Genetically modified plants

Angilion

Angilion

Angilion

Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
21,063
Location
Just to the left of my PC
I had thought that concerns about this were probably mostly unfounded, with very little chance of anything bad happening as a result of genetic engineering on plants. It's basically just accelerated evolution anyway, right?

Then I read about Klebsiella planticola. A single simple modification, just an extra gene, was made to it. There were good reasons for it and the resulting organism would be very useful. It was tested, shown to not result in anything dangerous to humans and the company that developed it was ready to go commercial with it.

Then someone realised it would kill all plant life on Earth.

That fact was missed in the testing process, because it was only concerned with testing for direct harm to humans.

A little worrying, no?
 
GM crops need to be strictly monitored for a few reasons. Whilst the immediate risk of harming people from genetic changes is probably the most evident of the reasons to pay close attention to the testing on them, the bigger concern is environmental diversity damage that will occur if GM plants are introduced into natural areas. Often they are engineered to grow faster, larger whilst at the same time even producing natural insecticides which can massively disrupt food chains and bio diversity in any area they are introduced.

On the reverse of this though, they do have many uses. Best example I can think of is "golden rice" which was developed to be a main source of food in developing/poor countries to counter act simple diseases via vitamin A being introduced to the rice, giving it the golden colour. Sounds great at first but the amount of social and cultural problems it hit simply due to the colour of it was massive.

Another thing to note with GM crops is if you change their DNA to be resistant to the natural predators and problems, what mutations will you actually get out of it in the future? Some of the mutations could potentially be harmful to humans...
 
I was recently reading about GM crops etc. and a rather interesting point was raised. Not on is there an issue with mutations of the plats, nor the implications of future genetic changes, but the probablility of the major pharma companies making mega money from plants created to help overcome starvation and poverty is a great possability. For example, the companies researching and creating these new plants can and will have a huge strangle hold on those reliant on their produce. Also plants which are created to grow for a single year and not reproduce for the following are being tested. Imagine the implications of a nation becoming dependant on a crop which, although guaranteed to produce that year, will need to be re-bought for the following year, and every year after that. A poverty stricken, starving nation, could be effectively controlled by one company.
Theres more to this GM issue than at face value.


I must also apologise for that slight ramble, I can't be sure it reads well :/
 
gv_of_e said:
poverty stricken, starving nation, could be effectively controlled by one company.
:/
Click to expand...

^ this.

if you allow GM crops prepare to bend over to the likes of Monsanto, some farmers in 3rd world countries have already found this out when saved seeds failed to germinate so the farmers killed themselves, even if they did grow they would have had to pay Monsanto royalties for using the seed.
 
Oh noes! They're coming!!

feed_me.png
 
gv_of_e said:
I was recently reading about GM crops etc. and a rather interesting point was raised. Not on is there an issue with mutations of the plats, nor the implications of future genetic changes, but the probablility of the major pharma companies making mega money from plants created to help overcome starvation and poverty is a great possability. For example, the companies researching and creating these new plants can and will have a huge strangle hold on those reliant on their produce. Also plants which are created to grow for a single year and not reproduce for the following are being tested. Imagine the implications of a nation becoming dependant on a crop which, although guaranteed to produce that year, will need to be re-bought for the following year, and every year after that. A poverty stricken, starving nation, could be effectively controlled by one company.
Theres more to this GM issue than at face value.


I must also apologise for that slight ramble, I can't be sure it reads well :/
Click to expand...

Read up on Monsanto, a very dubious company - especially with all their litigation and bullying. Just goes to show the direction GM crops are heading should they become more widespread.
 
It's kind of like nuclear power, there is a slight risk and people will complain but it will only be delayed, eventually we will need it and use it.

I reckon they should buld those big greenhouse skyscraper things, vertical farms or whatever they are called which would limit impact on the outside world.
 
This really highlights the issue with powerful corporations, and the way that money = power = control. Unfortunately, we'll continue to struggle with these kinds of injustices until something is done to change corporate influence.
 
You do realise that man has been genetically modify plants for thousands of years? Native Americans created strains of Sunflowers that yielded massive amounts of seeds for use as dyes for example. More recently, take a look at a wild cabbage from 200 years ago and it looks nothing like todays plant. And don't get me started on dogs. And yes, I do realise dogs aren't plants ;-p
 
Angilion said:
Then I read about Klebsiella planticola........
A little worrying, no?
Click to expand...

No - not worrying at all because the whole thing was a load of rubbish that she used to increase her profile. It's amazing how many websites then went on to report on her experiment and then blow it up into something it wasn't.

In relation to the the experiment by Dr. Ingham - this is an cut from the rebuttal of evidence on the experiment from the Royal Commision on Genetic Engineering.

"Dr Ingham cites a paper: Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399. to justify reaching the above conclusions. The paper cited could not be found.

It is our opinion, having reviewed the published results of the research undertaken by Holmes
and Ingham, that Dr Ingham's conclusions are not substantiated by that research, and are therefore scientifically unsustainable.

Dr Ingham’s assertions have been published widely on the Internet and elsewhere. However, we have been unable to find any evidence that Dr Ingham has submitted her assertions about threats to terrestrial plant life to scientific publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Our own literature search and resulting evidence further demonstrates that natural alcohol producing varieties of Klebsiella planticola already exist, and are routinely found in nature; however, no adverse consequences of this alcohol production on any organisms including plants
have been observed.
...
A a natural soil ecosystem contains numerous different bacterial species, some of
which can adapt to use alcohol as energy for their metabolism. In case of introduction of an
alcohol producing Klebsiella, those natural bacteria would find an ecological niche in the
said environment and would multiply. The result of such a natural balancing process would
be a degradation of the alcohol produced by Klebsiella through other soil bacteria. Harm to
plants in such case would be reduced.
.....
In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented inaccurate, careless and
exaggerated information to the Royal Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific
information and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not scientifically
supportable.

http://www.biotech-info.net/ingham_rebuttal.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom