The problem is that although the crop being grown in one farmer’s field is a terminator variety, the crop growing in the next farmer’s field may not be, just because the terminator variety itself doesn’t produce viable seed doesn’t mean that it must not produce viable pollen, polluting the ordinary crop with terminator genes, and ruining the non-GM farmer’s plans to save his own seed.
(I don’t know if this is the case with the terminator varieties that are currently in development, but it’s not inconcievable is it?, in fact I can imagine GM developers exploiting this sort of effect to surreptitiously drive non-GM strains to extinction and thus
What I’m saying is that as long as we have the choice, fine, but maybe that’s not what will happen ultimately.
I’m definitely on the fence on this issue, so I’m not going to offer any grand insights; I’ll continue reading for others’ views.
I will, however, point out one logical breach that nobody else has addressed:
So that’s why Firestone did what they did! They had planned to deliberately terminate their viability as a corporation within a few short years!
It’s disingenuous to say that corporations put safety above other concerns. They ride the razor’s edge of compromise between safety (which is expensive) and profitability. Many screw up the compromise and sacrifice safety (Bhopal, anyone?). There’s no reason to think that Monsanto might be midjudging their priorities and putting out something dangerous, but there’s no reason to dismiss this as a concern, either.
Oh, and one other thing, about the difference between Mendelian crossbreeding as a means of genetic push, and deliberate engineering: Yes, it’s true that a lot of loony activists oppose the latter because of some half-baked notion that the former is “more natural.” But it’s also true that an organism’s genetic makeup is quite complex, with lots of little things that relate to other little things, interacting in a complicated fashion. Crossbreeding (a) takes a long time, and (b) is limited in its effects. Genetic engineering is (a) very quick, and (b) unpredictable in its effects. Dolly the sheep was cloned, and seemed to be fine. Then it seemed like she was aging too quickly. Then that concern faded, and something else happened. The point is, we don’t know exactly what the effects will be until we’ve had the time to study them. The bioengineering companies, in the opinion of the most restrained activists, are rushing their products to market without sufficient time to study possible long-term effects. They’re also concerned (legitimately, in my opinion) about engineered seeds contaminating the crops of nonbuyers; I’m horrified by that lawsuit in which corn from one field inadvertently pollinated a neighboring field through no fault of the second farmer, who then got in trouble over it.
But other than that, like I said, I’m on the fence. Please, continue.
I was thinking more about the sort of thing that I thought had happened with attempted patents on the Neem genome, which wasn’t invented, but discovered, however, my more recent research has revealed that I didn’t have the full picture on that story.
I’ve got nothing against patents on innovation BTW
Sure they can- that’s why people oftentimes don’t like Blockbuster moving into their town. Agribusiness can already try to push competitors out of the market, just like any other business can. (In fact, the scenarios I’ve seen described in this thread are no different from the way Standard Oil created a monopoly.) So why this emphasis on terminator technology, as if it somehow changed the rules of the game?
Whoa, now. Are you saying that if you have a field full of non-GM corn, instead of that corn being fertilized by plants in the same field, 100% of it will be fertilized by terminator corn from the next farm, and so all the seed will produce sterile offspring?
As for terminator crops producing pollen, the fact is that if you’re worried about GM pollen contaminating other crops, then why not make GM crops that don’t produce pollen? I guess I just feel like the anti-GM folks have said that no one can have GM crops because they will get loose in the wild, but then when companies make GM crops that can’t reproduce on their own, that’s somehow viewed as being even more evil.
No, I’m not saying that it would be 100% at all, but suppose a farmer saves seed that is, for the sake of argument, 10% contaminated; that means that potentially all of the seed he saves will germinate next year, but 10% of it will be a terminator variety, this means that he now has terminator corn mixed in evenly with all of his crop - in theory, this means that 10% of this years crop will also be pollinated by a terminator strain, not only that, but 10% of the seed he saves this time won’t germinate when he sows it (I know there would be natural a failure rate anyway).
**
Gaahhh! well, yes, that would be nice idea, except that if you create corn that doesn’t produce pollen, it won’t get pollinated and it can’t form cobs, can it?
Besides, unless there’s a pressiing commercial reason for the biotech companies to do something like that, they simply won’t bother.
And as regards it being evil, I never said anything about that, I don’t think a runaway truck is ‘evil’ when it crashes through a bus queue, just out of control, I feel the same way about the biotech companies.
I have absolutely no objection to GM as long as we don’t have to rush blindly into it, I don’t believe we can trust the biotech firms themselves to give us the full truth, anymore than we could trust the tobacco industry twenty years ago to tell us about the dangers of smoking, they have a vested interest in concealing any negative information.
Do you know what’s in an apple? Can people who have a gut reaction opposition to GMOs comprehend the difference between a regular, cross-bred over millenia apple and one that’s been modified in a lab?
I’m thinking the answer is no. When enough people understand what constitutes an apple on a cellular level, and can actually comprehend what genetic modification does, then they have the right to an opinion.
Until then, please take your objections to the library or a classroom and learn about what you’re already sticking into your body.
Do you know exactly how an automatic handgun works?
Until then you have no right to an opinion, you should just do as you’re told and stick the muzzle in your mouth then pull the trigger.
Bad argument.
For example
If you’re already on the habit of sucking on lead bullets, then what’s the difference in sucking on Genetically modified bullets?
See.
Ever heard of erring on the side of intelligent debate?
Here is an apple. Here is a genetically modified apple.
Please learn enough about modern farming techniques so you can contribute something to the debate. Or ignore the debate, and go live on your commune where you grow everything yourself.
It boils down to the idea that selective breeding relies on random mutations or introduction of new genes from adifferent, but very closely related organism) which may be selected for a beneficial effect, whereas GM involves dissecting out a chunk of genome and replacing it with a different chunk (often from a very different organism), resulting in a genetic pattern that would be most unlikely (I’d better not say impossible) to occur either in nature or by artificial selection.
I can see where you’re coming from, but I feel quite strongly that one shouldn’t have to learn about something in minute detail in order to demand that safety and caution is exercised in respect of that thing, but I don’t expect you’ll agree and I am tired, so you win.
nah, that was the part I understood. What I want to know is how our ‘GM apple’ is different from a ‘cross-bred apple’. Right now the discussion is boiling down to
{pro}GM is good because it saves money
{con}GM is bad because we’re opening a Pandorra’s box.
I have no problems with people wanting things to be ‘safe’. I just expect the people making demands to exert some sort of rationality in their demands.
Too many people object to GMOs because of a gut-reaction feeling. So many people are frightened by the word “nuclear” that hospitals had to rename equipment “MRI” machines.
Go ahead and demand safety. But if you want to set the parameters for what is safe, you had better be educated enough in the subject to be able to determine what is safe. Otherwise, you’re just posturing, interfering, and being a nuisance.
Bad argument.
For example
If you’re already on the habit of sucking on lead bullets, then what’s the difference in sucking on Genetically modified bullets?
See.
Ever heard of erring on the side of intelligent debate?
[/quote]
**
There’s no need to be rude to Mangetout like that.
I’ll let you have the last word in a moment, don’t worry, but I’d just like to say that to tell people what amounts to “Shut up and go away, you know nothing and your stupid fears are based on your own ignorance”, even if it’s a true statememnt, is part of what inspires more fears and it’s why ‘science’ has such a bad public reputation; trust is based on integrity and the patience to demostrate it, why should the the onus be upon the ‘public’ to make the effort to trust the ‘scientist’?
Wow, Barbarian. You’re really sensitive about your GM apples, aren’t you?
Actually, I never expressed any overt opposition to such apples. I only asked that I be informed that these modifications have been made. I don’t think it unreasonable to be able to decide for myself whether or not I want to eat an apple with a horse (or whatever) gene lurking inside. After all, it is my freakin’ apple.
Is it not?
BTW; I’ll continue to hold, and express, opinions as I see fit.
The question becomes one of where to draw the line. You want to be told when your apple is genetically modified. How much? Just to tweak a little gene? Or to, as you said, put a horse gene inside? What about people who want a label for anything that had pesticide sprayed on it. Or who want one that says it was made in Florida. Or whatever?
No, I don’t think we should make such things mandatory. As long as they are deemed safe, there should be no reason for warning labels.
Now, on the other hand, if somebody wants to promote their produce as being non-GMO, that’s another issue. I see no reason they could not do so (provided they are telling the truth, obviously). Yes, it’s still playing on people’s fears, but it’s not mandatory – it’s their choice.