24 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyNo it's not irrational. What you are missing is that the genes put into crops or animals are designed to maximize profits for the GM company. They are not designed for the survival of the species, humans can force that with domesticated crops or livestock. So if genes designed by humans for a particular purpose such as maximizing yield get into wild species they can become mal-adapted to their environment (in the yield example by growing too quickly), and because humans are forcing the gene pool the gene doesn't just get bred out. If you lose a near apex predator like wild salmon this has repercussions up and down the food chain.If the genes in question had been arrived at via selective breading, would any of these problems be different? If not, then this has nothing to do with the crop being GM. If yes, then what would the differences be?
Brilliant questions! -Exposes the common irrational GM-paranoia for what it is.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI am afraid your argument is seriously flawed because it doesn't take into account the fact that natural selection in the wild is constantly weeding out any genes that make a wild species less adapted to their environment.
No it's not irrational. What you are missing is that the genes put into crops or animals are designed to maximize profits for the GM company. They are not designed for the survival of the species, humans can force that with domesticated crops or livestock. So if genes designed by humans for a particular purpose such as maximizing yield get into wild s lose a near apex predator like wild salmon this has repercussions up and down the food chain.
Certainly if such a deleterious gene from, say, a pea crop (whether it is a “GM” crop and the gene is “GM” or the crop was just selectively breed is totally irrelevant!) gets into same of the seeds of some wild peas and, lets say, actually causes the plants from those seeds to, lets say, become either totally sterile or fail to reach maturity due to deleterious effects from the gene, then, within each generation of wild pea plants, those few wild pea plants that have that gene would not pass on that gene onto the next generation and thus the gene would not spread to the whole pea population but would always remain pretty rare within the pea population and probably with less than one in a million wild pea plants having that gene in any one point of time.
Even if the gene is not so deleterious as to make it impossible for the wild pea plant to both mature and reproduce, there is always an extremely competitive situation in the wild and those pea plants that do not have that gene would rapidly out compete those with it and thus natural selection would do a good job of constantly maintaining a low incidence of wild pea plants with that gene within the gene pool thus the gene could never credibly “mal-adapt” the wild population and eliminate the wild peas as a result!
The same argument applies to any deleterious gene in any non-wild species that occasionally is accidentally transported to a wild species.
Also, no doubt there are genes already present in selectively bread peas that would make a wild pea plant less adapted to its environment -so why hasn't those genes “mal-adapted” the wild species of peas and eliminated them?
And why would it make any difference whether that deleterious gene (deleterious to wild peas), with the exact DNA code that it has, was made completely artificially in the lab or was selected to be there by selective breading?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYou clearly didn't read my post properly. At the end of it I pointed out that the genes wouldn't be bred out because they're replenished from the domesticated stock.
I am afraid your argument is seriously flawed because it doesn't take into account the fact that natural selection in the wild is constantly weeding out any genes that make a wild species less adapted to their environment.
Certainly if such a deleterious gene from, say, a pea crop (whether it is a “GM” crop and the gene is “GM” or the crop was just selectivel ...[text shortened]... was made completely artificially in the lab or was selected to be there by selective breading?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAnd humy already covered that in his reply.
You clearly didn't read my post properly. At the end of it I pointed out that the genes wouldn't be bred out because they're replenished from the domesticated stock.
Genes that deleterious to the plants in the wild would not spread widely because they will get out competed by those wild plants without it.
Even if there is continued cross pollination.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThis is no different whatsoever from genes created via selective breeding. Quite often we do end up creating animals or plants that have reduced survivability in the wild, but then who cares? We don't want them in the wild.
What you are missing is that the genes put into crops or animals are designed to maximize profits for the GM company.
Once again I will ask you, where exactly do any of your arguments apply specifically to GM products?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou clearly did not watch the film "The World According to Monsanto" all the way through. Your assertion that GMOs are little different from selectively bred plants is false. Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants, but where the gene is injected can make the difference between a deformed plant and a normally developed plant.
As I said before, a large part of the of the GM-paranoia is political protectionism. Metal Brain mentions a shipment being rejected by South Korea. I am sure this really had nothing to do with GM.
In Mexico people have found deformed corn plants that are GM. They tell people when they find the deformed plants to cut off the stamen immediately. GMO corn will cross pollinate other non-GMO strains and spread the deformation. The danger is not the spreading into wild plants because corn cannot grow without man. The danger is the contamination of domesticated corn strains.
https://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3012
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeYour argument relies on there not being a reservoir of GM genes to go into the wild. There is also the point that even if the gene is not deleterious you have permanently altered the wild stock in a way that you can't undo, there ceases to be an unmodified population. So if some problem with the gene doesn't show up for a couple of generations (which is possible), you can find yourself with a time bomb. New technologies always come with unexpected problems, GM organisms are not going to be different in this regard.
And humy already covered that in his reply.
Genes that deleterious to the plants in the wild would not spread widely because they will get out competed by those wild plants without it.
Even if there is continued cross pollination.
Also he was using peas as an example, in that case you'd expect the rate of spread to be lower as pollination relies on an intermediary. Even mammals would be less of an issue as they are far easier to contain and they reproduce in a point-like fashion - transgenic mice are regularly used for drug development tests - I don't have a problem with this. GM yeast is used to produce insulin, this is fine as the vats provide adequate containment. Species that reproduce by spawning or wind pollination are more at risk as the captive (modified) population can fertilize wild populations at great distances. I've seen no evidence of a thorough case by case risk assessment for this.
24 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by DeepThought
Your argument relies on there not being a reservoir of GM genes to go into the wild. There is also the point that even if the gene is not deleterious you have permanently altered the wild stock in a way that you can't undo, there ceases to be an unmodified population. So if some problem with the gene doesn't show up for a couple of generations (which i reat distances. I've seen no evidence of a thorough case by case risk assessment for this.
Your argument relies on there not being a reservoir of GM genes to go into the wild.
No, ANY genes would do. There is no need to make a totally arbitrary distinction between “GM” and “non-GM” genes esp as the two can have and often have identical DNA codes. And you can argue that ALL genes are GM! because evolution is natures genetic engineer.
There is also the point that even if the gene is not deleterious you have permanently altered the wild stock in a way that you can't undo,
If they are not deleterious then this may not cause a problem because at least it would not harm the wild population if it isn't deleterious. But if it does cause a problem then what difference does it make whether it was a “GM” gene or not?
So if some problem with the gene doesn't show up for a couple of generations (which is possible), you can find yourself with a time bomb.
What? I guess this would be very unlikely to happen as a result of GM, and no more or less likely to occur if the gene was as a result of selective breeding. Is there a reason to believe that this would be more likely to occur if it is a "GM" gene rather than one that isn't called that?
24 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You clearly did not watch the film "The World According to Monsanto" all the way through. Your assertion that GMOs are little different from selectively bred plants is false. Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants, but where the gene is injected can make the difference between a deformed plant and a normally developed ...[text shortened]... r is the contamination of domesticated corn strains.
https://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/3012
Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants,
Which makes no difference because most genes found in animals are found in plants and vice versa and there is nothing that all animal genes have in common that plant genes do not and vice versa.
Even where you have a gene that is truly unique to animals and is not naturally found in any plant, that is merely a result of an accident of the history of evolution. And, there is nothing that all such genes that are unique to animals (and not found in any plant) have in common and no reason to believe they would be more likely to be harmful if put in plants than if you put a plant gene into a plant.
but where the gene is injected can make the difference between a deformed plant and a normally developed plant.
Any deformed GM plants would be simply immediately rejected and not be used to breed the final GM plants.
Thus the final GM plants would not have the gene in a place that would make them deformed.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainI don't recall watching any of it, nor claiming to have done so.
You clearly did not watch the film "The World According to Monsanto" all the way through.
Your assertion that GMOs are little different from selectively bred plants is false. Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants, but where the gene is injected can make the difference between a deformed plant and a normally developed plant.
I still don't get how that makes them unique. Genes used for a new purpose, or new genes via mutation, are new as far as the plant is concerned. You are yet to explain what is special about GM genes and why they would be more dangerous.
In Mexico people have found deformed corn plants that are GM.
I doubt the story, but lets suppose its true.
GMO corn will cross pollinate other non-GMO strains and spread the deformation.
So why does this not happen with non-GM genes? If I create a strain of corn via selective breeding that has a gene causing deformation, in what ways will it be different? What exactly is special about the GM genes in particular?
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou should watch it so you learn something.
I don't recall watching any of it, nor claiming to have done so.
[b]Your assertion that GMOs are little different from selectively bred plants is false. Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants, but where the gene is injected can make the difference between a deformed plant and a normally developed plant.
I still ...[text shortened]... , in what ways will it be different? What exactly is special about the GM genes in particular?[/b]
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
In my last post I provided a link and you didn't read it. If you had you would realize you are in error in more ways than one. I recommend you watch the film though. It explains much more than the link and you will surely be enlightened by it if you simply watch it and pay attention.
24 Jun 13
Originally posted by humy"Thus the final GM plants would not have the gene in a place that would make them deformed."Not only are animal genes (not just plant genes) used to modify GMO plants,
Which makes no difference because most genes found in animals are found in plants and vice versa and there is nothing that all animal genes have in common that plant genes do not and vice versa.
Even where you have a gene that is truly unique to animals and is no ...[text shortened]... ts.
Thus the final GM plants would not have the gene in a place that would make them deformed.
Totally false! Like Twitehead, you did not watch the film or read the link I provided. If you did you both would know better.
Watch the film.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
24 Jun 13
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat link isn't to a film and also doesn't say anything to contradict what I just said.
"Thus the final GM plants would not have the gene in a place that would make them deformed."
Totally false! Like Twitehead, you did not watch the film or read the link I provided. If you did you both would know better.
Watch the film.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/
It only talks about deformities that Agent Orange causes -what does that have to do with GM causing deformities?
And why on earth wouldn't the geneticists reject any deformed GM plants and only select those that are not deformed thus insuring thus only selecting those plants with the gene inserted in a place where it doesn't cause deformity are in the final GM plants? -it is obviously in their interest too because they would have a hard time selling deformed plants!