Researchers at Berkeley claim to have found possible evidence of altered genes in native mexican corn.
You can read all about it at this site.
As usual, the corporate establishment (and others) is ridiculing the methodology of the research. I’m no scientist, but I do see a reason for at least a little concern. And caution.
I think the study is worth a look.
Peace,
mangeorge
As one who worked for that self-same corporate establishment for several years, I can tell you that they REALLY don’t want even the hint that altered genes are showing up where they aren’t supposed to.
The makers of genetically altered (they prefer to call it “enhanced”) corn ask their customers to agree to follow a number of restrictions in planting to minimize what’s called “pollen drift” and the chance of crossing with other corn. They also advise customers to segregate out the genetically altered stuff from the ordinary corn when sending it to market so that it doesn’t wind up in the wrong place.
Of course, farmers can get sloppy, mistakes get made etc. and pollen goes where it’s not supposed to. And while the corporate establishment is quick to jump on what they call “junk science” it’s actually in their best interest to urge caution with the crop – too many screwups and it would eventually get regulated out of existence.
Gene migration really isn’t much of a problem on a large scale, due to the need for compatible nearby species. I imagine it might enter other types of corn. My main concerns about that are twofold. First, copywrights on genetically-improved corn have allowed companies to sue farmers when some of the altered corn shows up in a field through such innocent means. Secondly, although I feel their concerns are almost certainly groundless, some people think these genetically-improved foods are dangerous. They should be allowed to make their decision as consumers, regardless of whether the foods are actually dangerous or not.
This has been happening for years. Farmers always cross-pollenated for the best crop, the most rudimentary form of genetic enhancement. Those new variations creep into other farmers fields from time to time, it’s part of nature.
Still, you’re right about one thing. It would be strongly in the interest of those who produce genetically-improved foods to prevent this pollen drift whenever possible. There are plenty of radicals out there who will use any excuse to attack the industry, and the potential p.r. nightmare wouldn’t be worth the headaches. A slow campaign of legitimate scientific tests will gradually earn acceptance, if in fact there are no dangers. Until then, these companies will have to be careful to avoid any early black marks on their record.
The transgenes used by gene splicers are being discovered in the wild maize varieties in the south of Mexico, where all use of genetically altered corn is forbidden by law.
This is the birthplace of Maize. The species here are the reserve of non-human altered maize. And already that gene pool is contaminated. Those who are making billions assure us that there is nothing to worry about. Those who are just doing research, and get paid the same whatever they find are telling us that an irreplaceable genetic resource is being pissed away faster than anyone ever knew, and this is only one species.
How many warnings do we need?
Tris
What Triskadecamus said. Beat me to it. 
This is no wild-eyed scare tactic about “Poisoned Corn” causing birth deformities etc. It’s about fooling around with something irreplaceable.
Peace,
mangeorge
At one time, what we considered “corn” was a plant whose husk was only a couple inches long. It wouldn’t be a meal for a squirrel. Long decades of crossbreeding created variations whose size was greater, eventually creating what we now call “corn.” Where are those lamenting the “irreplacable” loss of the old genetic pattern, for 2 inch husks? Why would we care?
Genetic makeups of species change constantly. We’ve lost the original pattern of our own genetics as we’ve evolved over millions of years. The difference between now and then is that now we have the ability to record these genetic patterns and preserve the data regardless of how species change in the world.
Okay. So why doesn’t Monsanto, et al make this claim?
Peace,
mangeorge
Farmers in Iowa have discovered a new mycotoxin from genetically-modified BT corn is creating a lot of
spontaneous abortions in their sows. Seethis link.
Not to be a smartass, but if Monsanto can engineer the genes of the corn to suit various purposes…couldn’t they just engineer it back to the original if they needed to?
heres a quote from the OP link. Oaxa is the name for the corn in question.
So for example, engineer corn for drought but the gene spreads to a wetter climate. And suddenly you can’t grow corn there anymore because the core corn genes have already been “infected”.
Monsanto can do pretty much whaever they want, as they’re the main supplier of the US military’s chemical and biological weapons. So, now they want to play with the genes of perfectly “naturally selected” vegetables? Well, the US can only say “sure, go ahead, despite the fact that 90% of the population is against it.”
It’s ridiculous. If you want to do something about it, it’s very easy. Please visit The Campaign to Label Genetically Engineered Foods. If we can’t stop them from growing these monstrocities, at least we can do our part by not giving these companies our hard-earned money.
-TGD
Maybe, but if they did, they would probably patent it and sell it back to people that didn’t have to buy it before. Thus they would make a hefty profit off of altering other people’s crops without their permission.
**
What’s naturally selected about the corn, broccoli, or cotton that we grow? Monsanto has been messing around with what we wear and eat for a while now. Are you familiar with Roundup Resistant corn, soybeans, canola, and cotton?
**
You have a source for 90% of the population because against it? Which population by the way?
Are you a farmer? Do you have any concept what the benefits of genetically modified crops can be? While I agree that care should be taken I would hardly call them monstrocities.
Marc
**the_great_dalmuti **,please be careful. There’s plenty of credible information out there to support your case.But if you don’t bring it to the table, it’s only going to hurt.
As someone who tends to be skeptical of large corporations and the science that they back, I’m tired of seeing all of this Frankenstein imagery thrown around as if that was all there was to it.
That said, I appreciate you enthusiasm.
everyone,
I encourage folks to actually read the article in the OP. It’s very interesting and has several good debate topics.
kunilou wrote:
StarLink corn, anyone?
Erk. Many of the fruits and vegetables we eat today are far from “perfectly ‘naturally selected.’” Far from it. Apples, for one, bear only a cursory relationship to their ancestors in Central Asia, or even to the apples eaten on this continent 200 years ago. Apples don’t grow true from seed, only from graftings, so there is constant manipulation of breeds to grow different kinds of apples.
Potatoes, too, have been subject to artificial selection that takes them far outside the realm of natural selection.
The issue of GM crops can be debated perfectly well on its own merits without the introduction of falsehoods.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the difference between cross-breeding and transgenic manipulation. Maybe this confusion is encouraged by the corporations?
Anyway, examples;
Cross-breeding: Introduce pollen from corn A to corn B.
Transcenic manipulation: Introduce a gene from a bacteria to corn B.
Did I get that right?
Peace,
mangeorge
The gene reproduced in the bacteria, but it isn’t a bacteria gene. Often times it is from another plant that has a trait that is desirable for corn. Suppose a plant produces a natural pesticide. You isolate the gene, introduce into some bacteria for duplication, then give it to the corn.
It doesn’t have to be from a plant, we put pretty much anything in stuff that we think may help. I know they’ve done fish genes in tomatoes to lower the freezing point of the toms. Here is a quote i snagged from this site:http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0301C/economics/facts.html
there is also human genes in canola oil and tobacco (probably still in labs only) that are trying to be used to created drugs. (found cites several places, here is one: http://www.planetveggie.com/newsletter/issue_8/story4.html )
So, are Vegans gonna freak out from fish genes in tomatoes?
The ones that I know aren’t too happy about it. I think it’s kind of a stretch to say genetic material makes it an animal product, but all the same they should have a choice with their food.