A “Facebook” friend has urged me to join in on a petition “against GM crops in Europe”.

Are we supposed to be still worried about this, or am I right in thinking it’s a lot of hippie hoo-hah about nothing?

Its a pandoras box situation – once it is out there then there is no stopping it.

Monsanto have already deliberately contaminated the worlds soya crop in an attempt to ensure the acceptance of GM soya. This can never be undone

The prospect of the genes that make crops “roundup ready” ie resistant to herbicides transferring into the wild weeds is frightening and could well happen – gene transference has already been shown to happen.

Its a solution in search of a problem, its about money for big business not about ending hunger.

What’s the difference between manipulating genes in the laboratory (recent) and grafting different strains together for better results (past several thoudand years)?

Or is it another tedious “evil capitalists” argument. Yawn.

Can it help alleviate hunger? Yes.
Will it? No, at least not as far as the big multinationals are concerned. They could use it to develop crops which are more resistant to pests/drought in countries which are short of food, or to produce drugs/vaccines/vitamins, but that’s not going to make them money.

Oh right – “No GM gooood, make money baaaaad”…

My concern with GM is in the unexpected side effects of the vectors used to introduce the intended manipulation.

Against it, because I don’t want the potential of this sort of thing happening in Europe:

http://nourishedmagazine.com.au/blog/articles/perry-schmeiser-vs-monsanto

Mr Woppit – Member

What’s the difference between manipulating genes in the laboratory (recent) and grafting different strains together for better results (past several thoudand years)?

Selective breeding uses genes that are already present oin the plants – just selecting for the things you want.

GM means adding genes from other species into the plant stock with results that cannot be known

Clearly a perspective from one side of the debate but worth a read

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm

absolute nonsense

gm crops have been kicking about for years now, the sky hasnt fallen down and everything is still fine

the daily mailesque headlines of ‘frankenfoods’ have really settled into the consciousnesses of the gullable

gm manipulation is no different from selective breeding

if you have an issue with globalisation and the actions of big agribusiness, fair enough

My concern with GM is in the unexpected side effects of the vectors used to introduce the intended manipulation.
and what exactly would that be?- antibiotic resistance isnt used as a selection marker any more and hasnt been for a long time

We’ve been genetically modifying food for as long as we’ve had agriculture. Whilst there are plenty of valid criticisms of the way that companies have acted, to simply say no to new technology on the basis of ill informed criticism and scaremongers (pandora’s box, really TJ you’re better than that) is just silly in my opinion. It’s not an attitude that we generally have for other technologies so why should this one be any different.

tj you are talking out of youre arse

selective breeding is still introducing new genes over from one species to another

it presents exactly the same surprises as swapping a gene from a fish or cabbage

the fact that you can swap genes from species that diverged a few million years ago shows that its all interchangeable

and horizontal gene transfer is seen in nature anyway

infact your dna is littered with retrotransposons and other self replicating sections of dna that have jumped into your genome and lived there happily ever since

Oh right – “No GM gooood, make money baaaaad”…

Actually I’m not anti-GM at all (I spend part of my time in a lab making fruit flies glow green), but as with anything there’s a balance between the benefits of GM and the dangers, including ones which have a very small likelihood of occurring but could potentially cause major problems.
So far the behaviour of companies such as Monsanto suggests they place too much emphasis on profit and wanting to control global food markets irrespective of the consequences to people.

gonefishin – it is not the same. Selecting for genes that are already there and adding genes from different sources are not he same thing.

The pandoras box argument is valid. we already have seen this with GM soya. There is no uncontaminated non GM soya in the world as a result of deliberate actions my monsanto

With round up ready maize if the herbicide resistance gets into the weeds then it could be catastrophic.

We were told cross pollination was impossible – however it has now been proved to happen. Imagine herbicide resistant weeds?

Cross pollination has already been found to occur despite the denials.

Its not “ill informed criticism or scaremongering” Its real fear based on real effects.

retro that is scary sh*t mate 😯

Kimbers – that is complete tripe.

selective breeding within a species and adding genes from another species is simply not equivalent in any sensible world view.

you can argue it is harmless but to state that selective breeding and adding genes from unrelated species are the same thing is simply wrong.

You can breed selectively for as long as you want but you will never get a fish gene into maize as you cannot breed a fish and a maize plant

tj you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of genetics here

with selective breeding you can swap the genes from different species

or indeed introduce a new gene from a plant of the same species

the act of creating offspring can create new genes through rearangements of existing genes
thats how evolution works, thats how new genes are created and species diverge

humans have been tinkering with genes ever since they started farming
gm is just a more precise way of doing this

Kimbers – please explain you you can selectively breed maize to include genes from a fish ( or the equivalent)

And while you are at it can you explain how you can know what the consequences of this are?

Will you also explain how you are going to stop cross pollination and the escape of the GM modifications into the general gene pool. Round up resistant weeds?

tj what exactly is wrong with introducing a fish gene into a plant or even a human

what you forget/fail to understand is that humans, fish, cabbages etc already have genes that are identical

(and i meant different species of plant, i dont think you can milk a salmon and use it to cross-pollinate a daffodil)

Kimbers – what is wrong is that the consequences cannot be predicted. What are the consequences of herbicide resistance in weeds?

Given the proven lies of monsanto and the proven cross pollination I believe this is a course that is far too risky to take.

its not as if there are any proven benefits.

We have crossing posts. So you admit then that putting fish genes into crop plants is not possible with selective breeding and that infact there is a profound difference?

I know there are a huge amount of shared genes – but the genes that are being added into crops do not exist int eh crops – or else selective breeding would produce the charectaristics. teh very fact hey need to use GM tech shows that the gene is not there.

tj round-up resistant weeds are not the only gm product in the world, there are probably hundreds eg vitamin A enriched golden rice is surely a good thing

they are produced for exactly the same reasons that humans have been breeding crops for generations to make more food for everyone if there was no gm technology monsanto would be breeding pesticide resistant crops using old school methods, it would just be slower and less precise

right i cant stay and chat because i have to go and check on the carcinogenic phospholipase gene from human i have fused to the green flourescent protein from jellyfish that is expressing in the mouse fibroblast cells i have growing in my incubator

So you admit then that putting fish genes into crop plants is not possible with selective breeding and that infact there is a profound difference?

i think thats where we disagree what is profound about it?

we have already agreed that many genes are identical between fish, bacteria, cabbages etc

you are not thinking on a cellular level; you see a profound difference between a fish and a cabbage, at the cellular or dna level there is very little

profound speaks of a deeper meaning, you object because it is violating the laws of nature, it is against god
by using that word you have exposed the irrational foundation at the core of your objection

Kimbers – WTF?

Read what I wrote. There is a profound difference between the process of selective breeding and of GM modification. You cannot get a gene from a fish into a plant by selective breeding.

You cannot get a fish gene into a plant by selective breeding.

Straw man argument from you – come on. You attribute motivations to me without evidence that are actually far from my motivations.

You still have not shown that cross pollination from round up ready maize with the potential it has to produce herbicide resistant weeds is harmless.

At he end of the day its a belief argument again tho. You believe it is safe, I believe it is not.

Once it is out in the gene poll there is no stopping it. Thus as I believe on the basis of plenty of evidence that it is an unsafe tech then it miust not be allowed out into the gene pool.

it is against god

A-ha….

Once it is out in the gene poll there is no stopping it.

Just like every other “natural” mutation, then. I thought “it” was ALREADY “out in the gene pool” in the form of modified Soya. As a previous post stated: I haven’t noticed that the sky has fallen in, lately…

Woppit – that is one of the bits of evidence that tell me that any further gm releases must be stopped. Its not like a natural mutation.

Does the prospect of herbicide resistant weeds not worry you? How about terminator genes getting into native grasses?

Frankly, when the world’s weather systems go mental as a result of climate change, we’ll have no option. In fact, it’d probably be a good idea to test the technology properly now.

Its not like a natural mutation.

But it IS a “mutation”…

Mutation and natural selection are how things evolve.

GM tech merely causes a specific mutation (change) rather than billions of non viable random ones.

It’s the same thing.

It’s entirely possible that naturally roundup resistant plants can evolve, by themselves. Just like naturally antibiotic resistant bacteria have evolved, all by themselves . . . it is simply a matter of time.

Its a solution in search of a problem, its about money for big business not about ending hunger.

Too true

Random mutations occur and will slowly spread through a population if they’re beneficial whereas GM plants can be planted en-mass in an environment which hasn’t had a chance to evolve in response, a bit like introducing a species from one continent onto another.

Humans have been clearing land to plant huge tracts of a single cultivare for thousands of years.

Human agriculture has had an enormous, statospheric impact on the earth already. There are practically no enviromenments that are pristine. We’ve contaminated everything. The extra impact of GM has been overstated. Doomsday scenarios are unlikely and not necessarily as cataclysmic as suggested.

There are other issues, such as nature itself.

Imagine a GM crop that is resistant to insecticide so they can spray more of the stuff over the crop to kill more insects.

Then, due to the short life of the insects, evolution comes to the fore and you end up with insecticide-resistant insects. Also in this scenario we end up with polluted soil.

As a scientist I am not so concerned with ‘frankenfoods’ but I am concerned with one or two suppliers of seed attempting to control the majority of the world food supply, especially if they manage a terminator gene (no, not Arnie…!). Also with our stupid ‘Intellectual Property’ laws we could end up with small farmers that have their crops contaminated with a GM strain getting sued because of it.

We’ve also got to keep some form of biodiversity. Else wildlife will suffer, and eventually us.

Doomsday scenarios are unlikely and not necessarily as cataclysmic as suggested.

But possible and no possible way of going back to the pre GM situation.

ytow possible scenarios that are worrying.
1) herbicide resistant weeds
2) escaped terminator genes into natural grasses.

the issue for me is if it goes wrong there is no way to recover

the issue for me is if it goes wrong there is no way to recover

Granted. I’m pretty sure we’ll take the risk when hundreds of millions of people are starving becuase of years of failed conventional crops though.