|
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Thanks for your help! Perrenelle Pretty simple for me........ Don't mess with Mother Nature. We don't know the implications of what genetically altering plants could be. See the example of caterpillars of butterflies, genetically engineered corn cross pollinating with "natural" corn etc. Just my 2 cents......... Christine |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Absolutely yes, to all. And please add to the list blue angel trumpets and
winter tomatoes? "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Thanks for your help! Perrenelle |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Absolutely, most emphatically NO -- Chris Thomas West Cork Ireland |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Tue, 13 May 2003 01:32:35 GMT, "Perrenelle"
wrote: Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Thanks for your help! Perrenelle Would not buy any of them. -- Polar |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Kat" writes: | Absolutely yes, to all. And please add to the list blue angel trumpets and | winter tomatoes? Especially ones big enough for my herd of flying pigs to roost in.[*] God help us all, we are likely to be inflicted with this sort of thing shortly. I have nothing against such methods, WHEN DONE CAREFULLY AND SAFELY, but current experience is that the chances of a major disaster are huge. And I mean major :-( [*] Proposals 2 and 4 are comparable. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Perrenelle wrote:
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. None of the above. However, if you could get an Amaryllis to do the hoovering, I might be interested. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
|
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Perrenelle wrote:
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Sorry, but no, I would not knowingly buy any of them. regards sarah -- "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Perrenelle" wrote:
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. How about a truly RED iris? Tsu -- To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection. - Jules Henri Poincaré |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
No. But...
I understand the entire world population of Bananas is under threat of extinction due to a particular disease, and transgenic research is being done to create a resistant strain. I wonder how many of us would eat transgenic bananas if they were the only ones available? -- Drakanthus. (Spam filter: Include the word VB anywhere in the subject line or emails will never reach me.) |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Tue, 13 May 2003 14:00:52 +0100, Drakanthus
wrote: No. But... I understand the entire world population of Bananas is under threat of extinction due to a particular disease, and transgenic research is being done to create a resistant strain. I wonder how many of us would eat transgenic bananas if they were the only ones available? More info he http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991037 Tim. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Kat" wrote:
Absolutely yes, to all. And please add to the list blue angel trumpets and winter tomatoes? No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in the window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot! -paghat the ratgirl "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Thanks for your help! Perrenelle -- "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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Tue, 13 May 2003 08:18:48 -0700, paghat
wrote: In article , "Kat" wrote: Absolutely yes, to all. And please add to the list blue angel trumpets and winter tomatoes? No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in the window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot! YES ! Tim. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article ,
wrote: On Tue, 13 May 2003 01:32:35 GMT, "Perrenelle" wrote: Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it If it were Herb Robert aka "Stinky Bob," then no, I wouldn't want to smell that three times regular. If it were some sort of mock orange, I'd probably pass out before I could reach the door. 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be full of toxic chemical gasses. 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it I would look at someone else's is all. 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Rather, I'd tell Satan to get the hell back to hell if he insists on wearing sulfurous aftershave. Thanks for your help! It doesn't seem to me you're on the right path to overcome nature-lovers' preference for nature. People already love their cloned cultivars so it isn't going to be impossible to overcome the instinctive prejudice against transgenic veggies & flowers, but some of the above require people to first of all ACCEPT the idea of steeping in pollutants, THEN begin to regard buying a houseplant as the best corrective measure. When it's entirely the wrong corrective measure. Now, if you can do a recombinant DNA glow-in-the-dark flower that is part firefly & part orchid cactus, you'll be onto something. -paghat the ratgirl Perrenelle Would not buy any of them. -- Polar -- "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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , Tsu Dho Nimh
wrote: "Perrenelle" wrote: Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. How about a truly RED iris? Tsu How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans. -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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Tim" wrote in message news:opro39tyx0wxhha1@localhost... On Tue, 13 May 2003 08:18:48 -0700, paghat wrote: In article , "Kat" wrote: Absolutely yes, to all. And please add to the list blue angel trumpets and winter tomatoes? No, no -- transgenic EVERGREEN tomatos that produce cherry tomatoes in the window all year round AND have gigantic blue clematis blooms to boot! YES ! Tim. Yes! (silly me, to think only of fresh vine ripened winter tomatoes!) And Let them smell of jasmine or/and honeysuckle! |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Perrenelle" wrote in message ... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners. Please reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be interested in, if any. 1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to produce three times more aroma than regular flowers. I would buy I would not buy it 2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air 100 times better than regular plants. I would buy I would not buy it 3. A genetically modified blue rose. I would buy I would not buy it 4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen sulfide from the air. I would buy I would not buy it Thanks for your help! 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 www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in Runnymede fighting for it's existence. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"paghat" wrote in message ... How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans. Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that glow in the dark. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. snip What does 'transgenic' mean? Also, in these hypothetical situations; *What means of genetic modification were used? *Were genes added or removed? *If added, what was the original source? *If added, do these genes occur in other species as well? *If added, what known issues (if any) have been associated with these genes? *What testing has been conducted on the plants? *Are the plants fertile? *Will the plants breed true? Hard to make an informed choice without knowing the answers. -- Tumbleweed Remove my socks before replying (but no email reply necessary to newsgroups) |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Tue, 13 May 2003 01:32:35 GMT, "Perrenelle"
wrote: Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Nope. Not under any circumstances. Be quite happy to buy seeds of 'old varieties' though, assuming they could be made readily available. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations http://www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{who is at}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote: "paghat" wrote in message ... How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans. Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that glow in the dark. Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, & glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who says science fiction can't happen? -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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , "Vox Humana" wrote: "paghat" wrote in message ... How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans. Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that glow in the dark. Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, & glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who says science fiction can't happen? I didn't see it, but I guess I have an active imagination! I can just see entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of the nuclear family. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"paghat" wrote in message ... In article , "Vox Humana" wrote: "paghat" wrote in message ... How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans. Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that glow in the dark. Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, & glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who says science fiction can't happen? -paghat the ratgirl -- More often the genes of a glowing jellyfish are used, as in the potatoes plant that has been created to glow in the dark when the field it is growing in needs water. The potatoe itself is non-edible, but is used as a marker beacon to tell farmers not to water the field yet. They have also already made a tomatoes that grows in salty soil and removes the salt as it grows, making the field fit for other crops. Some really neat stuff going on, no doubt about it. I WILL have a true blue rose someday. Look under 'transgenic' for a huge array of stuff that is growing in your neighbors field and barns TODAY. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Vox Humana" wrote in message ... I can just see entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of the nuclear family. Hybrid plants used to be considered the work of the devil, against nature, and the fall of mankind, when they were first introduced. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Kat" wrote:
"Vox Humana" wrote in message ... I can just see entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of the nuclear family. Hybrid plants used to be considered the work of the devil, against nature, and the fall of mankind, when they were first introduced. Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus. -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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics. I will respond to some of your questions and comments. First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an example. Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please document your accusations. Some comments deserve a direct response. One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of these goals are practical. Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages (benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering? In response to another respondent, unmodified plants do a poor job of removing such pollutants from the air. One respondent had a long list of questions, to which I will try to respond : Transgenic means introduction of genes from one species to another without sexual crosses. What means of genetic modification were used? Usually infection with disarmed Agrobacterium or ballistic methods. Were genes added or removed? Added. If added, what was the original source? For the aroma, the plant itself (upregulation); for toxic removal, mammalian; for blue rose, bacteria; for odor removal, bacteria. If added, do these genes occur in other species as well? In all cases, yes, if I understand correctly the meaning of your question. If added, what known issues (if any) have been associated with these genes? I known of none. If you can suggest some, please do so. What testing has been conducted on the plants? None yet, since this is all hypothetical. Can you suggest tests? Are the plants fertile? Yes. Will the plants breed true? Probably not. Note that philodendron and pothos ivy do not flower in indoor cultivation, to my knowledge, so sexual transmission of the transgenes would be minimized. This last point brings up a interesting point. Indoor plants like philodendron and ivy are often propagated by cuttings. This is fine, but we would not want there to be confusion over whether a particular plant is transgenic. So we are thinking of adding the green fluorescent protein to the plants so that they would glow slightly when illuminated with black light in the dark. Then there should be no doubt whether a particular plant was transgenic or not. I hope this answers your questions. Perrenelle |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. snip What does 'transgenic' mean? It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of the existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up. The future is here. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:
: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be : full of toxic chemical gasses. Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country. -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:
: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, : as all GM plants should be. That's the luddite position. I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things will be "transgenic". -- __________ |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:56:56 GMT, wrote:
Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my questions help me compile useful statistics. I will respond to some of your questions and comments. First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an example. Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please document your accusations. There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the genetic level. Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand. That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential for an incident. Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or some geezer in a lab clutching a degree? I's also like to add that it's never reassuring to see proponents of gene technology write off their opponent's point of view by describing it as coming from 'fear and distrust' - rather you're up against deep scepticism and a firm belief that money, rather than philanthropy, is the driving force behind the argument. Regards, -- Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations www.shwoodwind.co.uk Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
wrote:
Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my questions help me compile useful statistics. I will respond to some of your questions and comments. First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific agriculture. I have no fear or distrust of 'scientific agriculture' _per se_. I do, however, both fear and distrust the motives, greed and selective blindness of the multinationals driving the production of genetically modified crops. I would point out that, at one time all of these old technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an example. Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please document your accusations. Hmm. I no longer follow the debate as closely as I did, but I recall being horrified to note that the companies encouraging farmers to switch to Bt cotton first denied there was any chance that this new crop would speed the development of BT resistant bollworm, then (once research proved it possible), recommended small 'normal' refuges, then larger ones. Then there's the complexity of the possible refuge strategies... Foliar sprays were a better way of utilising Bt. Then there's the speed with which weeds are developing glyphosate resistance. Once it was thought impossible, then there was ryegrass. Used with care glyphosate could remain a useful herbicide for decades; spread about with gay abandon by those growing GM crops, resistance will develop more quickly. GM herbicide tolerant/Bt crops are a short term solution to a problem that was crying out for other solutions. Then there's the problem of GM traits spreading into wild relatives of that crop. A specific example would be the probability of virus resistance spreading from cultivated GM squash to its wild relative _Cucurbita pepo_, which is already an agricultural weed in the southern US, thought to be restricted (somewhat) by its vulnerability to those viruses. Then there's the business of the monarchs dying after eating leaves dusted with pollen from GM maize. [Don't comment yet] Then there's the research showing that populations of insect predators such as lacewings suffer as a result of eating caterpillars that have fed on Bt maize. Novartis' safety tests had found no such effect because they were conducted in apparent ignorance of the way in which lacewings feed. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the fuss over monarchs was discredited after further research, but that entirely misses the point. Which is that these topics should have been researched in detail BEFORE GM crops were released into cultivation. The fact that companies developing GM crops failed to accurately examine even the most obvious ecological effects has completely destroyed their credibility as far as I'm concerned. As a result I will not knowingly support them, or their research. And then there are the effects on those who grow GM crops... inadvertently. While I don't know whether Percy Schmeiser was guilty or not, I do know that oil seed rape now grows freely in road verges across the UK. The chances are good that if GM OSR was grown here, some of those plants in the verges would be herbicide tolerant, contaminating non-HT crops in adjacent fields. Leaving organic farmers without their certification, and perhaps leaving other unfortunates in court facing prosecution for growing GM crops without a licence. There certainly are beneficial uses for the technology, but they are limited. Bananananas come to mind. Golden rice is often cited as miraculous, but a rice researcher posting to the biotech mailing list at the time it was announced commented that there are existing varieties producing more beta-carotene. And it's very likely that those growing golden rice would have to use more fertilisers and more pesticides. Better to address Vitamin A deficiency by providing a proper balanced diet including the green leafy vegetables that were more commonly eaten before intensive rice cultivation became so widely practiced. Some comments deserve a direct response. One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of these goals are practical. Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages (benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering? Certainly. Why not open a window and provide efficient ventilation? If the air outside is worse, why not invest in public transport to reduce air pollution in urban areas? Lots of knock-on benefits there. Why rely on the application of layer upon layer of technology to solve problems that might be better, more easily solved by stripping away *inappropriate* technologies? [-] I hope this answers your questions. And, with the greatest respect, I hope this at least suggests that my stance on GM/GE is not based on ignorance. Remember, one man's prejudice is another's informed, intelligent distrust :-) regards sarah -- "Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth." Aldous Huxley |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
paghat wrote: In article , "Kat" wrote: "Vox Humana" wrote in message .. . I can just see entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of the nuclear family. Hybrid plants used to be considered the work of the devil, against nature, and the fall of mankind, when they were first introduced. Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus. -paghat the ratgirl Yes - but what isn't? |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
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. The worst case scenario in my opinion is not a dodgy sweetcorn but something on the virus level. Suppose a virus was created (for whatever reason) that had the ability to spread as easily as the common cold, but was as more lethal than HIV. The entire human population of the planet could be wiped out in a matter of months. -- Drakanthus. (Spam filter: Include the word VB anywhere in the subject line or emails will never reach me.) |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
snip
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. Only in the Americas, where wild relatives of maize exist. In the "real world" outside there's less of a danger. I'd say oilseed rape/canola is more of a problem, at least more widespread as it has natural wild relatives almost everywhere, and in fact has spawned "superweeds" in some places.[http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic...?id=ns99991882] Although these superweeds often do less well than the wild varieties, as producing insecticide resistence costs energy which could otherwise be used to grow/reproduce more. Still it's a difficult subject with little conclusive evidence on both sides. Have you heard of the Terminator gene for stopping the next generation's growth? And the new "Excorcist" technology? Just a question to put things in a bit of perspective. There are thousands of different sorts of plants all growing together "out there". What's the rate of natural gene transfer between them? Do you know of any cases, especially any that may have been damaging ? I don't but I'm not an expert. I'm sure somebody must know. You don't suddenly see a clematis developing rose thorns in your garden very often, despite them growing very close to each other and almost certainly get lots of each-other's pollen. I guess it all comes down to a knee-jerk reaction (in either direction) in the end at the moment. Tim. |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
How about a truly RED iris?
How about the red varieties of Louisiana Iris?? They're a deep red, not fire-engine color. zemedelec |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers that
glow in the dark. Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, & glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who says science fiction can't happen? - Or visited New Orleans around Christmas, when some people light their gardens with colored lights of the appropriate color for each plant bed--wild! zemedelec |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
Where can I get my own home transgenic kit? I want to make a few combos
myself! How much will it cost? "Zemedelec" wrote in message ... How about a truly RED iris? How about the red varieties of Louisiana Iris?? They're a deep red, not fire-engine color. zemedelec |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article , "Kat" wrote:
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message ... "Perrenelle" wrote in message news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02... Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic plants by answering three simple questions below. snip What does 'transgenic' mean? It means the genes of another species were used to alter the genetics of the existing plant or animal. If you live in the USA, Transgenic goods are in your home, unlabeled, right now. Look it up. The future is here. Unlabeled because a fundamental DISHONESTY in this industry has lobbied Congress and SUED organic farmers out of existence & done everything in its considerable Monsantoesque authoritarianist POWER to keep the public from HAVING A CHOICE. If it were such a great technology, the public would be given a choice. Since they have PROVEN don't want us to have a choice, hence care NOTHING about individual wishes, that suggests they may also not care about our health. If the industry were honest, they wouldn't fear full disclosure on labeling. Since they have PROVEN they cannot stand proud in the light of day with full disclosures & honesty, how does that make their claims of unutterable safety more credible? Until this industry stops being merely propogandistic & attempts honesty, nothing they say about safety can be believed either. Until this industry permits personal choice in product selection by full disclosure on labels, it is rightly assumed all claims of concern for human well being & health is mere pretense. Note that companies like Monsanto who dominate this field also dominate in the field of toxic chemical pollutants which they likewise promote as safe & healthful & through deceit & propoganda encourage people to dump willynilly throughout the environment. Finally, because so many of the products are sterile OR re-propogation is criminalized to protect the chemical & transgenic industry's profits, farmers can no longer save their own seed for future crops, but are imprisoned by the requirement of buying new seed for every crop. As this industry muscles into third-world economies, they suck the lifeblood out of already impoverished peoples. Public DISCLOSURE for public CHOICE. Until those two fundamental essentials are met, this industry exists upon lies, & most certainly nothing else they say can be assumed to be honest either. -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/ |
Would you buy these transgenic plants?
In article ,
(swroot) wrote: wrote: Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my questions help me compile useful statistics. I will respond to some of your questions and comments. First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific agriculture. I have no fear or distrust of 'scientific agriculture' _per se_. I do, however, both fear and distrust the motives, greed and selective blindness of the multinationals driving the production of genetically modified crops. Absolutely right. Companies like Monsanto have a long history of abusing public trust, harming public health, lying like crazy, falsifying scientific data, & let's face it, killing people. They now are using political might to limit or remove the public right to even know. Even if it were the utopian solution to all mankind's problems as propogandized, the people in charge have already proven time & again they are the poorest of all guardians of the public interest. Since the chemical industry dominates transgenic research & owns nearly all the patented seed, a lot of what they are peddling is designed to increase chemical sales. Monsanto, caught falsifying data on extremely dangerous weed retardants, peddles crop seed that can survive having more of these chemicals dumped on them so they can sell more weed-killer. That's just one of the obvious self-interests of these giant companies that is diametrically opposed to public health interests. At every stage they use what might or might not be a wonderful science to cause harm, & "spin" it with happy-faces to increase profits, all the while doing everything they can to destroy farmers' right to choose, & public's right to know. -paghat the ratgirl I would point out that, at one time all of these old technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an example. Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please document your accusations. Hmm. I no longer follow the debate as closely as I did, but I recall being horrified to note that the companies encouraging farmers to switch to Bt cotton first denied there was any chance that this new crop would speed the development of BT resistant bollworm, then (once research proved it possible), recommended small 'normal' refuges, then larger ones. Then there's the complexity of the possible refuge strategies... Foliar sprays were a better way of utilising Bt. Then there's the speed with which weeds are developing glyphosate resistance. Once it was thought impossible, then there was ryegrass. Used with care glyphosate could remain a useful herbicide for decades; spread about with gay abandon by those growing GM crops, resistance will develop more quickly. GM herbicide tolerant/Bt crops are a short term solution to a problem that was crying out for other solutions. Then there's the problem of GM traits spreading into wild relatives of that crop. A specific example would be the probability of virus resistance spreading from cultivated GM squash to its wild relative _Cucurbita pepo_, which is already an agricultural weed in the southern US, thought to be restricted (somewhat) by its vulnerability to those viruses. Then there's the business of the monarchs dying after eating leaves dusted with pollen from GM maize. [Don't comment yet] Then there's the research showing that populations of insect predators such as lacewings suffer as a result of eating caterpillars that have fed on Bt maize. Novartis' safety tests had found no such effect because they were conducted in apparent ignorance of the way in which lacewings feed. Now, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that the fuss over monarchs was discredited after further research, but that entirely misses the point. Which is that these topics should have been researched in detail BEFORE GM crops were released into cultivation. The fact that companies developing GM crops failed to accurately examine even the most obvious ecological effects has completely destroyed their credibility as far as I'm concerned. As a result I will not knowingly support them, or their research. And then there are the effects on those who grow GM crops... inadvertently. While I don't know whether Percy Schmeiser was guilty or not, I do know that oil seed rape now grows freely in road verges across the UK. The chances are good that if GM OSR was grown here, some of those plants in the verges would be herbicide tolerant, contaminating non-HT crops in adjacent fields. Leaving organic farmers without their certification, and perhaps leaving other unfortunates in court facing prosecution for growing GM crops without a licence. There certainly are beneficial uses for the technology, but they are limited. Bananananas come to mind. Golden rice is often cited as miraculous, but a rice researcher posting to the biotech mailing list at the time it was announced commented that there are existing varieties producing more beta-carotene. And it's very likely that those growing golden rice would have to use more fertilisers and more pesticides. Better to address Vitamin A deficiency by providing a proper balanced diet including the green leafy vegetables that were more commonly eaten before intensive rice cultivation became so widely practiced. Some comments deserve a direct response. One respondent implied that modified plants are not likely to have an effect on airborne toxics or oderants in homes. I can assure you that both of these goals are practical. Another respondent suggested that it was perverse to remove pollutants from air rather than prevent their formation in the first place. I agree, but odors are unavoidable, and pollutants are an unfortunate fact of modern life. Airborne pollutants come from chlorinated water used to shower and washing, releasing chloroform into the air; from clothing that has been dry cleaned (perchloroethylene and methyl chloroform); from attached garages (benzene and toluene); and various household products (methylene chloride and many others). You may avoid dry cleaning and other sources of toxic volatiles, but chlorination of water is the rule in the US and most of the UK, so your house air does contain chloroform, and short of a whole house carbon filter, well maintained, there is no way to avoid it. Isn't a practical way to reduce that risk to your family worth considering? Certainly. Why not open a window and provide efficient ventilation? If the air outside is worse, why not invest in public transport to reduce air pollution in urban areas? Lots of knock-on benefits there. Why rely on the application of layer upon layer of technology to solve problems that might be better, more easily solved by stripping away *inappropriate* technologies? [-] I hope this answers your questions. And, with the greatest respect, I hope this at least suggests that my stance on GM/GE is not based on ignorance. Remember, one man's prejudice is another's informed, intelligent distrust :-) regards sarah -- "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/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter