Genetic Engineering

[harris7]

This is a thread that was started as a debate in another.

If you would like to join please stop by its beginnings:

http://boards.cannabis.com/showthrea...t=96684&page=7

harris7 Reviewed by harris7 on 01-05-2007. Genetic Engineering This is a thread that was started as a debate in another. If you would like to join please stop by its beginnings: http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=96684&page=7 Rating: 5

[harris7]

Bob, here is attached 2 studies.

the first shows the significant lowering in soy yield. Funny how this study directly contradicts the claims made by monsanto. This is because their studies dont take into accout the dwarfed root systems of their Round up redy soy. These small roots didn't make a big difference in green house studies but in the real world even a small drout would kill the plants off.

The second is a study on the cross contamination of US crops on remote regions in Mexico. This is the biggest danger or GM. Once you grow a grow out doors you can NEVER â??recallâ?� your produce. The geneâ??s can never be recovered. This we are making a huge risk, by releasing them.

this coupled with the lack of testing is my main point of opposition

I saw David Suzuki speak on this topic and I though his words were very wise:
Something like:

â??I have no doubt in my mind that amazing things will come from this new power of genetic modification. But we are proceeding too fast and taking to large of risksâ?�

[harris7]

Sources
Canadian Biotech action network

Beyond Factory farming coalition


Some quotes from the attached sudy (sorry i cant attach word Docs. I guess you can discredit this quote if you wish)

â??Genetically modified (GM) plant products are becoming increasingly common in the human food-chain, yet in contrast to the general acceptance of the need for the biological testing of novel foods and feedstuffs, few studies have been carried out on the possible effects of GM products on the mammalian ut mucosa.â?�
---ie lack of testing. There was a bill pass a few years ago allowing little/no testing, Iâ??ll find it. Just give me time
---Note: this is an independent study, I personally do not trust studies done by the corporation themselves. They have been shown to exclude and manipulate data. As well as changing the operational definitions to suit their needs

just look at what the industry vs independent studies had to say about aspartame
industry---100% positive
Independent--- 95% negative

Hmmm

Here are some interesting notes on the â??icidesâ?� we use. Another reason to oppose crops designed to capitalize on their use.

" the EPA considers 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides carcinogenic"

Us Manufactures exported more than 465 million pounds of pesticides in 1990, while more than 52 million pounds were banned, restricted or unregistered for use in the United States."

"Between 1945 and 1989, insecticide use in the US increased tenfold, while crop losses from insect damage almost doubled, from 7% to 13%"


-This is from the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Food-Bo.../dp/1932857036

Iâ??d recommend checking it out, very interesting.

[Bob the Awesome]

I'm pretty convinced on the pesticide use before I even started here, so I'm not too worried about that. You've obviously got that down.

I'm half-dead right now so I'm gonna save the studies for tomorrow, however, I do have one question for you: When you say the plants aren't tested, does this mean they literally aren't tested at all for safety, or they are just tested the same as all other plants are? And if the genetically modified plants are tested the same as organically grown plants, why is this a problem?

[harris7]

Well for tonight I’m going to end on this note, as it is important to your claims!

GM crops are more expensive than Non GMO! Straight up
It costs more to produce each soy bean, corn cob and cotton ball!

IN fact Round up ready (RR) soy is grown at a loss!

You might ask how does the industry continue? Government subsidies.

Here is a very good website that I’ve only flipped though
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publ...lrep/index.htm

and here are some quotes

“Comparing yields of GM and non-GM crops is not a straightforward exercise. Yields depend on a large number of factors, and the inserted trait of GM crops is only one factor amongst others. It is worth recalling (OECD, 1999) that first generation genetic modifications address production conditions (pests, weeds), they do not increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant. In other words, referring to Bullock's classification, they do not induce a type 1 (maximum yield) technical change. Not surprisingly yield performance of GM crops against their non-GM counterparts depends on growing conditions, in particular on the degree of infestation in insects or in weeds.”

--- It seems the only people jumping to the conclusion that GM crops are super yielder are the companies them selves
-- you can see actual figures are yield.

In cases in which yield may be larger per hectare the cost is much much higher
-for example BT corn. There is some evidence of higher yields but it is Not conclusive. But they cost much more to produce so per lb of food it costs a bundle more.

“Several studies have found evidence on yield gains for Bt corn. Based on 1996-1998 data of the Agricultural Resources Management Data, the USDA has observed that adopters of Bt corn had obtained higher yields than non-adopters. This might however been partly explained by performance differences between these two groups of farmers. Gianessi and Carpenter (1999) report about average gains of 0.73 t/ha in 1997 and 0.26 t/ha in 1998, respectively, + 9% and +3% compared to 97/98 average yield for corn.
The gap between 1997 and 1998 results can be explained by the difference in weather conditions and in insect pressure. Infestation was low in 1998. Other studies (like Alexander and Goodhue, Hyde and al., 1999) show the sensitivity of Bt performance to these two factors.”

-as well in every cell of BT corn there is BT an organic pesticide used by organic farmers. Having such large scale use of it though gmo’s will quickly select resistant types of corn borer and bring this valuable pesticide to and end. And with it the effectiveness of this GM crop. See the damage this one is causing? It’s a much bigger picture than just yield

[harris7]

When you say the plants aren't tested, does this mean they literally aren't tested at all for safety, or they are just tested the same as all other plants are? And if the genetically modified plants are tested the same as organically grown plants, why is this a problem?

By aren’t I mean not at all, or very little. They do, do some testing.

Normal crops are not tested. We know they are safe as we’ve been eating them for hundreds of years.

New products are tested. Such as new drugs, new planes and everything that is very new.
You can trust me when I say every scientist in the world thinks we should be testing GM anything b4 we use it.

Like we need to know if a GM tomato is still eatable and hasn’t become toxic.

I’ll find info on the testing tomorrow.

Ps- I am not against GM! I totally support the use of GM in producing drugs for example. The big difference for me between drugs and food is that drugs are tested and produced in a controlled environment were contamination to the natural world is very unlikely. Unlike GM crops which are tested outdoors and can easily spread via pollen.

Good night

[harris7]

I just had a wonderful idea... genetically modified cannabis... oh shit...

that is acctualy the biggest fear of the hippy world.
Same with GM hemp

[dutch.lover]

haha maybe splice weed with....raspberries! munchies and weed in one! ALRIGHTTTTTT

[Purple Banana]

LMAO. That's a great idea...

Personally, I'm not concerned about the safety of GM foods. It's essentially doing what the plant can do by itself anyway- cross breeding, albeit there's microscopic DNA work instead of pollenating differently.

[harris7]

LMAO. That's a great idea...

Personally, I'm not concerned about the safety of GM foods. It's essentially doing what the plant can do by itself anyway- cross breeding, albeit there's microscopic DNA work instead of pollenating differently.

No, it is very very very very very different.
(this is copied from the other thread)
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthrea...global+warming

Iâ??m going to take the time and break this down.

Mendel bred peas,. So what were really talking about is genetic engineering and selective breeding.

I will explain the difference. But I am going to assume some knowledge of evolution, sorry if it confuses.

Genetics info you need to know:
-Phenotype --- is what genes are expressed. Ie. What the organism looks like
-Genotype----- The genetic make up of an organism. Defined by the genes present.
-Gene--- a string of DNA that codes for a particular trait. EG. Eye or hair colour.
-Allele--- different possible options a gene can have.
EG. For the Gene â??eye colourâ?� the alleleâ??s are: brown, blue, green and so on
-for each gene there are two alleleâ??s, because we have two sets of each chromosome (one from your mom and the other from your dad. Well in some cases the second is from the mail man.)
-Mutations --- are the only known source of Alleleâ??s and genes. Mutations are accidents when transcribing or translating DNA or RNA.
Homozygous- the two alleleâ??s for a gene in an organism are the same
Heterozygous- the two alleleâ??s are different

Theory of plant breeding: (its simple)
-Lets say your goal is to grow nice big tomatoes
-You grow lots and lots of different plants
-look through them and find the ones producing the most desirable fruit.
-Take these two plants, force them to pollinate each other.
-Then you get the seeds from the plant. (it gets complex here)
-Since these seeds are from your two strongest (genetically) plants all the seeds will have a different mix of the plants.

-These seeds will come out in the ratio 1:2:1
1â??or 25% of the seeds will have a homozygous genotype for the desired trait, with the desired allele!
2---or 50% will have heterozygous genotype for trait, have both alleleâ??s
1â??25% will have homozygous, with two undesired alleleâ??s
(assuming each of the parents were heterozygote for the gene)

This is what Mendel Taught us.

I will continue. Please donâ??t comment yet.