'superwheat' that boosts crops by 30%

Slipped through a filter...

Let me offer for your consideration the Showa Denko incident as an explicit example of how bad things can happen when you're playing with plasm.

Admittedly, this one was in a vat and not a garden or farm but it was and remains a fair enough illustration of the kinds of screw-ups and for that matter cover-ups the profit motivated indulge in.

In this world of politics, profit takers, stupidity, cupidity and spin, it is entirely in our best interest to challenge GE technology and the opinions of true believers such as yourself.

And yes, back into the bin you go.

Reply to
phorbin
Loading thread data ...

When are you actualluy going to bother to provide any information that is worth any form of debate? To date all you've done is make insulting comments. Nothing you've yet written indicates that you would be able to differentiate a gene from a rock.

Reply to
Farm1

And I'm a more simple and out of date gardener than most. I'd like to know what type of engineer now works in genetically manipulating food. My familiarity of the old categories of electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, civil etc are decades out of date it seems. And what is a 'sselectibe breeder'?

Reply to
Farm1

Yup.

Americans are basically the

Well look on the bright side Billy, the rest of the world is grateful that so many US citizens are more than happy to eat whatever is put on their supermarket shelves without question or with only limited scrutiny. We who don't 'enjoy' the freedoms you 'enjoy' may yet garner some benefit from your guinea pig status.

Monsanto, et al. are trying to

Yep. That should be a basic consumer right and certainly is in some other nations.

If after a period of time people come to accept GMOs,

Nope. Ethics doesnt seem to be a work that is recognised in their business plan

Reply to
Farm1

BillyBong a 30% crop boost isn't nothing. BMOs are only sensible. The Obama government should mandate that everyone (even gardeners) use them the way Europe has mandated that ANY seeds used by ANYONE be approved by the authorities. It's only sensible. Apparently you'd rather see Third world children dying of starvation than give up your anti-GMO religion!

Only liberal TV actresses growing ricin to mail to the president would be against commonsense regulations like these. It's for the children.

Reply to
benj

You didn't bother reading the article cited. GMO was NOT used. THAT is the whole point of the article that Billy posted. There is NO need for GMOs because the 30% ioncrese in yield was achieved WITHOUT using GMO..

The

Strawman. Obama and his administration had got to do with the research undertaken in Britain on non-GMO wheat as you would know if you'd read the cite.

Europe has done so such thing. In fact quite the reverse. It has very stringent regulations on GMO:

formatting link

It's only sensible. Apparently you'd rather see Third

Another strawman. No-one except you ahs suggested any such thing and neither would you if you wanted to sound like you'd read the thread and the cite provided.

Strawman. And one has an edge of hysteria to it.

Reply to
Farm1

It seems we have heard the last of this. Crickets 4, reason 0. Bird wins the doll.

D
Reply to
David Hare-Scott

David Hare-Scott wrote:

whee! :)

"i'll call him George..."

additional info via a mutual friend:

-----

One out of four people in the U.S. reports having some type of food allergy.21 Genetically engineered ingredients make matters worse in two ways.

First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example a nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take what happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check out a new genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer Hi-Bred International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a single gene from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical community that nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the scientist decided to find out whether or not this single gene in the soybeans could cause a response in folks who were allergic to Brazil nuts. Incredibly, allergic reactions did occur from this one gene, as reported that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.22 For people who are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts, eating this genetically engineered soy could be lethal. It's important to remember that this allergy test was done independently and at the discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any regulatory agency of the U.S.

The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke an entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic packages transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins unfamiliar to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign gene and the genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic reaction. For example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found that peas, genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered allergic reactions in research animals.23 This was a surprise because the new gene in the peas was for a protein found in beans that does not cause any allergic reactions at all. How could these identical genes, one causing no allergies and the other causing allergies when engineered into a pea, have such a different impact? The same gene can produce slight variations of proteins in different plants-even in closely related plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene was modified in a slightly different way than in the bean, and the new form of this protein was allergcnic. So even when working with identical genes, the very process of genetic engineering can turn a non-allergenic gene into an allergenic one-a frightening prospect. Yet, this new finding should not come as a surprise. More than a decade ago, PDA scientists warned repeatedly that genetic engineering could "produce a new protein allergen," and they've demanded long-term testing for this hazard. Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA continue to ignore science and refuse to require solid testing of genetically engineered foods, exposing the public to these new and hidden allergens.

-----

songbird

Reply to
songbird

Don't you care about feeding the world? I think some of us have a right to not have our GMO food polluted by all the organic gardeners our there slipping through the patent infringement loopholes.

Government regulation of GMO seed for EVERYONE will stop the patent infringements and start the world on a path to sensible regulation of unapproved consumables!

With children starving all over the world now is not the time to start talking about freedom to grow private hoards of unregulated food.

Every year 15 million children die of hunger and you don't want government regulation to mandate sensible rules for GMO seed?

formatting link

Reply to
benj

Strawman posed as a rhetorical question. Boring!

I think some of us have a right

Why do you say that organic gardeners are infringing patents?

Multiple strawmen.

When you bother to read the cite that was given perhaps you will understand that the 30% increase in wheat production was achieved without GMO. When you do understand that perhaps you might stop your reliance on strawmen.

Reply to
Farm1

No- Like many typical aged Usenet numbskulls you manage to equate GMO with the practices of a company named Monsanto. You sir are a woefully ignorant, apparently deliberately uneducated waste of skin. You probably believe in JEEBUS. Good luck with that.

If you eat anything that is processed in any way (including food in most restaurants), you are consuming GMO. Why do you need a lable to tell you that? I certainly don't much care about labels, but find them pretty useless. What does the label "organic" tell you? Do you "believe" such food is safer or more nutritious than GMO? Why? You have no basis to compare, and not enough intellectual curiosity to investigate with an open mind. Boooooooring.

Reply to
Rick

When you bother to read the cite you will (perhaps) understand that a

30% increase was not reported in any significant manner. Then perhaps your replies will make better sense.

Wheat that generates an increased yield in a single trial under single set of conditions is of interest, but it is not a breakthrough worthy of the popular press this article received. As to whether selective breeding of hybrids is considered as generating a GMO. the argument is simply semantic. Why restrict oneself to a set of genetic properties availble in only highly related organisms, when the full genetic potential of the planet is available. Did you know, for example, that one of your DNA repair enzymes is most closely related to a polymerase in an iridiovirus of an insect that procured it from a plant before mammals arose? Is that GMO? God's will? Random selection? Evolution?

Biology is too wonderful to be left to chance.

Reply to
Rick

No it isn't just semantic. Calling two quite different processes by the same label does NOT make them equivalent. In the case of selective breeding the scope of possible outcomes is far more predictable than scatter gun gene insertion.

Why restrict oneself to a set of genetic properties

Because selective breeding has been shown to work for thousands of years. The proponents of GM don't seem too keen to have the consequences studied much at all. The precautionary principle applies.

The human genome contains fragments thought to be derived from other organisms. Are you suggesting this means any insertion of genetic material by any means must necessarily be just fine? If not I don't understand the relevance of this - do explain.

So why are you advocating that?

David

Reply to
David Hare-Scott

Nice reasoned response there.

D
Reply to
David Hare-Scott

You have no evidence to make that statement.

In his first sentence, Bob threw in a strawman that relates to a Monsanto product. Bob then started a new paragraph that mentioned GMO.

Even if English is not your first language, you should realise that unless or until Bob conjoins the two thoughts in one sentence then you are leaping to a conclusion for which you have no evidence. Bob may very well confused about the two but until you have more evidence to confirm bob's thoughts ont he subject you can't logically make the claims that you have done.

You sir are a

You are abusive and pretentious. You don't demonstrate logic or simple analytical skills.

Reply to
Farm1

Strawman. A 30% increase was achieved. It was not achieved by using GMO.

LOL. The trial did not receive coverage that by any stretch of the imagination could be considered to be noteworthy in the 'popular press'. A google search shows it's less noteworthy than even the silly search criteria of 'petrified hessian' which was the most obscure term I could think of using. 'Rat candy' even got far more hits than the trial on the superwheat.

As to whether selective

This whole discussion has centred on improved yields achieved from conventional breeding WITHOUT the use of GMO.

Why restrict oneself to a set of genetic properties

Do you not understand the subject heading? Did you read the article cited? GMO was not used. Whether you think it should be used or not is irrelevant to the achievement in the yieldd in the trial.

Indeed biology is wondeful. It can still manage to produce surprises by increases in yield of 30% but yet still manage to be ignored by the mainstream press and provide so few hits on google.

It's a pity that the same mainstream press don't show as little interest in Kim Kardashian and her handbags.

Reply to
Farm1

Indeed. Sad innit........

Reply to
Farm1

Farm1 wrote: ...

much of the gain seemed to come from the short- stalk breeding efforts (reduce stem length allows the head/seeds to increase and the plant doesn't fall over).

it looks like most of those sorts of gains have been accomplished and there are unlikely few more aspects that will get another 30% increase.

now it is more likely increases will come via making plants more tolerant of drought, salt, etc., but i think the best approach would be to go back and look at perennial versions. if you no longer have to plow and turn the soil each season and can still get a crop, plus use the plants in a mixed field of legumes, grains and various berries then you've got the best of all worlds. just a little selective weeding and spacing of plants needed.

i see the name in the news all the time but i've yet to see why the name is newsworthy. which perhaps says more about me than anything. :)

the crickets still have it...

songbird

Reply to
songbird

In article , Rick wrote:

That is just a childish reaction. You don't even address the subject, but attack the messenger instead.

formatting link
ex.cfm

Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks."[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. ======

J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726 (C)Ivyspring International Publisher Research Paper A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health

We present for the first time a comparative analysis of blood and organ system data from trials with rats fed three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world.

Our analysis clearly reveals for the 3 GMOs new side effects linked with GM maize consumption, which were sex- and often dose-dependent. Effects were mostly associated with the kidney and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, although different between the 3 GMOs. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. We conclude that these data highlight signs of hepatorenal toxicity, possibly due to the new pesticides specific to each GM corn. In addition, unintended direct or indirect metabolic consequences of the genetic modification cannot be excluded. =======

GM food toxins found in the blood of 93% of unborn babies A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals. ======

Do we need GM? High yield ======

You should become familiar with the Pustai Affair =====

Health and Environmental Risks

While the risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been exaggerated or misrepresented, GE crops do have the potential to cause a variety of health problems and environmental impacts. For instance, they may produce new allergens and toxins, spread harmful traits to weeds and non-GE crops, or harm animals that consume them.

=====

Lastly, In case you didn't see it

ALLERGIC REACTIONS

Do you know what foods you react to? One out of four people in the U.S. reports having some type of food allergy.21 Genetically engineered ingredients make matters worse in two ways.

First, shuffling genes among species causes an allergen, for example a nut allergen, to end up in food we've always thought is safe. Take what happened in 1996 when university researchers decided to check out a new genetically engineered soybean created by the Pioneer Hi-Bred International. The soybeans were engineered to contain a single gene from a Brazil nut. Since it's well known in the medical community that nuts can cause allergic reactions in people, the scientist decided to find out whether or not this single gene in the soybeans could cause a response in folks who were allergic to Brazil nuts. Incredibly, allergic reactions did occur from this one gene, as reported that year in the New England Journal of Medicine.22 For people who are fatally allergic to Brazil nuts, eating this genetically engineered soy could be lethal. It's important to remember that this allergy test was done independently and at the discretion of these scientists; it was not required by any regulatory agency of the U.S.

The second danger is that genetically engineering foods can provoke an entirely new set of allergies. Here's how it works: The genetic packages transferred into the cell encode a number of novel proteins unfamiliar to the host plant. The resulting combination of a foreign gene and the genetic material of the plant can set off an allergic reaction. For example, in November 2005, Australian researchers found that peas, genetically engineered with a bean gene, triggered allergic reactions in research animals.23 This was a surprise because the new gene in the peas was for a protein found in beans that does not cause any allergic reactions at all. How could these identical genes, one causing no allergies and the other causing allergies when engineered into a pea, have such a different impact? The same gene can produce slight variations of proteins in different plants--even in closely related plants. In the pea, the protein encoded by the gene was modified in a slightly different way than in the bean, and the new form of this protein was allergenic. So even when working with identical genes, the very process of genetic engineering can turn a non-allergenic gene into an allergenic one--a frightening prospect. Yet, this new finding should not come as a surprise. More than a decade ago, PDA scientists warned repeatedly that genetic engineering could "produce a new protein allergen," and they've demanded long-term testing for this hazard. Meanwhile, leaders at the FDA continue to ignore science and refuse to require solid testing of genetically engineered foods, exposing the public to these new and hidden allergens. ======

Please be better prepared, if you decide to enlighten us again.

Reply to
Billy

Do you have a cite about stem length? I haven't seen any reference to stem length for the superwheat trial.

Reply to
Farm1

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.