In article ,
"Drakanthus" wrote:
I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, as
all GM plants should be. (yes it precludes any fruiting plants)
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.
--
Bob
Assuming of course that such sterile plants remained 100% sterile. I very
much doubt that would be the case in reality. To quote someone from the film
Jurassic Park "Nature will find a way". Either through chance mutation or
viruses swapping bits of DNA about (as they do from time to time with their
hosts) or even just down to human error.
Anyone who pretends there are no risks to nature or to food resources are
merely hoping the listener hasn't read the already extant science that
documents problems already, & no serious reason to believe such a
dishonest industry will set up better safeguards in the future when they
couldn't be bothered with them up to now.
Researchers at the University of Chicago & several others have shown
categorically an enormous problem with "transgenic plant promiscuity" with
purportedly "sterile" plants cross-pollinating with surrounding-area
weeds. The Chicago study showed that herbicide resistant crops (already a
problem encouraging the dumping of increasing tons of chemicals onto
crops) have passed this resistance on to surrounding weeds. The
outcrossing rate DOUBLED for transgenic plants vs normal hybrids, but the
normal hybrids don't pass on herbicide resistance to weeds. Bob Hartzler
of the University of Iowa Dept. of Agronomy notes, "At the time of release
of this article the authors did not have an explanation why genetic
transformation of A. thaliana should increase the outcrossing potential.
These findings support concerns of critics of genetic engineering who have
stated that we really know very little about how these types of
modifications of plants (or animals) will influence their behavior once
they are released into the wild." THAT is the BASIC REALITY of
transgenics, & promoters of these crops rather than address it repeatedly
deny the independent science in favor of Monsanto spin. The promoters
begin from a position of profoundly lying!
Transgenic cotton & brocoli crops have been studied apart from Monsanto
funding & spin-doctors, & it is now well established that transgenic
insecticidal crops have been killing off beneficial insects, whereas
harmful insects like have very swiftly adapted. A study of diamondback
moths on transgenic insecticidal broccoli showed that the insect had
increased its resistance to pesticides 31 fold [Zhao, Collins, et al,
2000]. Helicoverpa armigera on transgenic insecticidal cotton "spares"
about one-fifth of the Helicoverpa larvae, to reproduce a new super-strain
of Helicoverpa that will not be manageable at all [Liang et all, 1998].
Transgenic oilseed rape crops sold & planted with the promise that it was
resistant to beetle larvae INCREASED THE BEETLE LARVAE POPULATION! [Gerard
et al, 1998], giving clear evidence that the transgenticists don't know
what the **** they're doing. Larvae raised to adulthood on the
insecticidal rape crop showed an extravagant weight-gain ahead of the same
species on a control crop, PLUS the fatter healthier larvae on the
transgenic crop had gained a two-fold resistance to insecticides! The
mechanism by which first-generation insects adapt wholesale through
ingestion during larval stage was not something the transgenicists
predicted. In all these cases, transgenic crops have produced
insecticide-resistance insects that not only continue with abandon to live
happily in transgenic crops, but are an increased threat to organic crops.
Only two possibilities when assessing the developers of this crop: Either
they don't know what they're doing since the outcomes are generally the
opposite of the intent -- or they do know they are increasing insecticide
& herbicide resistance in insects but that fits neatly into their agenda
of also selling more insectides & herbicides! I would like to vote on the
side of their just being plain ignorant & therefore an enormous danger to
public health & the environment. Except Monsanto encourages the paranoid
stance that it is all intentional -- their #1 herbicide accounting for a
HUGE percentage of their annual profits has led them to develop
herbicide-resistant crops for the express purpose of increasing their
herbicide sales hence their profits. The more resistant the weeds become,
the more of this herbicide Monsanto sells. The more insect-resistant
plants become, the more insecticide they sell. It seems never to have EVER
been the intent to develop crops that did not need chemicals dumped on
them!
Simultaneously, Monsanto is suing, left & right, any organic grower who
attempts to market non-transgenic products. They don't want the public to
havea choice; they certainly don't want an educated public on these
issues.
And another problem is to the economic environment. Where sterile or
patented transgenic crops are concerned, they bind the farmers into
servitude to gigantic overbearing companies that provide the seed, & once
safed-seed practices have been sufficiently interrupted, independent
farming is only history, & like any other monopoly, the seed providers
will raise prices until their serf-farmers are bled dry. Even the smallest
farmers end up being serfs to international conglomerates such as have
never in the past had human welfare in mind, & certainly will not
magically have that in mind from now on.
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl:
http://www.paghat.com/