GM foods?

[MafiaMaster]

It does happen in agriculture naturally. Unfortunately, the GMOs will spread to the native plants and then those will disappear. GMOs are a good idea; however, there are a lot of negatives to them. I just did a paper on them for my biology class. My professor seems to love things of that nature. Anyways...It could hurt the economy, on top of destroying native plants.

[SororSaudade]

It does happen in agriculture naturally. Unfortunately, the GMOs will spread to the native plants and then those will disappear. GMOs are a good idea; however, there are a lot of negatives to them. I just did a paper on them for my biology class. My professor seems to love things of that nature. Anyways...It could hurt the economy, on top of destroying native plants.

 

The majority of the plants that we use today aren't the "native" ones anymore... and AGAIN comes the germplasm banks issue.

Ok, I'll stop saying the same over again (ehehe.. i love to discuss this subject)... I'm kind of like your professor... i'm doing my master on Plant Biotechnology

 

Just to finish... GMOs aren't perfect, but are one of the best alternatives in many areas, not only for Men... (in my opinion, of course)

[Sequence]

I havn't been keeping up witht this topic, just so you know.

 

I don't know much abut the biodiversity side. What I have to say is that when the scientist activates a certain gene in a plant, you don't know for sure thats all your turning on. There could be unforseen allergies or other thing that may screw with stuff. I'm perfectly happy to eat GE foods as long as they've gone through rigorous testing.

[SkepticLance]

Bascule said :

 

The real reason the banana plant can't adapt is because it has been bread to be seedless and must reproduce with cuttings, eliminating its ability to adapt to the ravages of Panama disease

 

This is not quite true. The original seedless banana was not bred. It was a particular mutation discovered in the wild. Since seeded bananas are almost impossible to eat, the mutation was immediately put to use. Bananas can be grown from cuttings taken near the base of the tree, and thus this mutant was spread around the world.

 

The original seeded banana continues to grow in the wild, but has not been cultivated for the obvious reason. The use of seedless mutants has not reduced banana genetic diversity, which remains as it always was. However, those that are propogated from cuttings of the same origin are all the same genome, and are thus vulnerable to a new disease.

 

There have been other mutants without seeds discovered, and this is the origin of the several genetic strains of edible banana.

[bascule]

This is not quite true. The original seedless banana was not bred. It was a particular mutation discovered in the wild.

 

That's entirely incorrect. I don't know where you get your information. You might start by reading this article:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana

 

Considering there have been at least two cultivars of seedless bananas, Gros Michael and the Cavendish, your account cannot possibly be correct.

 

And have you ever seen a wild banana?

 

 

Both yellow and red bananas are the result of centuries of selective breeding.

 

The use of seedless mutants has not reduced banana genetic diversity, which remains as it always was. However, those that are propogated from cuttings of the same origin are all the same genome

 

How the hell are you not contradicting yourself with that statement?

[SkepticLance]

This seems a rather trivial subject to get emotional over. However, I am not wrong. Seeded bananas are the 'natural' type, but now form a very small minority of banana plants, though the majority in the wild. Both Gros Michel and Cavendish varieties are mutants. Did you think, Bascule, that particular mutations occurred only once?

 

A major reason that a big GM research project on bananas is under way is the simple fact that there is so little genetic variation amonst seedless types. Obviously, only one genome for every line coming from one mutation. The Cavendish variety is under threat by Sigatoka disease, so called because it was first reported in the Sigatoka region of Fiji. (pronounced Sing-ah- Toh- kah). Since the mutant cannot be cross bred, the only effective method of producing a disease resistant variety is GM.

[bascule]

This seems a rather trivial subject to get emotional over. However, I am not wrong. Seeded bananas are the 'natural' type, but now form a very small minority of banana plants, though the majority in the wild. Both Gros Michel and Cavendish varieties are mutants. Did you think, Bascule, that particular mutations occurred only once?

 

No, but you did:

 

The original seedless banana was not bred. It was a particular mutation discovered in the wild.

 

So now you're changing your story. The mutation happened twice. One line of mutant wild seedless bananas somehow became the Gros Michael. The other line became the Cavendish. And somehow, with no selective breeding, this:

 

 

Turned into this:

 

 

TWICE!

 

Since the mutant cannot be cross bred, the only effective method of producing a disease resistant variety is GM.

 

So, you admit seedless mutants cannot be selectively bread. So you just contradicted yourself again. But at least you're admitting the truth this time.

 

Except, wait, you're wrong again... the real way you produce a new cultivar is to go back to the seeded varieties, which have been selectively bred for centuries, and begin a new selective breeding program to breed them for seedlessness.

 

Do you have any clue how stupid what you're saying is? A seedless plant is, by definition, sterile. Any seedless mutants are doomed to instant death. That makes finding one highly improbable. And furthermore, no selective breeding for things like flavor, texture, or easy peelability, can take place, because you can't selectively breed clones. There is no breeding!

 

Bananas were selectively bread for seedlessless. It is not the result of a random mutation which happened twice in a century.

 

And you still haven't given me the source of your information. Your ass?

[bascule]

SkepticLance, so as not to derail the GM foods thread, I suggest that you reply here:

 

http://scienceforums.net/showthread.php?p=312643

[SkepticLance]

Bascule,

I do not quite understand why you feel the need to reply in such vehement terms. Surely, the origin of the humble banana is not something that requires this.

 

My original source is a posting by Professor Anthony Trewavas on the Agbioview email magazine. You can find this email journal on google.

http://www.agbioworld.org

 

I have not changed my tune. Here is my original comment copied.

 

The original seedless banana was not bred. It was a particular mutation discovered in the wild.

 

Bascule, you said :

 

A seedless plant is, by definition, sterile. Any seedless mutants are doomed to instant death.

 

Yes, it is sterile. But it can be propogated using cuttings. And that is how it has spread world wide.

 

Bascule,

Come on. Then origin of the humble banana is not of Earth shattering import. Why have you reacted so strongly?

[bascule]

SkepticLance,

 

Since you couldn't read the first time, I reiterate. Respond here:

 

http://scienceforums.net/showthread.php?p=312643

 

I have posted my response on that thread.

[ecoli]

I can't agree with you on that... as i've said, GMOs are new varieties of the species that already exist and i can't see how they can lead to a decrease in biodiversity in shorter periods.

When it comes to selective breeding, you have to find plants with natural variation that you like and cross breed them. Several generations later, you might get a plant that you find desirable. When you directly modify the plant genes, you can get the plant you want in only one generation. Hence, it takes less time.

 

Except the problem is that, lots of times traits are associated with each other. For example, a trait that may code for a sweet tasting fruit might also be associated with an intolerability to cold weather. If all the plants your growing are like this (and farms tend to very homogenous with their plant types these days) and you happen to get a cold winter, than all your plants are going to die.

 

It's a well known fact of natural selection that populations with less genetic diversity are more prone to extinction.

 

And, since we don't know what every single gene in plants code for, nor how genes are associated, etc, it's hard for scientists to control things. The best way to insure that a species or population will endure is to have a lot of variety. This will increase the chances of at least a couple of individuals that will survive in harsh conditions.

 

Unfortunately, most farmers and companies that produce GMOs aren't thinking ahead, I believe. They are interested in what's going to make a profit now. So, if they can get a great tasting fruit in one plant generation, that's good for business because that's what people want.

 

Basically what i mean is that the biodiversity thing is not a big problem related to GMOs, since it happens with agriculture in general.

 

This doesn't mean that's it's not a problem. It just means that it's not a new problem. But, untill recently, selective breeding has caused it to develop slowly.

 

 

 

And I'm not sure if I buy the argument that GMO crops will help stop hunger in Africa. I definately see hunger as more of a socioeconomic problem. After all, we have GMOs and kids are still going hungry in Africa. I have seen no convincing evidence that high-yeild GMO crops are feeding more people.

[SkepticLance]

ecoli said :

 

And I'm not sure if I buy the argument that GMO crops will help stop hunger in Africa.

 

There is truth in what you say, at least at the present time, but probably not for the reason you believe. The real problem is political. That is, we have a whole lot of anti-GM activists telling African governments not to accept GM crops. Thus, the introduction of necessary technology is an uphill battle.

 

Case in point. 200 million sub saharan African depends mainly on corn as their staple food - often as a kind of maize porridge. This group is heavily represented in the 840 million people known to be malnourished. Yet 40% of the maize crop each year is lost to insect attack - adding a hell of a lot to the problem. There is already in existence an insect resistant GM maize suitable for cultivation across large parts of Africa. It has not been permitted to be introduced.

 

Cassava is another vitally important crop for Africa. There are two virus diseases that devastate the crop. A GM virus resistant cassava was made, totally resistant to one of these viruses. The researchers were set to add resistance to the second, but their funding dried up. Why? It appears to be the result of anti-GM activism.

 

Yes, GM has the potential to drastically reduce hunger in Africa. And no, it will not happen until current political activists stop their very damaging activities.

[SororSaudade]

Ecoli:

 

First of all, as I had already said, the argument that GMOs will stop hunger is a false one since this is a political issue.

 

Second, nowadays scientists are thinking ahead like never before... germplasm banks are emerging and are a very nice way to preserve the variety of species. (and everybody knows that less variability can lead to extiction... there's no need for you to mention that again and again).

 

And to finish... when you introduce a new gene/trait into a plant you create MORE diversity in certain species. This diversity is lost in agriculture/selective breeding, and this happens with GMOs and not GMOs. As I've said, it's up to farmers to select the best varieties (with GMOs they have MORE varieties to choose from...).

Oh! And of course genes interact with each other... but you can't forget that GMO's are intensively tested before coming out to the market (if they are not banned... as it is in Europe...)

[SkepticLance]

On GMO's / hunger and politics.

 

One of the most reliable means of solving the hunger problem is to bypass the politics. You do this by empowering people to produce their own food, without requiring input from their own government or from aid agencies. This is the approach used in the Green Revolution, which is supposed to have saved a billion people from malnutrition.

 

GM crops can help do the same. Once the poor farmers have GM seeds that produce a more productive food crop, they can save the seeds and replant them from year to year. So, for example, the insect resistant maize will give greater yields, and hence less hunger every year once peasant farmers have this resource.

 

To say that hunger is due to politics is true, but unhelpful. To give people the resources to bypass politics and feed themselves - that is a wonderful gift.

[SororSaudade]

On GMO's / hunger and politics.

 

To say that hunger is due to politics is true, but unhelpful. To give people the resources to bypass politics and feed themselves - that is a wonderful gift.

 

I thought that we were discussing GMOs... not trying to save the world

 

Of course you are right in what you say, it's very beautiful, but not very realistic from my point of view.

[SkepticLance]

Of course you are right in what you say, it's very beautiful, but not very realistic from my point of view.

 

Actually it is very realistic and quite doable.

 

It already happened with the Green Revolution. There are hundreds of millions of peasant farmers in India, Pakistan and elsewhere who repeatedly plant wheat and rice crops that are genetically superior to old stock, and produce more food per acre than would have been earlier possible. They bypass politics to do this, since they already have the superior crops.

 

Africa, sadly, missed out on this revolution. However, with GM, we have a second chance. Give the poor African farmers the superior gene stock, and they will plant and harvest it for many generations without any political interferance.

[SororSaudade]

Of course you are right in what you say, it's very beautiful, but not very realistic from my point of view.

 

Actually it is very realistic and quite doable.

 

It already happened with the Green Revolution. There are hundreds of millions of peasant farmers in India, Pakistan and elsewhere who repeatedly plant wheat and rice crops that are genetically superior to old stock, and produce more food per acre than would have been earlier possible. They bypass politics to do this, since they already have the superior crops.

 

Africa, sadly, missed out on this revolution. However, with GM, we have a second chance. Give the poor African farmers the superior gene stock, and they will plant and harvest it for many generations without any political interferance.

 

 

I totally agree with you... I just don't know if it is that simple to bypass politics... but it would be great! We are now entering the political domain, and I'm not that confortable discussing it, I must confess... so forgive if my wrong (eheh)

[SororSaudade]

Of course you are right in what you say, it's very beautiful, but not very realistic from my point of view.

 

Actually it is very realistic and quite doable.

 

It already happened with the Green Revolution. There are hundreds of millions of peasant farmers in India, Pakistan and elsewhere who repeatedly plant wheat and rice crops that are genetically superior to old stock, and produce more food per acre than would have been earlier possible. They bypass politics to do this, since they already have the superior crops.

 

Africa, sadly, missed out on this revolution. However, with GM, we have a second chance. Give the poor African farmers the superior gene stock, and they will plant and harvest it for many generations without any political interferance.

 

 

I totally agree with you... I just don't know if it is that simple to bypass politics... but it would be great! We are now entering the political domain, and I'm not that confortable discussing it, I must confess... so forgive me if I'm wrong (eheh)