GM crops

[swansont]

The ignorance in this particular field astounds me.

 

If you've eaten corn in the past few years, chances are it's been genetically modified. They do this to make the corn higher-yield. They make the corn resistant to pests and diseases of the ground.

 

Almost every crop has been engineered to cope with the demands of seven billion people on this planet.

 

Please research before you go spouting off about how dangerous GM is.

 

I think if you want to get only a little pedantic, then if you'v ever eaten corn it's GM corn. The question is how the genetic manipulation has been done. Corn (as well as other crops and, of course, animals) has been selectively bred for thousands of years; corn has stark differences with the wild maize that it is descended from. I wonder how many people realize that the sole purpose is to modify the genes, even if the practitioners didn't realize this.

 

I do realize that GM is usually meant as a different sort of modification

[jeskill]

I am not concerned about the effects that GM crops have on my body. I am more concerned about the effects that it has on our environment and the biological diversity as postulated by the ESA.

 

Perhaps you've misunderstood the theme of my post.

 

I second immortal's concern.

 

On a side note, I'm sad I'm not going to ESA this year . Immortal, if you're interested in this issue, you may want to check out the NWAEG meeting held right after ESA in Portland.

[too-open-minded]

I have had this thought before but having no prior knowledge about what i saw on the movie food inc. I didn't want to make my opinion right yet. I'm sure GM has the right to tell farmers they must legally use their seeds, if the plants caught a new virus they weren't ready for the worlds population would dwindle. Thank you for giving me a respectable educated view on the subject.

 

Although I still feel the concept of a monetary form of circulated currency corrupts everything. whether its someone on top of the world, or down in the dumps.

[studiot]

Corn (as well as other crops and, of course, animals) has been selectively bred for thousands of years;

 

Why?

[too-open-minded]

To harvest a more resilient and bountiful crop/stock of course.

[studiot]

To harvest a more resilient and bountiful crop/stock of course.

 

It would be ok if that were the only reason.

[Jebus]

The argument that it would have negative effects on the environment is pretty weak. GM foods can actually increase biodiversity, with less use of pesticides, various insects will no longer die, so any insect that is not harmful to the plant would be spared. Also with an increase in yields, that means less area for farming, which leaves more area for wildlife.

 

There is way to much controversy over GM foods. Whenever there is a new scientific industry, or development, people are very quick to demonize it.

[Arete]

The argument that it would have negative effects on the environment is pretty weak.

 

Dow and Pioneer actually had to abandon BT resistant sunflowers, even after investing millions of dollars. The issue was that in north and central America, sunflowers are native. The companies involved in its development funded research which showed the risk of modified BT genes getting into the native populations was too great, as was the impact it would have on the native herbivores which rely on wild sunflowers and subsequently dropped its development.

 

http://www.ucsusa.or...effects-of.html

 

http://www.cof.orst....news%202002.pdf

Edited July 13, 2012 by Arete

[ydoaPs]

It would be ok if that were the only reason.

 

So, potatoes are bad, then? Because they are a member of the nightshade family, they are naturally poisonous. They were bred to be edible.

Edited July 13, 2012 by ydoaPs

[Jebus]

Dow and Pioneer actually had to abandon BT resistant sunflowers, even after investing millions of dollars. The issue was that in north and central America, sunflowers are native. The companies involved in its development funded research which showed the risk of modified BT genes getting into the native populations was too great, as was the impact it would have on the native herbivores which rely on wild sunflowers and subsequently dropped its development.

 

http://www.ucsusa.or...effects-of.html

 

http://www.cof.orst....news%202002.pdf

 

This has do to with regulation and the same problems can arrise with conventional breeding techniques. A way to deal with this problem, as outlined in the Nuffieldbioethics Report, would be to, "include the use of multiple resistance genes or the cultivation of small areas of susceptible crop varieties to provide refuges in which the non-resistant pathogen or pest may persist," to delay or even prevent resistance breakdown.

 

 

 

 

 

[studiot]

So, potatoes are bad, then? Because they are a member of the nightshade family, they are naturally poisonous. They were bred to be edible.

 

Amazing how the rational thought is suspended by normally thinking people when this subject comes up.

 

Why would it not be OK if the only reason was to improve crop quality, yield and disease/pest resistance?

 

Yet that is the implication of your over sarcastic remark, which is not even accurate.

[Moontanman]

Amazing how the rational thought is suspended by normally thinking people when this subject comes up.

 

Why would it not be OK if the only reason was to improve crop quality, yield and disease/pest resistance?

 

Yet that is the implication of your over sarcastic remark, which is not even accurate.

 

 

I think you need to elaborate on that, the ancestors of potatoes were indeed poisonous... and if there is a plant that has been more changed by selective breeding than corn I can't imagine what it is... except maybe the banana but the banana man found that out the hard way...

 

I am genuinely confused by the whole gm foods thing, I can't see how it is much if any worse than selective breeding, I'd certainly rather eat GM food than starve but the detractors would rather have people starve than eat GM food...

[ydoaPs]

Amazing how the rational thought is suspended by normally thinking people when this subject comes up.

 

Why would it not be OK if the only reason was to improve crop quality, yield and disease/pest resistance?

 

Yet that is the implication of your over sarcastic remark, which is not even accurate.

 

How about the fact that changing a poisonous plant into a nutritious plant does none of those things?

 

I think you need to elaborate on that, the ancestors of potatoes were indeed poisonous... and if there is a plant that has been more changed by selective breeding than corn I can't imagine what it is... except maybe the banana but the banana man found that out the hard way...

 

I am genuinely confused by the whole gm foods thing, I can't see how it is much if any worse than selective breeding, I'd certainly rather eat GM food than starve but the detractors would rather have people starve than eat GM food...

 

Indeed.

[studiot]

Maybe I was asleep in history lessons, but I understood that Sir Walter Raleigh brought potatoes from the Americas to Europe because the native indians cultivated and ate them there.

If they ate them they were not poisonous, and I doubt that the native indians of the americas went in for any form of crop development. I understand they were a slash and burn culture.

 

In any event I do believe that the tubers have always been edible, but the above ground parts of the plant less wholesome.

 

Now that I have answered your question how about answering mine?

[Jebus]

I'd certainly rather eat GM food than starve but the detractors would rather have people starve than eat GM food...

 

This is exactly what happend in Africa. Environmental groups went to huge lengths to scare the African nations into banning GM foods. As a result, thousands died from malnutrition or starvation. Now they are getting things in order; Africa no longer wants to do it the, "natural way," they've been doing it for decades and it hasn't been working.

 

 

 

[Moontanman]

Maybe I was asleep in history lessons, but I understood that Sir Walter Raleigh brought potatoes from the Americas to Europe because the native indians cultivated and ate them there.

If they ate them they were not poisonous, and I doubt that the native indians of the americas went in for any form of crop development. I understand they were a slash and burn culture.

 

You would be mistaken, I suggest you do a little more research on this, I am a Native American, Native Americans developed corn, they also developed potatoes... Not all Native Americans were savages... The Cherokee Nation not to mention others were not slash and burn culture...

 

In any event I do believe that the tubers have always been edible, but the above ground parts of the plant less wholesome.

 

Again you are mistaken.

 

Now that I have answered your question how about answering mine?

 

Since you did not I can not...

[studiot]

Moontanman

 

I suggest you do a little more research on this

 

Well then help me with my research.

What crop selection and development in respect of potatoes did the population native to the americas practise prior to 1450 AD ?

 

I am not sure what you mean by native american, as in how it applies to the modern day but if you can trace ancestors back to the people that were native to the americas when the europeans arrived you should be proud of that fact not so touchy.

 

I didn't use the word savages - you did.

 

I was giving considerable credit to the population native to the americas around 1450 -1500 for cultivating crops (I think tomatoes and tobacco were also included) that europeans had never seen.

 

Since you did not I can not...

 

 

I did not expect you too since my comment was not asked of you.

So far as I can make out you had not asked a question to the point where I made my remark so how could it have been? I specifically stated I answered someones question, but you had not asked one?

 

Which is all a pity since you have also expressed confusion about the subject of the modern day development of crop varieties.

 

I think that some more questionable purposes, than I outlined in post#11, are being served by modern techniques .

I further think that these darker purposes are contaminating the motives of the post#11 in the eyes of many (including my own), thereby casting a shadow over pefectly sound scientific and technological developments.

Edited July 14, 2012 by studiot

[Moontanman]

Moontanman

 

 

 

Well then help me with my research.

What crop selection and development in respect of potatoes did the population native to the americas practise prior to 1450 AD ?

 

I am not sure what you mean by native american, as in how it applies to the modern day but if you can trace ancestors back to the people that were native to the americas when the europeans arrived you should be proud of that fact not so touchy.

 

I didn't use the word savages - you did.

 

You said they were a slash a burn culture who could not have developed the varieties of domesticated plants when in fact the image of Native Americans as less than civilized is a product of Hollywood and the Europeans who waged a constant warfare of deception and extermination against the native peoples. Actual biological warfare was used against my own ancestors as well as armed conflict and a constant war of dehumanization resulting in the modern day assumption that they were not civilized and somehow only benefited by being tamed by the white man... yeah, i am a bit touchy about it sometimes, tell a black man how he is better off to have had his ancestors dragged to North america by the white man and you'll get a similar reaction.

 

The native people of North, Central, and South America were, even by European standards, quite civilized when first contact occurred, disease and constant warfare winnowed the natives in North America down until only the natives of the open plains were left to be immortalized by Hollywood and prejudiced historians.

 

The Cherokee Nation was robbed of their homeland even though they were "officially" civilized and allies of the USA, the discovery of gold on our homeland resulted in this betrayal, google the Trial of Tears to find out more...

 

I was giving considerable credit to the population native to the americas arount 1450 -1500 for cultivating crops (I think tomatoes and tobacco were also included) that europeans had never seen.

 

That's mighty white of you... the civilization of the Americas had been cultivating corn for more than a 1000 years by the time the white man had arrived, they had large cities and cultivated a great many unique crops and had been doing so for thousands of years...

 

Biological warfare and deception is the hall mark of the Europeans and it was the down fall of the civilizations of the new world...

 

 

 

 

I did not expect you too since my comment was not asked of you.

So far as I can make out you had not asked a question to the point where I made my remark so how could it have been? I specifically stated I answered someones question, but you had not asked one?

 

Which is all a pity since you have also expressed confusion about the subject of the modern day development of crop varieties.

 

I think that some more questionable purposes, than I outlined in post#11, are being served by modern techniques .

I further think that these darker purposes are contaminating the motives of the post#11 in the eyes of many (including my own), thereby casting a shadow over pefectly sound scientific and technological developments.

 

I apologize for the miscommunication...

Edited July 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[too-open-minded]

Okay guys I hear the argument being made that some crops have been genetically modified because they were poisonous?

Am i misunderstanding?

 

If not, how is this a bad thing?

 

What is a poison other than a compound alien to the human body, evolution has its way around poisons. If administered in small quantities.

 

 

On an added note, meso-americans had a plumbing system while Europeans were still spewing their bowel movements in the streets out of buckets.

Every culture has is advantages and disadvantages, If we were to mix cultures. I cant express to you the things we would achieve.

Edited July 14, 2012 by too-open-minded

[jeskill]

The argument that it would have negative effects on the environment is pretty weak. GM foods can actually increase biodiversity, with less use of pesticides, various insects will no longer die, so any insect that is not harmful to the plant would be spared.

 

You're incorrect. The data shows that GM crops INCREASE the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Pesticide-use in the US has increased significantly since the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops,

according to a new report ... Research from an alliance of environmental groups has found that the switch to GM crops has led to an extra 318 million pounds of pesticides being used by farmers."

 

One reason why this has occurred is that when pesticide or herbicide resistance occurs on these plots (which is often), farmers use stronger, and more, chemicals, to deal with the problem.

See here

This has do to with regulation and the same problems can arrise with conventional breeding techniques. A way to deal with this problem, as outlined in the Nuffieldbioethics Report, would be to, "include the use of multiple resistance genes or the cultivation of small areas of susceptible crop varieties to provide refuges in which the non-resistant pathogen or pest may persist," to delay or even prevent resistance breakdown.

The current situation with regards to this is that refugia are often not used (often in developing countries), or if they are, they are often insufficient. Multiple resistance genes are not as effective as one might think: organisms do evolve resistance to them. But I do agree with you in that this is not solely a GM problem -- the pesticide treadmill is a problem that arises time and time again in conventional agriculture.

 

 

...I doubt that the native indians of the americas went in for any form of crop development. I understand they were a slash and burn culture.

Many cultures across the globe were/are slash and burn, including some South American cultures, as well as some North Americans (i.e. in what is now Mexico). But, it should be noted, that slash and burn is not always unsustainable, and requires a considerable amount of ecological knowledge on the part of the farmers. See here

 

Swidden or shifting cultivation is commonly thought to be primitive and destructive when it is in fact a highly productive form of ecological farming. Intensive agriculture as practised in much of the world is a leading source of carbon emissions. ... The community plants 60 to 100 different crops in forest plots that have been burned to clear them. Fire and forest management are crucial and the burning only lasts for a couple of hours, he said. ... Karen communities were doing their own research and invited scientists to do a 'carbon count.' Researchers at Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Foundation found that their swidden practices soak up nearly 750,000 tonnes of carbon over an area of about 3000 hectares. Burning only releases 400 to 500 tonnes.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Cap'n Refsmmat
font fix

[studiot]

Moontanman

Biological warfare and deception is the hall mark of the Europeans and it was the down fall of the civilizations of the new world...

 

I agree, although some earlier 'civilisations' also used BW further east.

 

However it does not do to tar a perfectly respectable (if colourful) technical term with emotive baggage.

 

Some peoples native to the americas were primarily hunter-gatherers and did no real farming.

 

Others were farmers and 'Slash and Burn' was exactly what they did - after all they had plenty of spare land. In those circumstances it is a very efficient and viable farming (and living) technique.

 

But any farmer must have crops to farm so it stand to reason that they must have developed them, so how can you say

 

You said they were a slash a burn culture who could not have developed the varieties of domesticated plants

 

All I'm asking for is evidence that they did any sort of selective breeding of the type Swansoft mentioned rather than just growing what they had found in nature.

In particular I'm asking for evidence that the tubers of potatoes were ever poisonous (except when green).

 

The point is that with their type of agriculture they moved on every few years so how did they have the settled periods to do the development?

How much development, for instance, did the chinese ( a settled people) put into rice in an even longer time period?

 

 

 

 

[Jebus]

 

You're incorrect. The data shows that GM crops INCREASE the use of pesticides and herbicides.

 

One reason why this has occurred is that when pesticide or herbicide resistance occurs on these plots (which is often), farmers use stronger, and more, chemicals, to deal with the problem.

See here

 

Well maybe for the US.., but according to this data and this report, it's quite the opposite.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman

 

 

I agree, although some earlier 'civilisations' also used BW further east.

 

However it does not do to tar a perfectly respectable (if colourful) technical term with emotive baggage.

 

Some peoples native to the americas were primarily hunter-gatherers and did no real farming.

 

Others were farmers and 'Slash and Burn' was exactly what they did - after all they had plenty of spare land. In those circumstances it is a very efficient and viable farming (and living) technique.

 

But any farmer must have crops to farm so it stand to reason that they must have developed them, so how can you say

 

 

 

All I'm asking for is evidence that they did any sort of selective breeding of the type Swansoft mentioned rather than just growing what they had found in nature.

In particular I'm asking for evidence that the tubers of potatoes were ever poisonous (except when green).

 

The point is that with their type of agriculture they moved on every few years so how did they have the settled periods to do the development?

How much development, for instance, did the chinese ( a settled people) put into rice in an even longer time period?

 

 

If you seriously do not understand that native peoples of the Americas were not all or even mostly hunter gatherers and actually lived in cities and had a thriving civilization, actual stone cities, although in North america the settled peoples used wood instead of stone, I seriously do not think I am qualified to teach such a complex subject. But small pox pretty much eliminated the great North American cities of the Mississippi culture.

 

The Cherokee Nation was not hunter gatherers or a slash and burn culture, they actually lived in houses made of logs, actual permanent settlements, towns, the Appalachian Mountains from Georgia to New England was their homeland. later they were concentrated into smaller areas by the USA and later forcibly removed to the Midwest "Indian Territories"

 

Native American culture consisted of quite a bit more than wondering tribes... In Central and South America they had huge stone cities and built pyramids of stones, seriously are you just baiting me?

 

Most of North america is shown as hunter gatherers on maps but there were some tribes that lived permanent settlements. The Most advanced were in central and south america but the Appalachian mountains and Mississippi river valley contained tribes that lived in permanent agricultural settlements. Early Spanish explorers spread small pox that for all practical purposes eliminated the settled tribes that depended on agriculture. Even in the desert south west many tribes were permanent agriculture based tribes.

 

I will admit this is not universally accepted by many historians, the Mississippi culture was ended by small pox and never recovered. Most of the actual development of things like potatoes, tomatoes, and corn was done in Central America but it had spread to North America well before Columbus. Tobacco was developed by North American tribes but it was not smoked the way Europeans eventually used it. It was smoked ceremoniously and used in sweat lodges.

 

Sadly the most well known cultures of North America were indeed hunter gatherers but they had spread greatly die the to death of more permanent tribes due to the small pox epidemic that eliminated the settled tribes. These wandering tribes had taken over much of the old territories by the time Europeans moved into the majority of North America.

 

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

 

Wild potato species occur throughout the Americas, from the United States to southern Chile.[3] The potato was originally believed to have been domesticated independently in multiple locations,[4] but later genetic testing of the wide variety of cultivars and wild species proved a single origin for potatoes in the area of present-day southern Peru and extreme northwestern Bolivia (from a species in the Solanum brevicaule complex), where they were domesticated 7,000–10,000 years ago.[5][6][7] Following centuries of selective breeding, there are now over a thousand different types of potatoes.[6] Of these subspecies, a variety that at one point grew in the Chiloé Archipelago (the potato's south-central Chilean sub-center of origin) left its germplasm on over 99% of the cultivated potatoes worldwide.[8][9]

 

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

 

It's interesting to note that many different plants are related to potatoes, including peppers tomatoes and tobacco, not to mention many varieties and species that are quite deadly.

 

http://archaeology.about.com/od/plthroughpo/a/Potatoes.htm

 

The edible part of the potato is its root, called tuber. Because the tuber of wild potatoes contains poisonous alkaloids, one of the first steps made by ancient Andean farmers toward domestication was to select and replant a variety with low alkaloid contents. Also, since wild tubers are quite small, farmers also selected the bigger examples.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[Jebus]

Ironic that this thread started because of a different thread going off topic...

[Greg H.]

Just to settle the whole are potatoes poisonous thing:

 

Yes, they are, but they're only particularly dangerous if eaten when they have a green coloration to the tuber. So are eggplants, by the way. And cherry, peach, and apricot pits, and almonds (they all have cyanide in them).

 

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

http://listverse.com/2009/01/06/top-10-poisonous-foods-we-love-to-eat/