China To Develop Gene-Editing Tools, New Crop Varieties (reuters.com) 20
China issued guidelines on Friday to promote biotech cultivation, focusing on gene-editing tools and developing new wheat, corn, and soybean varieties, as part of efforts to ensure food security and boost agriculture technology. From a report: The 2024-2028 plan aims to achieve "independent and controllable" seed sources for key crops, with a focus to cultivate high-yield, multi-resistant wheat, corn and high-oil, high-yield soybean and rapeseed varieties. The move comes as China intensifies efforts to boost domestic yields of key crops like soybeans to reduce reliance on imports from countries such as the United States amid a looming trade war.
Re: Good (Score:2)
It is a good thing. Its detractors are the same people who go on about the scientific consensus when it comes to climate change but they poo-poo GMO even though the scientific consensus on its safety is even stronger than that of the scientific consensus behind climate change.
Nevertheless, the EU pulled out its pitchforks and torches when they first heard of it and outright banned it. Possibly based on widely discredited research done by a European who tried to prove that it causes colon cancer by feeding i
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand what kosher labeling is (or is for).
Re: Good (Score:2)
I know exactly what it's for, you just missed the intention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good (Score:2)
The patent argument is pure FUD. Nobody is going to pay more for seed that doesn't offer any advantage over conventional seed. There's that tired old argument about cross-pollination with nearby fields, except nobody has been or even could be sued over it. There's only one case with a Canadian farmer who was selectively breeding the roundup resistant genes and planted an entire field with it. That wasn't a simple case of cross-pollination: He knew about and willfully infringed on the patent, which was prove
Re: Good (Score:2)
"all crops are modified, whether through selective breeding or otherwise."
This is ignorant anti-science twaddle.
GM allows you to reach ends nature can't and/or won't, so it is fundamentally different from selective breeding. Arguing otherwise is disingenuous or ignorant.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with putting the trait of one organism in another? It's a single protein usually or a specific metabolic pathway.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with putting the trait of one organism in another? It's a single protein usually or a specific metabolic pathway.
Nowhere in this thread did anyone say it was wrong but here you are, all hurt about it.
Specific examples of GM may be wrong or not, just like specific examples of selective breeding might be wrong or not. You could selectively breed a plant which produced more of a toxin, for example, or which was more invasive. The discussion is about whether GM and selective breeding are the same thing, and they are not.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do grafted hybrids fit into this? What about producing hybrid seeds via hand pollination. Why does anyone care about what nature is capable of when every apple at the grocery store comes from stitching together two plants like Frankenstein's monster.
Re: Good (Score:2)
The spirit of Lysenko is strong with this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
This is ignorant anti-science twaddle.
No, ignorant anti-science twaddle is your specialty.
Re: (Score:2)
If you like Apples, don't even start. The original "apple" was disgusting and inedible.
There was once an Australian man who made a big deal about bananas being proof of intelligent design, how they were perfectly shaped for the human hand, easy to peel, tasty and nutritious etc. Until that is someone pointed out that the Cavendish banana he was holding is the product of so much selective breeding that it can't actually propagate itself, is one fungal disease away from extinction and tastes nothing like a natural banana, which is just as well because wild bananas are small and mostly full of s
Re: Good (Score:2)
New Zealand, and after learning that he tried to spin it off as being a joke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
I wonder if anybody ever told him that his bible doesn't actually mention hell anywhere in it, because apparently he preaches damnation.
Re: Good (Score:2)
Yes, the original Apple 1 was a very limited and hard to use computer. The second iteration, Apple ][ , was designed much more professionally. /s
This will totally end well. (Score:2)
It's About survival (Score:1)