genetic engineering

[johno]

I'm aware of the dangers and past failures of genetic engineering, but often these problems arise because they put genes from the animal kingdom or man-made genes, etc. into plants. My question is: what do you think about only exchanging genes from the same family among plants? For example, what if they took a gene from a gourd which makes it resistant to squash bugs, cucumber beetles, and squash vine borers, and put it in an edible variety of squash that was very susceptible to these pests? Do you think it would be safe(r)?

[johno]

Okay, now that you've been depressed by squash bugs for a couple of months, any opinions?

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

Okay, now that you've been depressed by squash bugs for a couple of months, any opinions?

Okay, John, I'll bite ...

I think with the conversion of cropland to other uses, we've seen an overall decrease in active cropland while at the same time we've seen an overall increase in harvested tonnage ... at least in the United States.

When I asked a group of well informed farmers why U.S. agriculture is able to produce steadily increasing yields on steadily decreasing active farmland, they all agreed it's due to improved varieties and specifically genetically engineered grain varieties.

Their answers were based on their assumption that you can only get the maximum yield out of a particular cultivar under optimum conditions, and they had experienced those optimums from time to time over a period of years. And it wasn't until the more productive GM varieties became available to them that their yields exceeded those previous optimums under the same growing conditions and fertilizer rates.

Now, some of the improvements are Roundup ready grains so that you can plant directly behind a herbicide application on no-till. I don't know exactly what genes are spliced to do that, but that seems a worthy pursuit for several reasons associated with the benefits of no-till. I remember when the farmers around here were first encouraged to go no-till, the soybeans looked pitiful in no-till ... but now they look as good as any open tilled beans used to look, maybe better.

Over 70% of U.S. farmers growing soybeans are growing genetically modified beans and over 80% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. now are genetically modified.

As for your question ... someone with a lot more scientific background will have to educate me regarding what kind of gene splicing represents potential hazards and what kind would more likely be benign.

I am a little apprehensive when Bayer suddenly drops a couple of lines of GM rice even when the government says the rice is safe to eat. What's up with that? What was that rice spliced with?

Anyway, to your question ... for a long time now, breeders have been crossing one cultivar with another to capture disease resistance and other beneficial results of gene pairing in hybrids and selected segregations. We all eat that stuff and have our entire lives. Is this GM gene splicing so different if the genes are from the same plant family as you point out?

GGG

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

John,

However, after looking briefly into GM soybeans, I happened across this little informative bit: http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/food/foodFAQ.html

GGG

[johno]

Okay, good responses.

Both seem to revolve around the distiction I was trying to get at. The difference between what has been troublesome genetic engineering and old-time human selection of genes by breeding is that the genetic engineers do crazy things. At the University level this is because they just want to see what is possible, but on a larger scale - at the business level - it is because the people funding the research are greedy and don't understand or care about the repurcussions (sp?) Genetic engineering mistakes of the past, and undoubtedly of the future, happen when they combine genes that were never meant to be combined, and would never do so in nature. My original question asks if we combine genes that could occur in nature over many generations, but we simply skip some steps, would that be considered safer?

[dirtundernails]

Johno, do you think it would be safer?
I would always wonder if the genes in question would in future generations actually splice. How does one know for sure without actually hybridizing until the desired genes are present? In which case, why not just hybridize and wait. I don't cringe as hard as with animal genes spliced in, however. Probably can't get away from such things at this point anyway, and without a good education in genetic splicing, I don't understand what could happen in the event of a bad cross. My imagination sure goes wild.

dun

[TastyofHasty]

It would be nice if "the people" could somehow control who messes around with the gene pool, and how they're allowed to do it. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to ELECT who we want to be ALLOWED to do it?

DH said the other day, "I think we should ELECT our road graders!" hee hee.

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

It would be nice if "the people" could somehow control who messes around with the gene pool, and how they're allowed to do it. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to ELECT who we want to be ALLOWED to do it?

DH said the other day, "I think we should ELECT our road graders!" hee hee.


Well, let's see how that would work ...

First, you elect a nice, egg-headed academic type who's sole ambition is to do good through genetic research and development. You know ... a nice family type with all the prerequisite family values and all.

Well, after he or she gets elected by you good folks, he get's well into his research and development program and re-election time rolls around. She or he obviously has unfinished business and strongly desires to continue the projects, but finds himself or herself faced with a charismatic challenger for the elected position.

Monsanto is courting both candidates because the projects have potential for generating corporate profits if steared in the "right" direction ... campaign contributions start to flow from lobbiest and corporate PACs.

Hmmmm ... yeah, elect your genetic R & D technicians ... I can see how some folks might favor that.

Oh, by the way, how do you think your roads got in the shape they're in ... or how the roads that are repaired were selected for repair? Don't you reckon Bubba up there drivin' the road grader ... or more specifically, his superintendent of roads ... is related either by blood or by payola to the elected official in charge of the county garage?

GGG

[TastyofHasty]

Hi GGG:
Sounds like you're saying the election process does not work.

Most pertinent part:
Monsanto is courting both candidates because the projects have potential for generating corporate profits if steared in the "right" direction ... campaign contributions start to flow from lobbiest and corporate PACs.

Yep. Sounds like the same problem Edward Mandell House wrote about back in 1912, in Philip Dru, Administrator. Lobbyists and special interests controlling things with $$$.

But if electing doesn't work, what can be done to control Genetic Modifiers? :(

[G. Gordon Gumbo]

Hi GGG:
Sounds like you're saying the election process does not work.

But if electing doesn't work, what can be done to control Genetic Modifiers? :(

I'm not sayin' the election process does not work ... it does. I'm sayin' that lobbyist and corporations have found a way to make the process work for them ... M-O-N-E-Y. And I'm not speakin' from ignorance ... I've been intimately involved in politics all my adult life.

So, what will work to control Genetic Modifiers? Laws. Same as what currently controls stem cell research and development.

And that's what floors me ... that there is righteous indignation and ground swell support for banning stem cell research in the name of God, but the same powerful groups do not rise up to protect Mother Nature from genetic manipulation. Does that make sense? Or is it just another manifestation of human ego gone mad?

GGG

[winter_unfazed]

You've got to follow the money. As the saying goes, "Money talks, and something-or-other walks." If we stop buying the GM crop products, and start selling alternatives at the same price, the economic incentive to do GM will be lost.