|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 8, 2010 2:38:26 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Tom Wagner on Jun 8, 2010 7:21:25 GMT -8
Thanks, Patrick. I clicked on the link you provided and read it. Just so it is not lost I will post it here in the quote feature. Page last updated at 09:32 GMT, Tuesday, 8 June 2010 10:32 UK By Mark Kinver -------------------- Anti-GM campaigners criticised the trials, saying it was possible to grow blight-resistant potatoes using conventional methods.
That is what I am doing...conventional breeding methods with all sorts of R genes that have Late Blight differentials bred into the lines most resistant here in the States and crossing those with the potatoes that have shown the best resistance in the last few years in Europe. By constantly intermating the potatoes that carry different late blights tolerances and growing seedlings by the untold numbers, an organic breeder as myself would not need GMO potatoes. I would always have a population of segregating lines that would show variable tolerances each year from true seed. But then again, no publication is going to quote me.
My notes here…20 meters = 65.6 ft. Wow, for producing certified seed potatoes the isolation distance is 400 ft. <"Very hypothetically, if a few pollen grains make it from our GM potatoes to some cultivated potatoes, given that we do not eat the fruit but the tubers, there is absolutely no way that the DNA we use can enter the human food chain." > Quite an assumption that there is absolutely no way that the DNA they use can enter the human food chain...what if someone like myself who depends on the fruit of potatoes to get new varieties becomes considered an eneny combatant. Yes, Virginia, there is a pollen Clause! Of all the varieties to get the GMO into...Desiree....one that has lots of pollen that could spread the new genes into any adjacent potatoes, like the British Queen, a male sterile line that would set seed from this pollen. But read it for your self here... resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=x5r7306w1123k8g8&size=largestYou have to click and enlarge as it won't let me do a copy/paste.. This article demonstrates the concern about Desiree, beings it is a good pollen parent next to a flowering fool like Stina…and the possible crosses from quite a distance. www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/Pollen-Dispersion.htm (This article show scare you a bit.... Papers on OSR Pollen Dispersion Much of the opposition to GMO's is not new...read this one... Abstract… available online 8 March 1999. I am not done with this article but I have greenhouse and field work to tend to. Tom Wagner
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Jun 8, 2010 20:56:25 GMT -8
As a long time beekeeper, I am highly aware of the distances bees will travel to visit attractive flowers. Fortunately, potato flowers are on average unattractive to bees because they produce little or no nectar. They do produce a decent amount of pollen which is often collected by members of the Mason bee family. The statements re pollen not entering the food chain are legitimate within the context because the tubers do not involve pollen.
Breeding specific genes into closely related plant species can be very difficult. Usually there is some amount of linkage with unbreakable chromosome segments preventing the move of the individual gene in sexual reproduction. This is the problem with a gene controlling Tomato Mottle Virus which breeders in Florida have been working to transfer into a domestic tomato line. If they can't break the linkage, then a GMO transfer may be the only viable way to get the gene into a usable breeding line. From the description, a similar issue was involved in the GMO potato described above.
Consider also that there are several desirable genes in potato that would be useful in a tomato background. At present, there is no way to move these genes into tomato except through GMO methods.
I guess my position re GMO is that most work so far has a high potential to cause problems. An example of this is the use of herbicide tolerant rape seed which can easily cross over via sexual reproduction into various wild brassicas. The tecnology has a lot of potential but we don't know what we are doing.
Consider this as a possibility. What if we could move the gene pathway for nitrogen fixation from cowpeas into potatoes? Then we could grow potatoes that made their own nitrogen potentially reducing the cost of production significantly and removing a serious groundwater contaminant from farming practice. What if we could do the same thing with corn?
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 9, 2010 0:48:42 GMT -8
As a long time beekeeper, I am highly aware of the distances bees will travel to visit attractive flowers. Fortunately, potato flowers are on average unattractive to bees because they produce little or no nectar. They do produce a decent amount of pollen which is often collected by members of the Mason bee family. The statements re pollen not entering the food chain are legitimate within the context because the tubers do not involve pollen. You're talking to a plant breeder here, and the possibility is very real of the pollen entering the food chain. You don't eat the pollen itself, you eat a potato that was contaminated during breeding with GM pollen. You might be able to make the argument in this limited test trial there won't be anyone breeding potatoes close enough to be an issue, but there are increasing numbers of people in Europe getting involved in potato breeding and once this potato becomes commercially grown the same argument won't hold. Once the environment becomes contaminated in this way, it will all but destroy the possibility for independent plant breeders to develop organic (and thus guaranteed to be free of GM) potato varieties. Then I think the point at issue is considering everything you said here, should GM breeding trials still be allowed to continue. My person position is that these issues need to be addressed first. GMOs are neither good nor bad, they are just science. The science isn't going to go away. The real issue is if it's going to be used in a way that benefits consumers or the environment, or just make somebody rich somewhere without any other concerns being addressed. Until scientists are interested in creating something consumers want to buy, there's little justification in the research and the risks to people's health and environment that go along with it. At the moment, consumers prefer conventionally bred crops. There are also ways of conventionally breeding blight resistant potatoes. There is no reason therefore for trials of blight resistant GM potatoes. This sounds like a really bad idea to me. To much nitrogen fixing by plants can cause the same pollution. Nitrogen is nitrogen. The real problem is mono-cultures. Why not require farmers to make the extra effort to plant cowpeas together with potatoes and corn? I would certainly pay more for food if I know the farmer was using sound growing practices, and be totally unimpressed by nitrogen fixing commodity crops. This is just me of course...
|
|
tz
Junior Member
Posts: 73
|
Post by tz on Jun 9, 2010 4:58:29 GMT -8
Nitrogen fixing only produces nitrogen for the plant. The crop has to be plowed under as green manure for the nitrogen to get back into the soil. Most of the nitrogen from crops such as soybean is hauled away in the produce, and the crop residues barely break even returning nitrogen to the soil. If there is already nitrogen in the soil then the plant uses that and the nitrogen fixing mechanism isn't activated.
The alternative is petroleum based nitrogen fertilizers, and petrolium based application (tractors etc) with the associated air pollution.
People are not going to stop reproducing before we run out of natural gas to make nitrogen fertilizer. It is easy to sit in an affluent country and say I will pay more for food, while children in far away places starve to death.
|
|
|
Post by thefuture on Jun 10, 2010 10:38:20 GMT -8
what is the goal(s) we are after?
what is causing us not to meet those goals?If avoiding losses is a goal, traditional breeding is a more than adequate solution. Bear in mind the things causing us not to meet those goals largely have nothing to do with the plants themselves. It is people that get in the way. Perhaps we should be engineering better people (through culture of course) rather than "better" plants. To wit, there is currently double the production of food on earth than the consumption. Double! Deliberate waste eats a huge proportion of that which doesn't make it to the needy. Why? Food is grown with profit in mind nowdays, not health, nutrition or survival. Paying farmers not to farm is widespread as the little that is grown can be sold for more than double the price. I've seen fields as far as the horizon in Europe converted to golf courses under government sponsorship. Better potatoes don't address that, in an of themselves. I could go on but you get the points. Where the better potatoes WILL help is in the hands of the very people who need to eat but don't have the increasingly worthless paper (aka money) to buy food someone else produced. In fact, ironically, many of the farmers themselves, be they employees or small scale growers, don't have the money to buy what they need. Why? Massive local production used for massive foreign consumption and low buying power (unfair trade) in return. This is as political as it is economic. Thirst for refined products also ironically mean the same people working all week for 28 cents per hour cutting sugar cane will turn around an buy a soda as a treat....for about 6 hours labour. Hmmm. But back to solutions. The beauty of traditional breeder's work is that it ultimately puts the options in the people's hands. With that and a healthy attitude, there will be no hunger problems. I have it in mind to eventually run some projects in Sierra Leone to get them to grow potatoes instead of relying on rice. But I would need to find something that can take the heat or get them to grow in the mountains/hills. Right now they are excited about rice that produces 5 tonnes per hectare. Potatoes could easily do 25 tonnes in a shorter time.... Lastly, it is important to understand that the GOALS are increasingly being defined by the "solution" providers, who again are motivated by profit. In other words they are using marketing to make up needs and convince people they are legitimate when in many cases they are not. To put it in perspective, it has been estimated by some that 80% of the world's arable land is controlled by multi national corporations. We need food made with health & nutrition in mind, solutions from people with sincere intent and accurate knowledge and action taken by those closest to the need.
|
|
|
Post by thefuture on Jun 10, 2010 10:39:50 GMT -8
oh and re the potential usefulness of GM, let's not forget the potentially irreversible unintended consequences.
|
|
|
Post by lieven on Jun 10, 2010 11:38:45 GMT -8
Has anyone thought about the edibility of those GM spuds? Adding genes from inedible Solanums might just trigger some unexpected irreversible potato allergy in people.
|
|
|
Post by DarJones on Jun 10, 2010 19:01:57 GMT -8
I think the "might be" issues with GMO are low on the totem pole. The potential serious consequences of GMO far outweigh any concern that something in a GMO might cause an allergy. An example of this is the use of BT genes in corn. Granted the BT genes are effective, but it is already proven that commercial growing of BT corn is causing the corn borer to develop tolerance. The higher the selection pressure, the faster an organism adapts. The end result is that BT will become ineffective for people like me who choose to use organic methods when possible.
The crux of the issue is that all current GMO's are designed with the specific purpose of making a profit for some large corporation. The one exception that I am aware of for this is the Golden Rice that was engineered with a daffodil gene to produce vitamin A. Unfortunately, the amount of vitamin A it produces is insufficient to alleviate vitamin deficiency.
A conventionally bred tomato like 97L97 can produce enough vitamin A in a single ripe fruit to meet the RDA. Why doesn't someone introduce the high vitamin tomato to the people who live on a diet high in rice?
It was recently announced that a synthetic bacterium had been constructed by the company of Craig Venter. The DNA was assembled one piece at a time and includes 4 specific segments that are solely for the purpose of proving that the organism is synthetic. At some point, we will begin to understand not just the individual genes but the entire biochemical pathway involved in a trait. At that point it will be feasible to construct an entirely new organism with a mix of traits. Such would be the case for corn that has genes to support producing nitrogen like cowpeas.
The underlying problem we have is that even with the level of food production we are capable of today, there will be serious food shortages within 20 years unless we significantly increase production. This is caused by a combination of population growth and removal of arable land from agriculture use. We are looking at having to feed up to 12 billion people by 2030.
Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater?
DarJones
|
|
|
Post by thefuture on Jun 11, 2010 3:17:29 GMT -8
Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater? DarJones Neither. Plant beans with non-GMO corn and pee where you plant.
|
|
|
Post by cortona on Jun 11, 2010 11:47:32 GMT -8
the future...newer read a more inteligent thing! realy! the natural way is ever and ever the best! why use gmo corn or chemy fert? using beans and /or micorryziae is the answer!
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 11, 2010 23:55:37 GMT -8
Which is better? GMO corn that produces its own nitrogen in a sustainable way? or commercial fertilizer made from hydrocarbons that contaminates the soil and groundwater? DarJones Neither. Plant beans with non-GMO corn and pee where you plant. I'm in complete agreement with thefuture! It's totally absurd we should make choice like that.
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 12, 2010 0:03:17 GMT -8
Has anyone thought about the edibility of those GM spuds? Adding genes from inedible Solanums might just trigger some unexpected irreversible potato allergy in people. More than anything else, this is probably the most important thing. It's not just allergies, but all kinds of other health problems. You can't prove a negative, so there's no way to ever be completely certain GMOs are safe. There's all kinds of evidence that the factory farm food we've been eating has been contributing to the health problems of the last few decades. Obesity, diabetes, cancer, stroke, auto immune diseases and many other modern health problems are linked to what we eat. It's proving a huge problem to get the food industry to even acknowledge these issues, not to mention address and take responsibility for them. Who knows what's wrong with GM potatoes that we'll discover in the future, and how are we going to hold those people responsible accountable for this? The most important thing we can do is research GMOs with a completely open mind together with well funded and independent science. We all need to know everything there is to know about these foods before they are put on the market. With Árpád Pusztai being an example as what happens to a scientist who dares to offer evidence GM potatoes might harm your health: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_PusztaiThe fact that part of the intellectual property rights of GMOs are that scientists are not allowed to publish research without the permission of the patent holder. The fact that people involved in the approval and research of GMOs keep coming resigning their work and coming forward with statements that it's all a propaganda exercise food and agriculture industry. The only funding for this research comes from the industry itself. Where's the science we are all supposed to believe is true?
|
|
|
Post by Tom Wagner on Jun 12, 2010 4:07:09 GMT -8
Thanks, Patrick for the mentioning of Pusztai. Here is a link www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/a.pusztai/and here is a PowerPoint to click on and the link is named…. • -What is the real meaning of the comforting terms in the GM Biotech indusrties' submissions? (Powerpoint presentation) ------------------------ www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Heartbreak-In-The-Heartland21jul02.htmI read the article and came up with this rather farce-ridden take on the piece. Warning! Do not read further if you wish not to be insulted.Tom Wagner has been compared to Percy Schmeiser: More conjecture to make a point....Instead of Monsanto/Insaneto, I substituted a slightly misspelled Laboratory to protect the possible guilty...yes, I added a "t"....! Little did they know but an obscure potato breeder left some TPS (True potato seed) in Oxford and some of the seedlings were transported to an allotment near Wymondham and Norwich , and Wagner’s seedlings were pollinated by the GM Desiree which were planted in a plot only 64 feet away. The Wagner seedling that had natural late blight resistance from Collaican x Northern Can Do had 10 berries that were saved and the true seed was sent to the USA and all over the UK. Since the blight resistance was super, derived from bulbocastanum GM genes and the natural resistant genes from the Toluca Valley of Mexico, Wagner’s seeds were grown out during the 2011 season and even more so in 2012. It was purported that Wagner did not know that the GM potatoes were within pollinating distance since he was not living in the Norwich/Wymondham area and that the allotmentears were unaware of the potential trouble and were told that absolutely no way that the DNA Stainbury uses can enter the human food chain! Sorry for the humor and make believe. Tom Wagner
|
|
|
Post by PatrickW on Jun 12, 2010 7:35:22 GMT -8
|
|