Bob Hobden writes

"Oz" wrote in message after me after Oz .........(snip)

Not talking mutations of genes here, talking about latent genes that are
already there but that don't "do" anything suddenly making things happen
after the GM insertion of another gene triggers them into action.

Mutations (natural) do that all the time.
yawn

True, they do mutate, and that is natural and part of evolution, they don't
insert themselves from one species (or even genera) to another .

Hardly matters because each species has the opportunity to mutate to
resist whatever pressures are brought to bear. RR ryegrass for example.
Further the number of really new molecules that get used by life is
surprisingly small, just compare haemoglobin and chlorophyll, rhodopsin
and vitamin A for example.

BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when
they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly
and cause unexpected results in the Lab .

Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably
go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does,
with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there
is a single example you can point to in the field.

I feel that is proof that the
science is not good enough yet to be allowed out of the Lab and into our
world. The scientists don't know whats going on!

Inability to predict isn't the same as not knowing what is going on.
After all that's far more true of conventional breeding techniques where
they haven't the slightest clue what the (conventional) genes are doing,
whilst at least they do know precisely what the rather simple GM gene is
doing. They identified it, extracted it, implanted it and can track it.

however, it will cause change,

Change has been happening for 1000,000,000 years without ceasing.
Big deal.

possibly some destruction of species,

Species have been being lost for 1000,000,000's of years.
Big deal. Best avoided, but it's actually quite hard to take a species
to extinction, particularly insects, unless you remove their ecosystem.
The field is already a species-deficient zone, being essentially a
monoculture of necessity (even organic fields).

From those comments I understand you don't mind if there is significant
change brought about by GM. Here we differ fundamentally.

You have a short memory. I already made comment about inappropriate use
of insecticidal genes. None the less I know of no insect rendered
extinct by conventional pesticides, which are far more profligate in
their effects than GM insecticides. I suspect you grossly overestimate
man's abilities and underestimate nature's.

more use of chemicals in farming,

Unlikely. Most/all gmo's use fewer chemicals because if they didn't
there would be no point using them at all. The reduction of insecticide
use in BT cotton has by all accounts been huge for example.

Not what I've heard.

Then you heard wrong, and further are not thinking.
Why would a farmer pay to use more expensive chemicals by buying more
expensive seed, when he can just use whats already available?

You seem not to realise that the main aim of a farmer is to spend as
little on sprays as possible, which means using as few as possible. Many
are over $200/can, and are a serious drain on any profitability he might
have.

Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with
more herbicides.

No.
So they can use one cheap spray of environmentally benign roundup
instead of a cocktail of many expensive ones. Please think.

inability of farmers to save their own
seed for the next crop,

Been going on for decades (see hybrids), and in any case I very much
doubt this will be the case in the EU, and doesn't appear to be the case
in the 2nd/3rd world.

Wrong! Only in the case of F1 hybrids is it not wise to save seed as they
are first generation crosses and the second generation follows the normal
rules. Seed CAN still be saved though and you would still get a crop of
sorts.

sigh You missed the point completely.

Hybrids are used to STOP farmers saving their seeds.

Having a 'crop of sorts' isn't exactly conducive to making a living.

Using hybrids occurs primarily in the US, where there doesn't appear to
be any regulation of seed royalty. In the EU (as an example) saved seed
still carries a royalty and there is much less pressure for hybrids. In
the 2nd/3rd world there are no royalties, and it's saved - but this
doesn't look like changing, and laws don;t look like changing either.

So outside the US, no problem.

If genes are transferred from some crop plants to some wild plants then
this has been going on for millennia anyway. The question is whether the
new genes give a significant advantage or disadvantage in the wild (cos
wild plants live in the wild). Whilst I can see a mechanism for GM
insecticides, I cannot see one for herbicide tolerance.

It would be the only plant other than the crop that could survive the
herbicide use.

sigh

If it's close enough to x-breed with the crop then it's unlikely to be
hit by any conventional selectives either. So the farmer isn't any worse
off. So no bigger problem.

Anyhow it's the farmer's problem.

As a farmer, the ability to use fewer, safer, sprays is highly
beneficial. Remember by far the person most at risk is the sprayer
operator, who is handling bulk quantities of concentrate.

I would agree if I thought it true that there would be less
spraying/herbicide use but as some of the companies involved in GM are also
Agro-Chemical companies I somehow doubt it.

That's because you are ignorant of the reality.

The US (and elsewhere) experience is that it's for the better overall.
Otherwise they wouldn't continue to increase their area of gm cropping.

If there was money to be made they would increase it no matter what.

Precisely, and since most have been working hard to earn nothing for
years any small profit feeds the wife and kids.

I suspect we will never agree on this subject. Well not for some years
anyway.

Depends if the evidence counts or not.


But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach
different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is
controlling this science and why.

No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge
accurately into the reality of both farming and nature.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.