When others get to decide how you live...
... and how you use your land, you don't have property rights any more.
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
:)
You are looking at a tiny spec of time in history to make the assumption that this is safe. There are plenty of articles to go read where there are experts bringing up concerns about negative side effects from GMO's and what they believe is evidence to support their claims. Now, I don't have access to their research to see if they are full of it, no more than you have access to the research done by those claiming it's safe - to verify they did full, complete studies with proper testing. The fact is neither of us 'know' which experts are right and which are wrong, and maybe, based on their studies, they're both right in certain circumstances. I prefer to err on the side of safety and what I can verify with my own two eyes. Statistics is a BS game that can create practically any outcome desired - is it in the interests if the GMO producers to produce evidence that their product is bad? If there are no flaws in the GMO products, why are so many experts expressing the same concerns I have? If GMOs are fine with no side effects and consequences, then by all means - let's turn the GMO factories on high. But I will not blindly follow the crowd - or the so called scientific consensus cited in some articles I've read. Consensus does not science make. My what if's are based on prior experiences with experimenting with nature - introduced species of plants or animals, effects of radiation and heavy metals on living things, the fact that we share nearly 99% of our DNA with chimps - showing how only a 1% variation means an awful lot - I can't ignore the fact that it is worth being cautious over. I find it ridiculous that you and others are not even willing to consider the fact that there could be problems with this. I consider the fact that it may be fine, but I have too much opposing reasons to blindly accept that it's safe. Plus like I said, every new pattern they create is a new combination that has no study to go by, especially in the realm of transgenic manipulations.
I like the invention of swales - water catching ditch on contour. They allow for the retention and infiltration of rainfall; when they are planted with legume trees you get fertiliser, shade, depending on species cattle/goat fodder.
Your 'concerns' are in the nature of 'what if', and horror at the idea that genes found in one species have been placed in another. So what, we share a large portions of our genetic material. If you want to add the ability to create a protein, add the gene for it.
And, we play with fire all the time. The ability to cook food is potentially the source of the additional energy that has let us grow our brains.
And no, any viral infection will not transfer new DNA sequences into you DNA code and convert you into some hybrid with whatever it came from.
I think the difference in what we are talking about here is transgenic verses cisgenic. And in any case I'm not convinced that either is without consequence when they are done the way they are. But, I do believe transgenic manipulation is asking for trouble. Cisgenic is not as bad - at least there, they are naturally compatible species.
The huge bushfires blamed on drought are similarly man-made.
My reasoning:
By removing the recharging of the water table from the consideration of Farmers, and Graziers to a smaller extent, we allow the variable rainfall, changing from season to season/ year to year, to run off and take the precious moisture needed by crops.
(In high rainfall areas the volumes of water runoff can contribute to erosion.)
Where the soil is less hydrated, there is less buffering of adverse circumstances. The trees having less moisture than is stripped away by evaporation(also evapo-transporation, where plants are working to regulate their temperature), are vulnerable to dessicating winds and then a lightning strike fire can spread rapidly.
The crops being grown and how they are produced have an enormous effect. Growing huge fields of grasses so that harvesters can economically collect them, leaving exposed bare earth in their wake are responsible for tipping the balance between precipitation and evaporation. Versions of no-till farming where the soil isn't tolled and the stumble left can help to mitigate the water loss of soils.
It did a story about how two farmers, neighbours, that have fallen out because of GM Canola.
The transcript of part one is at:
www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2015/s419...
Titled "Seeds of Wrath", one farmer told his neighbour in 2008 about the possible effects GM would have on his Organic farm; in 2010-11 the neighbour planted GM Canola and seems surprised that he was given a legal document.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/hea...
I studied aerospace engineering and computer engineering in college. Thought seriously about going into Botany as I have had a serious interest in plants since before my teens. I raise a garden, grow commercial crops, and have bonsai that I've had since high school (when I studied under a bonsai master with a botany degree (she even has one of her bonsai forests on loan in the National Arboretum in D.C.). I've been in IT (and just about every branch of it) for nearly the same time frame (30+ years). I also love and enjoy physics. My wife is a certified Biology Teacher and has had an interest and love of chemistry for nearly 25 years. But hey. What do I know ;)
I'm a big fan of Boxer dogs. Unfortunately the breed has a couple of common flaws one of which is a heart defect. Breeders are making significant efforts to remove these genes from the Boxer genome. This involves genetic testing and monitoring young animals for 48 hours for any heart arrhythmia prior to breeding.
This would have been a lot easier if they picked the genes they wanted to transfer rather than doing crosses to see what they get. Natural is not always safer.
As to foreign DNA, any viral infection will do that to you.
And, also, I agree - you cannot sue for damages without damage. I stated this somewhere else in this thread that I may have misunderstood to original issue. I thought the judge said in the case that he was staying the farmer from planting GMO seeds until the merits on the case were heard. But, if the case is that a non-GMO farmer is suing for damages when the damages have not actually occurred - that is wrong. I guess what I've been arguing for is more of an injunction against the someone being upheld until the merits of the case were heard. Not in relation for 'potential' damages.
And I agreed with your last comment. Farmers need to figure out how to work these issues out, but I think it will be very messy. I think there are too many grey areas that simply don't have good answers. Like how far apart they should keep their crops - 100', 200', 300', 500', a mile? Like I said in one of my other comments, pollinators like bees have a large travel area. Wind... How could you possibly measure that effect!?! Full, hazmat level, sealed greenhouses or high tunnels? This is just another of my concerns for GMO. It was much simpler with heirloom and hybrid, but even that has many of the same issues.
But, yes, even supposed "heirlooms" are nothing but natural hybrids. The idea that any of them are 'pure' is really a falsehood, BUT they were done through natural processes. Our modern hybrids - can be cross bred as well to produce other varieties and can be selectively chosen for certain characteristics. But blasting them with radiation, injecting them with heavy metals, introducing completely foreign DNA sequences is my issue...
"Genetically engineered crops have genes added or removed using genetic engineering techniques,[29] originally including gene guns, electroporation, microinjection and agrobacterium. More recently, CRISPR and TALEN offered much more precise and convenient editing techniques.
Gene guns (a.k.a. biolistic) "shoot" (direct high energy particles or radiations against[30]) target genes into plant cells. It is the most common method. DNA is bound to tiny particles of gold or tungsten which are subsequently shot into plant tissue or single plant cells under high pressure. The accelerated particles penetrate both the cell wall and membranes. The DNA separates from the metal and is integrated into plant DNA inside the nucleus. This method has been applied successfully for many cultivated crops, especially monocots like wheat or maize, for which transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been less successful.[31] The major disadvantage of this procedure is that serious damage can be done to the cellular tissue.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation is another common technique. Agrobacteria are natural plant parasites, and their natural ability to transfer genes provides another engineering method. To create a suitable environment for themselves, these Agrobacteria insert their genes into plant hosts, resulting in a proliferation of modified plant cells near the soil level (crown gall). The genetic information for tumour growth is encoded on a mobile, circular DNA fragment (plasmid). When Agrobacterium infects a plant, it transfers this T-DNA to a random site in the plant genome. When used in genetic engineering the bacterial T-DNA is removed from the bacterial plasmid and replaced with the desired foreign gene. The bacterium is a vector, enabling transportation of foreign genes into plants. This method works especially well for dicotyledonous plants like potatoes, tomatoes, and tobacco. Agrobacteria infection is less successful in crops like wheat and maize.
Electroporation is used when the plant tissue does not contain cell walls. In this technique, "DNA enters the plant cells through miniature pores which are temporarily caused by electric pulses."
Microinjection directly injects the gene into the DNA."
again from the wiki I cited earlier:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically...
What you are describing is more in line with hybridization and selective breeding - these are not inherently the same. It may introduce new characteristics, but almost exclusively with the same kind of things - whether it be dogs, cats, plants, etc... through their natural reproductive processes.
Bombarding cells with radiation and heavy metals laced with completely foreign DNA sequences is farm from benign.
It's nice that they are at least trying, but this article and the NPR article you posted do not invalidate my argument about additional costs and potential crop/seed loses. Whether many or most seed purchasers buy, does not resolve the issue for those who do.
The one article made the point that getting corn that doesn't have some amount of GMO in it now is difficult - if other GMO items like tomato, spinach, lettuce, etc... make their way into the market - this will be the end result with them too. It will make non-GMO strains more and more difficult to maintain as cross pollination will happen - and at further distances cited in this article.
"In 1996 a neighbour grew Roundup Ready Canola on a field diagonally adjacent to Schmeiser's field. In 1997, Mr. Schmeiser noticed that a large number of canola plants from seeds saved from the field survived his normal spraying with Roundup for weed control along road allowances. He tested a section of the field by spraying it with Roundup, and 60% of the plants survived. Seed from that crop was used to plant all of his fields in 1998."
Jan
Load more comments...