US Says Genetically Modified Wheat Safe To Grow, Pending Trials 119
A type of genetically modified wheat developed by Argentina's Bioceres may be safely grown and bred in the United States, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said on Tuesday. From a report: Bioceres must still complete additional steps, including field trials, that will take years before it can commercialize HB4 wheat, modified to tolerate drought, industry group U.S. Wheat Associates said. Still, USDA's finding moves genetically modified wheat closer to production in the U.S. in a potential win for farmers grappling with drought and more severe weather, despite concerns among some consumers.
"Wherever wheat is grown in the world, drought takes its toll on yields and quality, so an innovation like HB4 holds a lot of interest for growers like me," said Michael Peters, an Oklahoma wheat farmer and past chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates. Genetic modification involves altering a plant's makeup by transferring DNA from one organism to another and is common in crops such as corn, used for livestock feed. Some consumer groups oppose genetic modification of wheat over concerns about human health since it is widely used to make bread and pasta, and therefore consumed directly by people. USDA's decision on HB4 wheat is farther than the agency has ever gone with genetically modified wheat, U.S. Wheat Associates said.
"Wherever wheat is grown in the world, drought takes its toll on yields and quality, so an innovation like HB4 holds a lot of interest for growers like me," said Michael Peters, an Oklahoma wheat farmer and past chairman of U.S. Wheat Associates. Genetic modification involves altering a plant's makeup by transferring DNA from one organism to another and is common in crops such as corn, used for livestock feed. Some consumer groups oppose genetic modification of wheat over concerns about human health since it is widely used to make bread and pasta, and therefore consumed directly by people. USDA's decision on HB4 wheat is farther than the agency has ever gone with genetically modified wheat, U.S. Wheat Associates said.
Sure, it can tolerate drought (Score:4, Funny)
But Tribble infestations in the grain storage are still an issue.
Re:Sure, it can tolerate drought (Score:5, Funny)
There's even a giant Tribble camping on the head of one of our former Presidents, and nobody's doing anything about it. I suspect bribery.
Re: (Score:2)
Tribble, rodent, and insect infestations can be prevented with controlled atmosphere storage. Flood the grain silo with 10% CO2, and none of them will survive for long.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just stop feeding them.
Testing is for the weak! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Testing is for the weak! (Score:5, Interesting)
My primary concern with GMO crops is not about weird side effects. While, in extreme cases, allergens not native to the crop might be introduced that way, the real concern is monoculture. Monoculture is already a problem in various crops. Consider the Cavendish banana, the current "standard" banana. There are increasing problems with fungus that has adapted to the Cavendish, but since the seedless Cavendish is a monoculture and they're all essentially clones of each other, there's no adaptation of the banana to the fungus. In the long term, that could mean the Cavendish becomes unsustainable and we need to find a completely new strain of banana. The same sort of thing happened with, for example, the potatoes the Irish were principally growing during the potato famine. Lack of genetic variability meant total collapse of everyone's crop virtually simultaneously. Add to that the problems that can come with a monopoly and there are some real reasons to be concerned about GMO crops.
Re:Testing is for the weak! (Score:4, Informative)
the real concern is monoculture.
That has little to do with GMO. None of the crops that are primarily monocultures are GMO.
Consider the Cavendish banana, the current "standard" banana.
A great example that is NOT GMO.
the potatoes the Irish were principally growing during the potato famine.
Not GMO either.
problems that can come with a monopoly
The vast majority of GMO crops are not controlled by any monopoly or any corporation. Nearly all are in the public domain, free for anyone to grow.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That has little to do with GMO. None of the crops that are primarily monocultures are GMO.
Your thinking is a little backwards here. Certainly the problem of monocultures is not unique to GMOs. However, GMO crops are generally monocultures. I made no argument whatsoever that the problem is limited to GMO crops.
I am quite aware that the Cavendish banana and Irish potatoes from the mid-1800s are not GMOs. That really was not the point. The point was simply that monocultures can be problematic and the nature of GMO crops means that they will tend to be monocultures.
As for the monopoly issues. While
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
GMO crops are generally monocultures.
No, they aren't.
The most popular GMO crops are glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, canola, and corn.
They differ from conventional strains by the presence of a single gene for phosphate synthesis. But that gene has been inserted into many different strains, and has been inserted into seed stocks with wide genetic diversity.
You can do this yourself. Mix glyphosate-tolerant seeds with your own soybeans, harvest the cross-breed seeds, plant them the following year, and spray the field with glyphosate to eliminate tho
Re: (Score:3)
No, they aren't.
The most popular GMO crops are glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, canola, and corn.
They differ from conventional strains by the presence of a single gene for phosphate synthesis. But that gene has been inserted into many different strains, and has been inserted into seed stocks with wide genetic diversity.
Yet, the individual crops are, indeed, monoculltures. Not to mention that the inserted genes across those different crops are often the same ones. So, if those genes represent any sort of vulnerability to a particular fungus/virus/etc. then all the different crop types actually represent a special, new kind of monoculture.
Now, I know you're just going to be contrary anyway, but I need to point out that I'm not doomsaying or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that a liability actually does exist, even
Re: (Score:2)
While, in extreme cases, allergens not native to the crop might be introduced that way, the real concern is monoculture. Monoculture is already a problem in various crops.
Well, you have half of the reason to be concerned about words that start with mono... there is another one, which is also relevant: monopoly. We can not allow ourselves to be put into a situation where a single entity "owns" our food. If we practice Capitalism, which is desirable, then a monopoly on that food item translates directly into profits that are high enough to make anyone's eyes water.
Re: (Score:2)
Most GMO foods grown are not controlled by any corporation or monopoly.
The most widely grown GMO crops are glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, canola, and corn, Bt-corn, and "golden rice". None of them are restricted by any patent or owned by any corporation. Anyone is free to grow them, save the seeds, and replant.
Many non-GMO foods, including thousands of conventional hybrids, are controlled by monopolies.
Monopolies and GMOs are mostly unrelated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need to brush up on your set theory. There is a set of crops that are monocultures and there is a set of crops that are GMO. If you make a Venn diagram, the circle for monocultures encompasses the circle for GMO crops even though the circle for GMO crops does not fill the entirety of the circle for monocultures. In other words, GMO crops are all some form of monoculture, whereas monocultures can exist without being GMO. It's pretty straightforward.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What isn't how any of this works? I'm literally saying the same thing you are. That there are both non-GMO and GMO monocultures. What are you actually disagreeing with?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You previously said:
The alternative to GMO:s on the market is hybrid seeds, they are all monocultures as well.
Which pretty clearly states that GMOs are monocultures. Then you say that they are not. Make up your mind.
Also, while you can have hybrids made from GMOs and other crops, if a crop is a pure GMO, then it's a monoculture. I'm not suggesting this is some terrible thing, just that it introduces a small liability, just like it does for non-GMO monocultures.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The end result is that this is not a property particular to GMO:s so therefore being anti GMO on the stance of it being monoculture is not a viable position
I would hardly call my stance "anti GMO". I merely pointed out that you have more of a likelihood of monocultures with GMOs (which is true, since it takes more intensive work to generate a GMO crop than a traditionally cultured one) and that monocultures can be considered a liability. I have been very clear that I do not consider that to be a show stopping liability, just a consideration.
Re: (Score:2)
the real concern is monoculture
But why? GMO is applicable to all strains of something, and in fact can make previously non-viable variants of a plant farmable. GMOs are not a monoculture. They are diversely available.
The only real risk is losing control of the GMO seeds and having them run wild potentially damaging an ecosystem like any foreign flora/fauna does. But capitalism has your back there since many GMO seeds grow plants which do not seed themselves. Gotta keep selling seeds somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
But why? GMO is applicable to all strains of something, and in fact can make previously non-viable variants of a plant farmable. GMOs are not a monoculture. They are diversely available.
GMO crops are monocultures. That will mostly not be a problem of course, it's just a potential liability. In this day and age, if it becomes a problem, it can be dealt with quickly. .
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
GMO fearmongers are no better than anti-vaxxers.
They are equally skeptical of Big Government, Big Pharma, and Big Ag. You sir, on the other hand, are a mindless drone: one that drinks the entire bottle of propaganda kool-aid without even looking at the label. I bet last week before the story on Fluoride, you were laughing at that "conspiracy theory" too. You're lack of skepticism and bandwagon mentality is disgusting to me. You were probably one of the ones telling everyone the CV19 mRNA vaccines prevented COVID.
there isn't one iota of evidence that there is anything unsafe about it,
I'm sure that'll be great consolation to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Almost all the food we eat has been selectively modified using either selective planting (keep the best for seeds and replant them), hybridization, or grafting.
Has anyone seen the original corn, bananas, watermelons, apples, avocados, rice, etc that our modern food started as? Improving yields, fruit size, nutrition, disease resistance, and flavor have all benefited from selective agriculture practices. Direct genetic modification is just a quicker way to select the characteristics we want. I'm a lot mor
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, a very successful GM crop is Golden Rice. Essentially, it's licence is free to farmers in developing countries, it's main target market, & avoids many of the issues that Monsanto
Re: (Score:2)
As we saw from Monsanto/Bayer's foray into GM crops, the issue wasn't the technology per se, it was the greedy corporations & their implementations of "protecting their intellectual property." This loosely translates into bankrupting farmers & driving them to suicide with ridiculous IP theft prosecutions.
Expect that THIS NEVER HAPPENED.
Neither Monsanto nor Bayer ever sued anyone for any form of unintentional contamination, windblown pollen or otherwise.
It is a lie. A stupid social media meme.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing an example.
There are some examples, such as Percy Schmeiser [wikipedia.org], who was sued for blatant intentional infringement, but no one was ever sued for unintentional cross-breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Monsanto/Bayer have a well-earned reputation for bankrupting farmers & driving some to suicide via IP theft prosecutions. That's a fact. Look it up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In contrast, a very successful GM crop is Golden Rice. Essentially, it's licence is free to farmers in developing countries, it's main target market, & avoids many of the issues that Monsanto/Bayer deliberately imposed on their Roundup Ready seeds:
But the Luddite lobby hates Golden Rice just as much as it hates Bayer/Monsanto products, because it's GMO. Activists have destroyed test fields of it in places like the Philippines.
In 1811, the British Crown had the good sense to hunt those bastards down and hang them. So should we.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said they taking DNA from another species?
The wheat in TFA has been modified by inserting a gene from sunflowers.
Re: (Score:2)
See, thats the problem. You picked a theory before collecting facts because you fucks dont ever use facts you appeal in a different fucking non-reasoning manipulative and wholly dishonest way.
Are you going to suggest that it just slipped by you that the people were defending, on the subject you are defending them on, are literally the opposite of what you represent. You cant call it honesty, thats for sure. One way or another you were fronting. Fucking greasy
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Three-eyed babies:
2024: |
2025: ||
2026: ||||
2027: ||||||||
2028: |||||||||||||||||||
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
once this GMO strain is 'out in the wild', it gets pollinated into everything.
It is easy to insert a "terminator" gene into GMO crops so they produce no pollen or otherwise prevent the GMO traits from spreading.
But anti-GMO activists lobbied to ban terminator genes because they wanted the GMO traits to spread so they could use the issue to protest against GMO crops.
So, instead of blaming GMO crops for gene spreading, you should blame anti-GMO lobbyists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please provide links to authoritative source(s) validating your claim.
Here you go: Genetic use restriction technology [wikipedia.org].
Search the page for "moratorium".
Re: (Score:2)
great golden waves of grain, sea to shining sea! (Score:2)
Hey, at least it's not giant hogweed.
Re: (Score:2)
We're talking wheat, laddie. Glutenberg, shirley?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah....I mean, who gives a fuck what the actual consumer wants to ingest....?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Testing is for the weak! (Score:2)
There's no reason to think you couldn't get emergent properties from traditional mutation and hybridization. We literally irradiate "non gmo" plants and seeds explicitly to try and get new emergent properties. The idea that via direct genetic modification you can get traits that are "impossible" isn't true, it's really just a question of speed and intention. In fact there's probably an argument to be made that explicitly gene editing the traits you want is safer than mass dice rolling using radiation/chemic
Re: (Score:2)
There's no reason to think you couldn't get emergent properties from traditional mutation and hybridization.
As you point out, many things can create new phenotypes. I am saying I personally opine that taking genes from other somewhat-compatible plants via traditional cross breeding (not irradiation, not random mutation) may be somewhat safer than picking genes from other organisms. I might be proved wrong, too.
Given some of the extremely helpful traits we've given to some plants like Rapeseed, Golden Rice, and the Wheat plant we domesticated from Teosinte, I'm game for any good trait, any way. However, I'd be
Another great Slashdot title (Score:2)
"Safe to grow... pending tests"
In other words, it *may* be safe to grow - but they need to do some tests first before making that determination?
Re: (Score:2)
Glufosinate tolerant wheat (Score:2)
The drought resistance is purely PR. The amount of water in the Glufosinate solution they want to hose it down with will insure the plant never actually experiences drought.
Re: (Score:2)
Glyphosate is generally applied in the spring to kill weed seedlings when they're still small.
Drought-resistance is important during the summer.
There is no glyphosate-tolerant wheat grown commercially.
Re: (Score:2)
Glufosinate on the other hand is a contact herbicide which is not taken up from the soil, so it doesn't make much sense to engineer in resistance if you aren't going to spray the plant.
So the problem isn't GMO safety (Score:5, Insightful)
And there is something just so deeply, deeply fucked up about patenting seeds and plants. Never mind the fact that the actual research is typically done at public universities or with taxpayer grants. Allowing something so fundamental to human civilization to be controlled by billionaire owned mega corporations is a fundamental infringement on the most basic of human freedoms.
Re: (Score:2)
This! For me, genetic engineering has never been a safety concern.
Re:So the problem isn't GMO safety (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is patents.
The vast majority of GMO crops are not patented.
The most widely grown GMO crops, by far, are glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, canola, and corn.
The patents for all of them expired years ago. Anyone is free to grow them, save the seeds, sell them to their neighbors, or whatever.
The patent for Bt-corn also expired years ago.
"Golden rice" was never restricted by any patent.
you never heard of terminator seed (Score:2)
That said, you are right about golden rice.
Re: (Score:2)
There has never been any evidence produced of Monsanto or any other company using the so-called "terminator" seeds.
You are repeating a hysterical conspiracy theory from the last millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
the roundup ready resistant GMO one are actually terminator seed : while they will grow a plant, this plant will be sterile and will not grow seedling.
Total bullcrap. Absolutely untrue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Under patent law, plants obtained by biological breeding processes were excluded from patentability with effect from 1 July 2017. However, the exclusion from patentability does not apply to patent applications filed before that date. This was expressly stipulated by the EPO's highest judicial authority, theEnlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO, and must be observed by the Office in examination practice. Known as non-retroactivity, this general principle of law ensures that actions taken in legitimate expectation in the applicable law prior to a legislative change are protected. This is also the case in other areas of law, such as tax law, criminal law and international law.
Roughly 270 proceedings are still pending at the EPO as they are covered by the principle of non-retroactivity and could thus lead to patents on plants obtained by biological breeding processes if all other patentability requirements are met. On the other hand, these media reports frequently mention patents that refer to plants produced by technical processes and not solely by the biological methods of crossing and selection. Plants obtained by technical processes are generally considered patentable under the law. This includes plants that have been genetically engineered or where a genetic modification (or mutation) of a plant is created by technical means.
Aka seeds before 2017 are still covered by patents in the EU and seeds created through technical means is still patentable after 2017. Aka the problem is the patent system and not GMO:s specifically.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts to buy seeds have zero to do with patents. The fact the patent expires means that you can get seeds from diverse suppliers, that was the parent's point. It helps to understand what is being discussed before you complain about said discussion being wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
To grow the plants you have to buy the seeds,
Farmers buy seeds for most crops because the seeds are cheaper than producing their own, and they get the benefits of hybrids.
But for some crops, such as soybeans, it is common for farmers to save seeds from year to year, including GMO seeds.
GMO soybeans are the most widely grown GMO crop, and farmers can grow their own seeds without legal restrictions.
Most seeds don't come with a contract. You buy them, plant them, and buy them again the next year.
Re: (Score:2)
GMOs are safe (Score:2)
You nitwits are already eating plants far more, and actually, Frankensteiny than any modern GMO. You realize that rice, wheat, corn, and even bananas are highly engineered right? Our ancestors used hybridization and artificial selection to basically create the plants we farm today. It's like you see packs of wolves and take the most retarded of them and cross breed them -- basically hope that selecting ones with fucked up chromosomes can survive -- and thus create these manageable but highly dependent creat
Re: GMOs are safe (Score:3)
"You nitwits are already eating plants far more, and actually, Frankensteiny than any modern GMO."
Typically false thing for you to say. GMO is different because it enables outcomes not possible in nature.
That doesn't make them automatically unsafe, it does make them different and also weirder. Pretending otherwise only makes your ignorance obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, this statement is provably false. "GMO is different because it enables outcomes not possible in nature."
If it wasn't possible in nature, how the heck can it be made exist? It's not a high temperature superconductor, 4-neutron atom, anti-gravity drive, or magnetic monopole or something like that. If something is not possible in nature it can't be made to exist. Oh I definitely do get what you mean thiough .. you believe GMO is different because we're creating a thing that given reasonable possibilities
Re: (Score:2)
Nature (as we define it to be outside ourselves) cannot assemble the labs in which we conduct the processes used for the types of modifications referred to as GMO. The technology requires an ordered mind.
Re: (Score:2)
So you think an "unordered mind" hybridizing species together and artificially selecting various mutants using reproductive isolation is safer? It's like, you you have the idea that eating a hybrid of a lion and tiger or a horse and donkey is somehow safe? Something that would rarely happen in nature? You realize that is genome/chromosome scale disruption right? It's literally hundreds of times more variables at play than adding a single gene. With hybridization you're literally creating a mule .. hundreds
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't have a small set of herbicides and pesticides to make all their crops resistant against or create cross species resistance mechanics (Bt).
Regardless of whether it's healthy, GM is making food production more fragile.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a specific modification; and you might be right that doubling down on monoculture and one type of pest resistance is bad. But blaming or banning GM entirely due to specific abuse or misusage is silly. It's like banning metalworking because it can produce guns. Or banning agriculture because it can be use to grow coca plants. The ancients hybridized corn, wheat, and rice and that enabled human population to grow to the billions via agriculture. If our species wants to stop occupying large swaths of la
Good but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully we don't end up in the same place as the "Roundup Ready" seed, where if pollen from it drifts into another farmer's field
Bullcrap. No farmer has ever been sued or had seeds confiscated for unintentional infringement by drifting pollen.
Feel free to prove me wrong by citing an example.
Re: (Score:2)
Never been done, this was always the argument that the anti-gmo crowd brought up, but it has never happened.
There was also the hysteria about the terminator gene, again, it never happened.
GM Foods Should Need 5-10 Year FDA Trials (Score:2)
They need to seperate the term GMO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can be created in a lab, nature can create it as well. Bioscience is not magic.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it will likely never happen... (Score:3)
A few years ago, I was in a meeting with a bunch of wheat growers and their trade association. Most of them were not personally opposed to growing genetically engineered wheat. But, they were keenly aware of potential trade problems that would occur if GE wheat were allowed. The problem is that the US and Canada export a large percentage of their crop and much of it goes to countries which oppose genetically engineered crops. Much of Europe and Asia is like this.
You might think that it would be okay if some growers planted GE wheat for domestic consumption and others kept shipping old-school wheat to GE-averse countries, but you'd be wrong. The problem is that once it's being grown anywhere in the US or Canada, all exports are now suspect to contamination. All exports would be subject to testing. The growers in that meeting agreed that they would probably never grow GE wheat. The same is true for a number of other export crops -- GE cultivars were developed years ago but never released. Wheat goes into bread and that is something you don't mess with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you chose Africa, because apparently the Sahara is starting a greening process early
Re: (Score:2)
I think I replied to the wrong person