modification didn't work as intended.
To see what I mean, imagine this headline:
"Use of Hybridization to Cross Labrador and Poodle Results in Dog With Incredibly Ridiculous Name"
Re: (Score:2)
" It just states that a given modification didn't work as intended."
There's the rub. We are introducing combinations, some times cutting across kingdoms, never before seen into the gene pool. People are concern about the law of unintended consequences which can kick in with a vengeance when exotics are introduced into the Environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhhh...no. All they did was introduce into wheat a gene from peppermint. What kingdoms there must be in your own mind to imagine any danger from that.
Are GMO plants Kosher? (Score:2)
If they contain frog DNA for example? Is it vegan? I don't think this question has ever been addressed.
Re: (Score:2)
You have no idea how incredibly little I care about those questions. People who want to live their lives by picky arbitrary rules can define their own. If they're our friends, they can let us know what the rules are, and we'll try to accommodate them (because they're our friends, and because we're used to friends and relatives who have medical issues with certain foods). If they aren't our friends, then I really don't care what their rules are.
I've seen this movie (Score:2)
Re:Bash transgenic foods all you want (Score:4, Interesting)
Sadly, no.
http://static.ewg.org/agmag/pd... [ewg.org]
Re:Bash transgenic foods all you want (Score:4, Informative)
There are two points to this. In crops where insect damage is a big deal, the Bt trait has actually reduced total pesticide use. Where weeds are more prominent of a threat, pesticide use in the form of herbicides has increased. However, in the case of herbicide resistance traits (i.e. roundup-ready), the use of less-toxic pesticides (i.e. Roundup) has increased because that is what the crop has been designed to tolerate. Prior to the use of the RR trait, farmers primarily used various selective herbicides like atrazine which are a lot more toxic than Roundup. So this is actually a net benefit since Roundup can replace all of the toxic selective pesticides that were being used previously. Compare the LD50's of Roundup vs. the older pesticides to see proof.
http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where are you getting your figures? Self-diagnosis is notoriously unreliable, particularly on a large scale. I really doubt more people are allergic to wheat than ever before, relative to population size. Gluten sensitivity is something of a fad nowadays.
I've known two people with good medical reasons to avoid wheat. One developed celiac disease fairly recently, and one was getting sick from wheat long before GMO anything existed.
Re:Bash transgenic foods all you want (Score:4, Interesting)
After cursory glance at that, it seems neither of the graphs in the EWG thing you linked to even mention GE. More widely accepted publications tend to say [iastate.edu] otherwise [entsoc.org], depending on the situation. [plos.org]
I also like the part where no one ever explains how insect resistance is supposed to increase insecticide use, but only when that resistance is transgenic. No one would ever argue against conventionally bred resistances, and somehow, once genetic engineering is involved, then the genetic component of integrated pest management (which is to say, select varieties and/or species resistant to your local insect populations as a first line of defense against them, as opposed to chemical controls later) is suddenly a bad thing.
I do love that they mentioned the insects that have overcome the transgenic defenses. Typical anti-GE nonsense: deny the crops help pest problems, meanwhile say the crop resistances are creating selection pressure for resistance overcoming insects (which shows they slept through population genetics), then deny there are benefits, meanwhile say that the resistant pests are a huge problem. I mean, yeah they genuinely are a problem, but because they threaten the benefits we've already gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323463704578496923254944066
Re: (Score:2)
The first sentence says exactly what I already said, which is how inserts overcoming the crop's resistance can lead to an erosion of already provided benefits, which is quite a well documented and easily explained phenomenon. That is very different than the claim that GE crops lead to more insecticide use.
Re: (Score:2)
Only among GMO proponents does using more = using less.
When it ends up in you water supply, more = more. Just ask the people who live where pesticide/herbicide runoff has made their water unusable even for bathing, much less drinking.
Re: Bash transgenic foods all you want (Score:2, Informative)
The food costs twice as much because of companies like Monsanto, corporate farming (greed), and costs of pesticides. Einstein...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, it is well known that businesses (like farming) use the highest cost option when there are cheaper alternatives available. That is why the farms switched to GMO even though cheaper (or free) seeds are available - because it drives their cost UP. Not too smart, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Learn some economics. A farmer whose expenses go up can't just raise prices to compensate, because with other farmers selling cheaper nobody's going to buy that food. If expenses go up across the board, then food prices will go up, but even though food demand curves are pretty inelastic, the farmers aren't going to make enough extra money to make up for the increased expense.
Farmers will, in general, do whatever makes them the most profit. If GMO food is more expensive to produce, and has no other ben
Re: (Score:2)
A big part of the 2 million was spent on securing the fields so idiots wouldn't burn them down.
That cost is right on the eco nuts.