Jump to content

Why messing with genetics in nature is not all good


Newtonian

Recommended Posts

Hope everyone has read the latest news on GM crops research.Its about 50/50 on the threads for and against but not all people realise the dangerous consequences of messing with nature,when our knowledge is so limited.

We have really went head first into GM crops without tight controlled experiments and i find myself saying TOLD you so on other forums...

The latest news is fields of GM oilseed rape....oh shocker!! its cross bred all on its own with CHARLOCK(you know that nice little livestock killer weed)anyway its now a super mutant resistant to pesticides ,how nice...oh never mind its also host to diverse crop eating bugs ...how soon before mutant ninja bugs are destroying our agriculture...good ol britain trying to get other EU countries to lift the ban on oilseed rape GM..........well done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

People have to figure out this stuff on their own.

 

It's no good telling them that genetic enhancement is "OMG TEH ÜBER BADNESS!!11! LOL!!"

 

That way, you can be there to laugh at their mistakes and to the I-told-you-so dance.

 

People have been 'messing with nature' ever since the invention of the poodle, and the short-legged sheep. They can just do it even more now.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Progress has its risks.

I believe that if we want to get farther in our knowledge of the world, we have to mess with it a little. Its just like a computer, you mess it up a couple of times before u can get a good hold of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latest news is fields of GM oilseed rape....oh shocker!! its cross bred all on its own with CHARLOCK

 

Not so fast, according to Newscientist Herbicide resistant Charlock has been found but the cause of the resistance has not been identified. It is more likely to be spontaneous resistance as rape does not normally hybridise with charlock. it might be a case of resistance gene transfer but we don't know.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg18725103.000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just coincidence it was next to a field of oil seed rape then?

 

because the resistant weed is charlock which rarely hybridises with rape and resisitance to herbicides is common it would seem to that this probably is a coincidence. They were looking for herbicide resistance so they were more likely to find a spontaneous case, most fields are not systematically searched for herbicide resistant plants, so normally such mutations would go unnoticed.

 

It might be a case of gene transfer, but until the nature of the resistance is confirmed it is impossible to be sure. Of course the pressure groups don't tell you that this isn't a confirmed case of gene transfer - why let the truth spoil a good story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

because the resistant weed is charlock which rarely hybridises with rape and resisitance to herbicides is common it would seem to that this probably is a coincidence. They were looking for herbicide resistance so they were more likely to find a spontaneous case' date=' most fields are not systematically searched for herbicide resistant plants, so normally such mutations would go unnoticed.

 

It might be a case of gene transfer, but until the nature of the resistance is confirmed it is impossible to be sure. Of course the pressure groups don't tell you that this isn't a confirmed case of gene transfer - why let the truth spoil a good story?[/quote']

What?? talk about completely making stuff up as you go along.What pressure groups?? the information was made public by the government scientists actually conducting the experiments on the GM crops.

You are correct in the fact it isnt confirmed yet,but neither was BSE,CJD etc..surely your not niave in that you see no correlation.

What are you talking about "Charlock doesnt rarely hybridise with rape",its suppose to be impossible for it to do so.And it wasnt just growing in a nearby field were a few pollen grains had blown in it was growing in fields were GM crops had been grown.It isnt just Charlock that is showing this wild turnips have shown resistance also.

 

The concern is that controlled scientific experiments concerning possible gene transfer of GM crops to other species of plants has not been in controlled enviro's ie the lab.Its been willy nilly growing in farmer Giles spare field.

Its poor science to offer "oh well it hasnt happened before now",if it is linked,which is not a stretch to conclude,the resistant Charlock will obviouly spread all over the place.The seeds can remain in the ground for 30 year,it would be impossible to get rid!!.

The only hope as far as i can ascertain is they dont know if the actual hybrids are fertile....and more experiments are to be carried out and independantly acessed.........but i remember a certain MP stuffing a burger into his sons mouth...so dont count on that one being honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for regulation of the creation and use of gm crops and I believe that there has been a serious lack of regulation so far, but gm crops have already shown enormous potential benefits. I disagree with fanatical anti-gm groups who would readily toss out any potential benefits from these crops in favor of keeping everything "natural."

 

People in the agricultural business cannot be expected to regulate themselves when there is so much money to be made. Anti-gm groups cannot be allowed pressure governments into regulating gm crops into oblivion through scare tactics. A balance must be made and level-headed regulation needs to be created and enforced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said..Hell we dont want anyone growing any nasty natural organic crops do we.We want super resistant pesticide tollerent,enhanced,cell-deforming,carcigenic supercrops complete with superbugs who eat all the GM crops and they have to buy more seeds.Nice one.

 

Lets hope no New World Order junkies jump in.After all with complete control over crop growing and naming their price for seeds in poor countries,they almost have us by the short n curly's

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?? talk about completely making stuff up as you go along.What pressure groups?? the information was made public by the government scientists actually conducting the experiments on the GM crops.

You are correct in the fact it isnt confirmed yet' date='but neither was BSE,CJD etc..surely your not niave in that you see no correlation.[/quote']

 

I know the information was made public by the scientists, but they just said what they found, it was then siezed by the pressure groups and campaigners journalists who spread rumours of 'superweeds' all over the media.

 

What do you mean 'what pressure groups' have i been imagining all those rabid anti-GM campaigners?

 

There were dire warnings about the health effects of travelling faster than horses in trains, It was thought smallpox vaccinations were bad for you and might turn you into cows, there were scares around the first organs transplants, there were scares about the MMR vaccine etc. - for every scare that has proved right there are dozens if not hundreds that have proved wrong. Picking a few that in hindsight turned out to be right is not instructive. Most unconfirmed scares are rubbish so it is good to treat them sceptically, especially if they have little data to support them.

 

It is not naive to have doubts about genes spreading from rape to charlock, and event that most crop scientists consider to be extremely unlikely, it is the most logical position, especially as natural herbicide resistance is common.

 

Do you think that it is more likely to find a resistant weed if you are looking for it - most fields do not have scientists searching for resistant weeds. The correlation is only significant if a sample of sprayed fields without GM rape were also examined, if no resistance can be found in them then that would make this occurence much more significant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, wait, let me get this straight....

 

You have a field full of GM crops that are herbicide-resistant. This allows the farmer to spray more herbicide to control weeds, and I'll bet that's exactly what he did. Now weeds in adjacent fields are showing resistance.

 

Option one: the two species hybridized, in spite of the fact that such a thing is supposedly impossible, and there is no hard evidence as of yet.

 

Option two: The weeds evolved resistance on their own, via natural selection. Given the high doses of herbicide, it shouldn't really be a surprise.

 

Frankly, option two seems to be a lot higher in probability, and most of Newtonian's posts seem to be nothing but alarmism.

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

option 1;

Read the actual posts and comment on their easily understood content.!

option 2:

Make up your own post from your imagination,a nicely fabricated story of adjacent fields and so forth,maybe add a homicidal farmer spraying gallons of pesticide to kill those critters.Comment on your own content and scenario's then add a previous posters name at the end...

That should make everyone content?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

well it is certainly true that genetically altered crops have incredible potential. But much more testing and regulation needs to be done for each alteration considered to make the best possible predictions of the worst-case scenarios. and if the risk doesn't outweigh the benefits then it shouldn't be attempted.

 

of course, there are ways to isolate genetically engineered crops as well. I read some article about this guy who was planting fields of crops underground in old mines to avoid contamination with the environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Here's my thoughts, why should we suddenly halt the march of progress because people are afraid? Should we abandon fire because you can be burned; no. Should we outlaw cars because they're dangerous; only for some (joke). Why should this advance cause a stall? People, all advances are a risk. They're, by their nature, breaking the status quo. We need to take the risk and think to ourselves, the advantages outweigh the risks.

 

P.S. Don't take it that I am a supporter of big business, i.e. biotech. I am not a republican, actually the opposite. I just think advances cannot, and will not, be impeded by those scared of the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that is true, but the possible consequences to have engineered supercrops are as numerous as they are dangerous. extensive study needs to be done regarding the possible changes in the environment should these crops interbreed with native plants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but I can tell you right now that this isn't the first time crops have been genetically altered. Farmers have been "selectively breeding" crops (and animals) for thousands of years. Their work is the primary reason genetics, especially mendelian gentics, was discovered. Selective breeding is the simplest way of genetic altering and hasn't caused health problems.

 

And think what GM really is-- inserting genes from one organism to another. Welll if tomatos and potatos are healthy, then why wouldn't a tomoato that grew in the ground? People seem to think this is the first time humans have ventured into the realm of GM but that's not true. And bacis logic shows that there wouldn't be too many problems. Maybe some, but not enough to outweigh the pro's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but what about taking a gene from a salmon and inserting it into a grape genome to make it resistant to cold? or engineering crops to produce certain chemicals (aka a crapload of vitamin A or B, etc...) in abundance? certainly it would be beneficial, but only if said plants were contained. if they were accidentally released into natural habitats, the results could be devastating. perhaps animals would die of vitamin poisoning. alaska would become a grape wilderness. certainly these are all hypothetical, i am merely suggesting that research must be done to determine all possible side effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but how would the plants escape? walking? As long as they are kept secure, everything should be alright (but knowing the gov't, you're right all hell would break lose)

 

But "the wilderness of grapes" theory is a bit exagerrated. I mean the Inuits would notice it beginning and destory them. Or maybe the grapes would bring new industy to Alaska.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, the grapes are a little farfetched, just a hypothetical example. :)

 

the plants could spread very far through the methods which regular plants spread, seeds. say some genetically engineered tomato plants are pollinated by some bees, which then head over to a different field... the only way the setup could work is if the plants were COMPLETELY contained, i.e. in caves or in huge storehouses. but then it might be too uneconomical to produce them...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right but maybe controlled greenhouses. You see the thing about progress, especially scientific, is it makes us challenge the current ways we do things. So maybe greenhouse based agriculture is the way things will go, who know? But you are right in that there are risks, thats a given. My only point is the pros outweigh the cons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.