7 ms·

It's a similar situation with the Xylella fastidiosa bacterium. Even if the technology did exist, it would be banned in ~50% of the EU under GMO and 'new food

by krona 10y ago

It's a similar situation with the Xylella fastidiosa bacterium. Even if the technology did exist, it would be banned in ~50% of the EU under GMO and 'new food' legislation.

tornadoboy55 10y ago
Better than the US standard of letting untested genes or chemicals loose on the population and testing/regulating only when a problem starts popping up, no?
- krona 10y ago
  It depends. For instance, the precautionary principle in the EU has, in the case of declining bee populations, manifested itself in banning things even when the scientific studies have shown that the pesticides in question are almost certainly not the problem. How many scientific studies does it take to convince a politician?
  - whyenot 10y ago
    When the crop is wind pollinated as is the case with wheat and other grasses, AND when there are closely related weeds and other plants nearby, a little caution seems like a good thing. As far as neonicotinamides, they are a very useful group of pesticides. Safe for applicators, effective, long lasting. I use them quite often to control pests in the university greenhouses I manage. I think the jury is still out on their role in bee colony collapses. Even if they are not implicated, there is a lot of evidence that they do kill insect pollinators
  - RobertoG 10y ago
    Another, more cynic, way to see it is, you can choose one of two possibilities: -You can have politicians that try to appeal ill-informed general population motivated by fear. We would call this, the European way. -You can have politicians that try to appeal well informed lobbyist motivated by greed. We will call this the American Way. Or, the even more cynical, and probably more realistic option, you can have both: politicians that try to eat their cake and have it too.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
dghughes 10y ago
People seem to fall apart when GMO food is mentioned but vaccines, medical procedures, drugs any science at all they agree with except GMO. Very useful things I'm not slagging on them in case I'm not being clear. People are weird.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- imdsm 10y ago
  People dislike GMO because they aren't hungry. Wait until there is less food, and they will think differently. Do you think people living in arid conditions said no to GMO crops that increased their yield by whatever-hundred % it was? Did they buggery!
  - radicsge 10y ago
    And in case of GMO wait until, all crops are fallen to one specialized disease or one sudden change of environment. And then what?
    - saalweachter 10y ago
      GMO alone does not affect the genetic diversity of the variety. GMO just affects how the first plant(s) of a variety are obtained; in the case of GMO, you shoot a gene gun (or use some other technique) to modify one or more starting seeds. In non-GMO crop development, you simply observe an interesting individual (or cross some number of existing varieties and look for interesting individuals among the offspring). A math teacher of mine once found an exceptionally fuzzy soybean plant he thought might be insect resistant. What happens next is what affects the genetic diversity of the crop. So you have one special plant. How do you turn that into a field? Well, you breed it and hope its offspring are also special. Some plants are self-fertilizing; you may do that, to try to avoid introducing non-special genes into the germ-line. You may also use the pollen from your special plant to pollinate a large number of other plants and hope at least some of their offspring are special. In the case of GMO, you might use your gene gun to shoot the same modification into a reasonably diverse set of initial seeds. Your goal as a seed breeder - GMO or non-GMO - is to get the genes that produce the characteristics of the variety you are trying to produce (flavor or size or color of the fruit; speed of growth; hardiness or resistance) as uniformly as you can into a breeding population of plants, so that all of the offspring of all of the plants can reasonably be expected to express the traits. There will necessarily be a weak point there: if a new virus attacks the gene that is needed to make your new corn variety super-delicious, all the plants will inherently be susceptible to that disease, regardless of how that gene got there. This sort of susceptibility isn't too troubling, however, because it's always there: corn shares a great number of genes with other corn; that's what makes it corn and not wheat or beans. What will vary is how much diversity will be in the rest of the plant's genome. There could be very little, if you simply breed your exemplar starting plant against it self, and then its children against themselves, over and over until you have enough seeds to plant a field. There could be a lot, if you can find or produce a number of unrelated exemplars or you first breed your exemplars against a more diverse gene pool. This second sort of a lack of genetic diversity is more troubling, but it isn't a product of genetic engineering: it's a result of going through a population bottleneck in the recent past; this can happen to non-GMO varieties just as easily.

by krona 10y ago

It's a similar situation with the Xylella fastidiosa bacterium. Even if the technology did exist, it would be banned in ~50% of the EU under GMO and 'new food' legislation.

tornadoboy55 10y ago

Better than the US standard of letting untested genes or chemicals loose on the population and testing/regulating only when a problem starts popping up, no?

krona 10y ago
It depends. For instance, the precautionary principle in the EU has, in the case of declining bee populations, manifested itself in banning things even when the scientific studies have shown that the pesticides in question are almost certainly not the problem. How many scientific studies does it take to convince a politician?
- whyenot 10y ago
  When the crop is wind pollinated as is the case with wheat and other grasses, AND when there are closely related weeds and other plants nearby, a little caution seems like a good thing. As far as neonicotinamides, they are a very useful group of pesticides. Safe for applicators, effective, long lasting. I use them quite often to control pests in the university greenhouses I manage. I think the jury is still out on their role in bee colony collapses. Even if they are not implicated, there is a lot of evidence that they do kill insect pollinators
- RobertoG 10y ago
  Another, more cynic, way to see it is, you can choose one of two possibilities: -You can have politicians that try to appeal ill-informed general population motivated by fear. We would call this, the European way. -You can have politicians that try to appeal well informed lobbyist motivated by greed. We will call this the American Way. Or, the even more cynical, and probably more realistic option, you can have both: politicians that try to eat their cake and have it too.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

dghughes 10y ago

People seem to fall apart when GMO food is mentioned but vaccines, medical procedures, drugs any science at all they agree with except GMO. Very useful things I'm not slagging on them in case I'm not being clear. People are weird.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
imdsm 10y ago
People dislike GMO because they aren't hungry. Wait until there is less food, and they will think differently. Do you think people living in arid conditions said no to GMO crops that increased their yield by whatever-hundred % it was? Did they buggery!
- radicsge 10y ago
  And in case of GMO wait until, all crops are fallen to one specialized disease or one sudden change of environment. And then what?
  - saalweachter 10y ago
    GMO alone does not affect the genetic diversity of the variety. GMO just affects how the first plant(s) of a variety are obtained; in the case of GMO, you shoot a gene gun (or use some other technique) to modify one or more starting seeds. In non-GMO crop development, you simply observe an interesting individual (or cross some number of existing varieties and look for interesting individuals among the offspring). A math teacher of mine once found an exceptionally fuzzy soybean plant he thought might be insect resistant. What happens next is what affects the genetic diversity of the crop. So you have one special plant. How do you turn that into a field? Well, you breed it and hope its offspring are also special. Some plants are self-fertilizing; you may do that, to try to avoid introducing non-special genes into the germ-line. You may also use the pollen from your special plant to pollinate a large number of other plants and hope at least some of their offspring are special. In the case of GMO, you might use your gene gun to shoot the same modification into a reasonably diverse set of initial seeds. Your goal as a seed breeder - GMO or non-GMO - is to get the genes that produce the characteristics of the variety you are trying to produce (flavor or size or color of the fruit; speed of growth; hardiness or resistance) as uniformly as you can into a breeding population of plants, so that all of the offspring of all of the plants can reasonably be expected to express the traits. There will necessarily be a weak point there: if a new virus attacks the gene that is needed to make your new corn variety super-delicious, all the plants will inherently be susceptible to that disease, regardless of how that gene got there. This sort of susceptibility isn't too troubling, however, because it's always there: corn shares a great number of genes with other corn; that's what makes it corn and not wheat or beans. What will vary is how much diversity will be in the rest of the plant's genome. There could be very little, if you simply breed your exemplar starting plant against it self, and then its children against themselves, over and over until you have enough seeds to plant a field. There could be a lot, if you can find or produce a number of unrelated exemplars or you first breed your exemplars against a more diverse gene pool. This second sort of a lack of genetic diversity is more troubling, but it isn't a product of genetic engineering: it's a result of going through a population bottleneck in the recent past; this can happen to non-GMO varieties just as easily.