Yes, agreed, ignorance fought. I have only learned this today.
Well you have me stumped. Every source I find says that roundup ready seeds are the result of genetic engineering by scientists and came onto the market in 1996.
It is possible that naturally occurring resistant plants were found and bred from by Monsanto and Dow: is that what you are saying?
If you mean the development of glyphosate, no argument. However a plant has a far more intimate and complex interaction with insects and the soil than a single application of a herbicide, so IMHO we should pay attention to any side-effects. There may be none. Fine.
Good point. The reality is that the public discussion has been suffused with fearful myths. Until now I thought terminator seeds were in use.
Incidentally I can see a legitimate use for terminator GM seeds. There are crops such as pine trees which will energetically disperse their seed far beyond plantations and invade open landscapes. Where I live there is a constant battle to remove douglas fir (Oregan pine) wildings from mountainsides and high country land. A beautiful tree introduced 130 years ago.
I understood Ramira to be saying that Roundup has been in use since long before the introduction of Roundup-Ready crops, and that objections to the herbicide should be considered separately from genetic modification technology.
Roundup (glyphosate) has obviously come into more heavy use since GM crops resistant to it were developed. But glyphosate has been around since 1973 (long predating GM crops) and its effects on the environment have been studied for a long time as well. It’s certainly not innocuous, but it’s far less toxic than many other herbicides used in agriculture before it came along.
For the purposes of this discussion, it’s worth noting that Monsanto’s patent on glyphosate ran out in 2000, and it now competes with multiple other companies in marketing it.
And for what it’s worth, I use herbicides very sparingly on my own patch of ground (on poison ivy that keeps trying to invade my fence line), and Roundup not at all. I like to keep my amphibians happy.
I agree with Jackmannii, that Ramira should have said “Roundup” instead of “roundup ready” when referring to the herbicide.
I don’t see how your example of the fir trees has anything to do with terminator seeds.
Terminator seeds, I think, would be a good idea, because not only would it protect Monsanto’s patents, but it would squash a lot of the controversy, because you couldn’t have farmers accused of violating patents if the plants didn’t make viable seeds. And organic farmers would be protected from accidental pollination inter-breeding with their own crops. Unfortunately the luddites were able to cause public confusion about them and stir up a controversy, so Monsanto just dropped the idea.
However, this would have nothing to do with your invasive fir tree problem. I can’t even figure out how to correct your misunderstanding, because I can’t see how you may have put those together. Can you explain more what you were thinking?
You have not quoted anything that indicates that indicates horizontal gene transfer was used to produce kalettes. Do you understand what horizontal gene transfer is? Do you know the ways in which it occurs? Please explain precisely which of the very few types of horizontal gene transfer was used to create kalettes. A Q-tip of pollen is not horizontal gene transfer. And nobody believes that it’s an artificial process.
Yes I did, and thanks for the links.
Slightly OT but it annoys me that food irradiation hasn’t become a global method of treating fresh food. The technology is well understood and a facility arguably as safe as the nuclear medicine rooms in a hospital setting.
Many of the folks I know who freak out about Monsanto and GMOs also really dislike the use of pesticides. Even more so than they dislike GMOs. But pesticide use in the U.S. has been decreasing steady, in large part due to the increased prevalence of GM’d crops. The 16 Aug 2013 issue of Science discusses this, if anyone is interested.
I forgot the DOI. It’s at 10.1126/science.341.6147.728 and 10.1126/science.341.6147.730 .
Overall pesticide use dropped ~0.6%/year 1980-2007. For corn, it’s dropped from > 200 g/ha in 1996, when folks started planting it, to ~10 g/ha in 2010. That’s with >60% market penetration of Bt corn in 2010. It’s ~75% penetration now.
I watch a lot of debates from that organization, and this one was perhaps the most lopsided one I’ve ever seen. Skip to the final five minutes for the results, and browse the comments if you don’t have time for the full debate but want to see the results.
No I typed “roundup ready” without thinking, I mean the roundup up.
No I meant your objection was false to the GMO as it has much more to do with the impact of the herbicide than the gmo itself.
In any case, natural glyphosate resistance has emerged so it did not need scaremongering about GMO.
This is a false argument - the repeated applications of the herbicides which was the actual standards in the past have had a major impact - the words intimate and complex have no proper meaning here. They are emotional words.
almost all your comments repeat myths and misunderstandings, mixing the issues of herbicide impacts with the gmo without the proper discrimination.
Did you read the article I linked to? The process by which kalettes were developed (or any modern vegetable - try comparing today’s hybrid corn to teosinte, for example) was highly artificial. People who have no real conception of the technology involved (which includes far more than a Q-tip with pollen on it; ever hear of tissue culture, for instance?) have the fantasy that it is natural and GMOs are horribly artificial, but this does not make sense.
Sorry you have such a bug up your butt when it comes to accepting this simple point, but it’s doing you no good to deny its validity as pointed out by numerous science-based advocates of biotechnology.
Somebody is making the pro-GMO crowd look bad, but it isn’t Jackmannii, even if he may have used a bad example. Your insistence that he “stop helping” is offensive in the extreme and disproportionate to any mistake he may have made. I find his posts to be excellent, and I really hope he ignores your command.
Do you agree that “the new hybrid kale/brussels sprouts vegetable created through horizontal gene transfer” is blatantly false? Because it is. Is it helpful to spread misinformation? This board is about fighting ignorance.
[QUOTE=Ruken]
This board is about fighting ignorance.
[/QUOTE]
Good. Then we can dispense with nonsense like this.
Calling the author of this article hosted by the Genetic Literacy Project “an idiot who doesn’t understand middle-school biology” doesn’t do a lot for fighting ignorance either.
Joking aside, we are chock full of nonparental DNA (many generations, removed, obviously). Kale and B sprouts likely are as well, although I have no special knowledge there. It just wasn’t put there by someone.
Her article is an inaccurate opinion piece by a non-scientist that still does not address the claim of horizontal gene transfer. You said yourself that no one is claiming that kalettes are GMOs, so why link to a “science journalist” who does?
I don’t know, and don’t particularly care. It’s one thing to fight ignorance, but it’s another thing entirely to tell someone to stop participating in the discussion. That’s a dazzling display of arrogance.
