Protesters threaten to destroy GMO crop 5/27/12

[geni]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

In the slightest?

Nope. Rather than say salt resistance, drought resistance or similar (I did once run across a rather interesting project to boost protein content but I'm not sure it went anywhere) we have a bunch of products with pesticide resistance. Great for first world farmers but rather invalidates the starving African argument.

But hey its hardly the first time that has been the case they just chose a poor target audience.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

That's why you test it. You don't know an invention will work before it has been made and tested... Anyways, you clearly are just trolling in an idiotic fashion.

Mmm, name-calling.

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

[geni]

Well the glow in the dark fish are pretty cool.

The insulin producing bacteria are generally considered a definite plus.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by geni

Well the glow in the dark fish are pretty cool.

The insulin producing bacteria are generally considered a definite plus.

I was interested in agricultural success stories.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by geni

Nope. Rather than say salt resistance, drought resistance or similar (I did once run across a rather interesting project to boost protein content but I'm not sure it went anywhere) we have a bunch of products with pesticide resistance. Great for first world farmers but rather invalidates the starving African argument.

But hey its hardly the first time that has been the case they just chose a poor target audience.

Those types of breeding programs are still in their infancy, but are coming along. Would you support the eventual use of such crops?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Those types of breeding programs are still in their infancy, but are coming along.

Golden rice has been on the books for over a decade now. Still not happening. So worth paying attention to if you want to see some cool science but not if you want to know about actual GM deployment.

Quote:

Would you support the eventual use of such crops?

Oh probably. But then I'm a chemist so I'm kinda hoping for a plant that produces chemical precursors. Well that or someone commercialising glow in the dark bacon.

For the time being though I'd suggest sitting back and enjoying the propaganda war.

[geni]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I was interested in agricultural success stories.

Well the squash viral resistance and cotten pest resistance appear to have sold well even if they are rather boring.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by The Nimble Pianist

They mention it as a hypothetical situation, not something that has actually happened. In it, they decide to use protein coding genes from a Brazil nut in order to infuse a higher methionine/cystein content to a pea. Without knowing exactly which protein is being produced by this gene and whether it can serve as an antigen in an allergic response, one cannot speculate. I'm honestly not even sure they know which proteins in nuts induce the allergic response.

Which is why nut genes have no business whatsoever being in wheat plants, or any other plants or animals at all aside from nuts.

We don't know what we're potentially doing with GMO. NO GMO product has been demonstrated conclusively safe for introduction to the environment, let alone consumption.

In fact, what we DO know about GMO products suggests that the modified genes have a tendency to get "loose" and spread outside the GMO product. This process is known as "outcrossing", and has already been documented in Mexico where outcrossed GMO genes have ruined the native maize varieties in one region.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articl...24/2499950.htm

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/mexico...amination.html

Remember, it's not the responsibility of those opposing GMOs to prove harm, it's the responsibility of those promoting GMOs to prove no harm.

That's the rule with foods and drugs.

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Nop you got that right - had a similar argument in the 90s with a consumer group back home that modified wheat shared similar DNA with peanuts and therefore the wheat was a danger to those in society with nut allergies.

The old saying a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing never rang truer

Unfortunately, the same is usually exemplified by those criticizing it based by their own too little knowledge.

Actual cases of copying too much from one plant to another have actually happened. E.g., a case of transferring a gene from Brazil nuts to soybeans in the 90's did end up actually copying a gene too many, and unfortunately it was actually the allergen that was the gene too many. So, yes, it was a danger to people with an allergy to that specific nut.

The problem of how much you copy is a very real one, and the reason for much of the regulation and for that matter of the research and testing costs.

If such concerns sound stupid to you... well, maybe now you know at what end that problem of too little knowledge is

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by Battman

Really? We've been eating GM wheat for over a century now.
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/wheat
So far, so good.

There is a huge difference between natural crossbreeding of plants (or animals) where natural processes result in natural combinations of genes and GMOs, where genes are "cut-n-pasted" together using artificial techniques to introduce utterly NON natural genes from other plant and animal species.

[Muldur]

Originally Posted by BravesFan

I really really, don't understand why someone would destroy a GMO test crop. It seems like this goes against the whole safety issue as, well, they are testing it to see how it fares and will probably then test it's health and safety stuff after the crop fruits...

Because those test crops are not in biohazard-sealed labs that prevent the GMO genes from outcrossing into native plants. GMO has not been proven safe for use, and should not be in an uncontrolled environment until such proof is forthcoming.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds.

How come none of the farmers I know have abandoned their land? You realize this is a skeptics forums, so I shouldn't have to ask for evidence.

Originally Posted by JihadJane

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

Every crop currently growing is a GM success story.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Muldur

There is a huge difference between natural crossbreeding of plants (or animals) where natural processes result in natural combinations of genes and GMOs, where genes are "cut-n-pasted" together using artificial techniques to introduce utterly NON natural genes from other plant and animal species.

What I find interesting is the nutwads automatically assume the latter is somehow worse.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Mmm, name-calling.

Calling it like I see it. First, you claim GM crops are primitive. Then you fail to defend that claim and instead highlight the obvious (that inventions need to be tested) as if it means something.

Quote:

As far as I know, the only "successful", tested, agricultural GM crops so far are those designed to resist selected herbicides. These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

Name one farmer that has abandoned their land. Claiming that herbicide resistant crops are primitive b/c of superweeds is like claiming that antibiotics are primitive because of resistant strains. It just doesn't make any sense on any level.

Quote:

I'd be interested to hear of other, similar, GM crop "success" stories.

There are many varieties of virus resistant crops in use, golden rice is coming onto the market soon, and there are others.

[ThunderChunky]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Because those test crops are not in biohazard-sealed labs that prevent the GMO genes from outcrossing into native plants. GMO has not been proven safe for use, and should not be in an uncontrolled environment until such proof is forthcoming.

You need some common sense. It's not like they are adding some dangerous chemical to the plants. They are adding a pheromone that is already in peppermint and other plant species... There is no bio hazard danger to it.

[jj]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

GM crops, so far, have shown themselves to very primitive.

Really?

So cauliflower, broccoli, mustard, chard, turnips, cabbage, rapa, etc, are all "primitive".

They are all the result of direct human genetic modification.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

What I find interesting is the nutwads automatically assume the latter is somehow worse.

Don't worry, he thinks science works together to stop bigfoot from being shown to the world. So, this is no surprise.

[JeanFromBNA]

Originally Posted by Muldur

Remember, it's not the responsibility of those opposing GMOs to prove harm, it's the responsibility of those promoting GMOs to prove no harm.

That's the rule with foods and drugs.

I disagree with you that the standard is no harm. Very few types of food and most drugs would meet that standard.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Seriously?

What's the alternative?

Oops. Sorry about the poor writing. I meant gmo's , not ag in general.

Imho, this questionable practice is taking over, before we even began to explore other plants much less integrated pest management.

there are thousands of edible plants. Many have much better nutrition profiles and much lower need than the five or so plants that make up the vast majority of the gmo foods.

[Battman]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

These are leading to farmers having to abandon their land because of super weeds. This is what I mean by primitive (oblivious) technology.

Again, really? I've lived my entire life in the middle of farm country and the only farms that I've ever seen "abandoned" are the ones that got swallowed up by ever expanding cities in which case they were sold off to the developers. Sure, some farmers go broke, but it's generally due to factors like floods, droughts, excessively high input costs like fuel or simply bad management like not growing some sort of GM crop. Farming is a business after all and some GM crops like canola can be very profitable for the farmer.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by Battman

Again, really? I've lived my entire life in the middle of farm country and the only farms that I've ever seen "abandoned" are the ones that got swallowed up by ever expanding cities in which case they were sold off to the developers. Sure, some farmers go broke, but it's generally due to factors like floods, droughts, excessively high input costs like fuel or simply bad management like not growing some sort of GM crop. Farming is a business after all and some GM crops like canola can be very profitable for the farmer.

Dig deeper. You owe it to yourself.

[Lamuella]

to those suggesting that a lot more testing is needed on GM crops:

Isn't this a good reason to condemn idiots who are trying to destroy GM test sites?

[Orphia Nay]

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...-progress.aspx

Quote:

More than 2 million smallholder farmers in Africa are already realizing the benefits of higher yields and incomes from these new maize varieties. By 2016, the drought-tolerant maize program is expected to boost maize yields by as much as 30 percent, benefitting up to 40 million people in 13 Sub-Saharan African countries.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...-progress.aspx

That's a good and heartening story. The initiatives appear to be Govt. led and hopefully there are no heavyweight issues over patents, seed-retention and so on.

Related article

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Lamuella

to those suggesting that a lot more testing is needed on GM crops:

Isn't this a good reason to condemn idiots who are trying to destroy GM test sites?

It's entertaining to try to pin down the anti-GMO nutwads over how many positive test results would they need to see in order to accept GMO as safe? They'll never give you an answer.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...-progress.aspx

How dare those evil seed companies try to increase yields!!!

I'm sure those African farmers were using traditional crop growing practices which produced natural, organic and healthy produce, and we have to go and ruin it.

[Silly Green Monkey]

We don't have golden rice yet?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/agric...-progress.aspx

Just conventional cross breeding so not really relivant.

[geni]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

How dare those evil seed companies try to increase yields!!!

I'm sure those African farmers were using traditional crop growing practices which produced natural, organic and healthy produce, and we have to go and ruin it.

People have been trying to introduce the green revolution to africa for decades. Doesn't seem to work in the medium term for some reason.

[!Kaggen]

Good evening ladies and gentleman tonight we have
"I know nothing about farming except what I learned from playing Farmville"
title fight.

In the right hand corner we have the gmo psuedoscience cheerleaders.
And in the left hand corner their strawman arguments.

Let the fight begin

[!Kaggen]

deleted

[quarky]

ugh.
I don't have the strength to illuminate the dark underbelly of gmo's.
Its not at all about the science...though there are some issues...its about the politics.
Its about too much control where it shouldn't be. Its analogous to the U.S. and its recent decision to allow democracy to be bought.

Anyway, skeptics must realize how stats can lie. This requires a bit of digging into history. Take the 'spice islands', for instance, back when the Dutch were major dicks:

They destroyed a sustainable agricultural base to force a peoples to do their bidding and grow exportable crops. flash forward.
How about a gmo version of Cinnamon? hey, higher yields! Win-win, right?

wrong.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by !Kaggen

Good evening ladies and gentleman tonight we have
"I know nothing about farming except what I learned from playing Farmville"
title fight.

In the right hand corner we have the gmo psuedoscience cheerleaders.
And in the left hand corner their strawman arguments.

Let the fight begin

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

ugh.
I don't have the strength to illuminate the dark underbelly of gmo's.
Its not at all about the science...though there are some issues...its about the politics.
Its about too much control where it shouldn't be. Its analogous to the U.S. and its recent decision to allow democracy to be bought.

Anyway, skeptics must realize how stats can lie. This requires a bit of digging into history. Take the 'spice islands', for instance, back when the Dutch were major dicks:

They destroyed a sustainable agricultural base to force a peoples to do their bidding and grow exportable crops. flash forward.
How about a gmo version of Cinnamon? hey, higher yields! Win-win, right?

wrong.

This is the Science subforum. If you want to discuss the politics of agriculture, start a thread in the Politics subforum.

[GlennB]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

This is the Science subforum. If you want to discuss the politics of agriculture, start a thread in the Politics subforum.

The thread is about GM agriculture. Is GM agriculture immune from political considerations? I don't think so.

Would you care to be held to such a rigorous level on on-topicness as you're suggesting here?

[portlandatheist]

There's a great opinion piece about this in New Scientist

Quote:

I end with a further concern. Activists may not know much about Rothamsted. The institute is the site of perhaps the longest-running environmental experiment in the world, with plots testing different agricultural methods and their ecological consequences dating all the way back to 1843. Some of these plots are very close to the GM wheat test site, and we are extremely worried that anyone walking onto them would endanger a research programme that is almost two centuries old.

wiki page on Rothamsted

Quote:

Its research program has four main areas[2]

20:20 Wheat: increasing wheat productivity to yield 20 tonnes per hectare in 20 years.
Cropping carbon: optimising carbon capture by grasslands and perennial energy crops, such as willow.
Designing seeds: improved health and nutrition through seeds.
Delivering sustainable systems: investigating sustainable agricultural systems to increase productivity while minimising environmental impact.

This sounds like sound science to me.

[quarky]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

This is the Science subforum. If you want to discuss the politics of agriculture, start a thread in the Politics subforum.

I'm scared of the politics subforum.
Have you ever been there?
Yowza.

Anyway, this is a bit like the kettle calling the African American green.
Can anyone make a link to all the lawsuits that Monsanto has instituted?
Some are truly bizarre.
You aren't allowed to have their patented genes, even if you tried your best to keep them out of your farm.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The thread is about GM agriculture. Is GM agriculture immune from political considerations? I don't think so.

Gee, if only we had a subforum to discuss political considerations.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by quarky

You aren't allowed to have their patented genes, even if you tried your best to keep them out of your farm.

A common misconception.

Remember, Percy Schmeiser knew exactly what he was doing.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

This sounds like sound science to me.

That's what the anti-GMO nutwads hate about it.