Re: How to safe the environment
Posted: Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:29 pm
well i guess will come as no surprise but i think i disagree with just about everything you said in that last post Juniper
the EU ruled very differently to the US about patented genes in crops. basically if i got it right the bottom line was intent. if you "intended" to steal someone's research into genetically modified plants then that was one thing but if it blew over the fence then tough! i certainly haven't heard of anyone on this side of the pond having to destroy crops because of patented genes appearing in them due to normal pollenation.
next... i'm really not sure where you came by the idea that modified plants were MORE suseptable to pests and disease compared to the classical forms of plant breeding (which are after all pretty unnatural in themselves since it involves hybridisation followed by repeat back crossing!). in fact most of the thrust of genetic modification is now towards transfering pest and disease resistence genes from wild populations or traditional strains into commerical crops. ok, its the fault of the big companies but in an entirely practical line of thinking its a GOOD thing that the companies want these "old" genes because it preserves varieties that would be extinct by now if not for them! now i totally agree that monocultures with extremely low genetic variability are bad but that describes mostly industrially grown crops in the world now! and if you want a classical reference the entire potato famine in ireland (though not the starvation and mass exodus that followed it which was entirely down to protestant christian landlords... oops! i won't go on...) was due to only a single blight suseptable variety of potato being grown across the whole of ireland! and since it was produced vegetatively there was ZERO variation!
ok this myth of genetically modified crops being bad for people. can you tell me where that actually comes from? in what way can the difference of a SINGLE codon in a SINGLE gene affect people? there are NO new proteins produced! are the resistence genes in new plants toxic? well since they're only expressed as proteins in parts of the plant we don't eat i'd have to say i just don't follow the reasoning! the BT gene that's usually used paralyses insects by affecting their GABA receptors but mammalian GABA receptors are completely different! with about 500 million years of divergent evolution between them and us! oh! and the EU didn't ban GM foods just some uses of... its complicated...
right! enough of my ranting at the failings of some people's cell biology and ecotoxicology education! what i MEANT by genetically modified plants (and animals too!) isn't the tinkering with an odd gene here or there! and yes i'll admit that you're right that such minor alterations can move into wild populations but the cat is SO out of the bag on that one! horizontal gene movement is wildly out of control and we have bacteria to blame for that! no when i talk about genetically modified plants i mean ones where the majority or totality of the genome is artifical! a plant (or animal) that is related to nothing, can breed with no preexisting organism and is mapped at the molecular level to have no surprises lurking in its make up! sod a plant to make vegetable oil that can make biodiesel when its possible to make a plant make petrol!! you see my point?
i'm waiting for the flaming with baited breath!![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
the EU ruled very differently to the US about patented genes in crops. basically if i got it right the bottom line was intent. if you "intended" to steal someone's research into genetically modified plants then that was one thing but if it blew over the fence then tough! i certainly haven't heard of anyone on this side of the pond having to destroy crops because of patented genes appearing in them due to normal pollenation.
next... i'm really not sure where you came by the idea that modified plants were MORE suseptable to pests and disease compared to the classical forms of plant breeding (which are after all pretty unnatural in themselves since it involves hybridisation followed by repeat back crossing!). in fact most of the thrust of genetic modification is now towards transfering pest and disease resistence genes from wild populations or traditional strains into commerical crops. ok, its the fault of the big companies but in an entirely practical line of thinking its a GOOD thing that the companies want these "old" genes because it preserves varieties that would be extinct by now if not for them! now i totally agree that monocultures with extremely low genetic variability are bad but that describes mostly industrially grown crops in the world now! and if you want a classical reference the entire potato famine in ireland (though not the starvation and mass exodus that followed it which was entirely down to protestant christian landlords... oops! i won't go on...) was due to only a single blight suseptable variety of potato being grown across the whole of ireland! and since it was produced vegetatively there was ZERO variation!
ok this myth of genetically modified crops being bad for people. can you tell me where that actually comes from? in what way can the difference of a SINGLE codon in a SINGLE gene affect people? there are NO new proteins produced! are the resistence genes in new plants toxic? well since they're only expressed as proteins in parts of the plant we don't eat i'd have to say i just don't follow the reasoning! the BT gene that's usually used paralyses insects by affecting their GABA receptors but mammalian GABA receptors are completely different! with about 500 million years of divergent evolution between them and us! oh! and the EU didn't ban GM foods just some uses of... its complicated...
right! enough of my ranting at the failings of some people's cell biology and ecotoxicology education! what i MEANT by genetically modified plants (and animals too!) isn't the tinkering with an odd gene here or there! and yes i'll admit that you're right that such minor alterations can move into wild populations but the cat is SO out of the bag on that one! horizontal gene movement is wildly out of control and we have bacteria to blame for that! no when i talk about genetically modified plants i mean ones where the majority or totality of the genome is artifical! a plant (or animal) that is related to nothing, can breed with no preexisting organism and is mapped at the molecular level to have no surprises lurking in its make up! sod a plant to make vegetable oil that can make biodiesel when its possible to make a plant make petrol!! you see my point?
i'm waiting for the flaming with baited breath!
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)