3 ms·

I find the whole GMO debate to be depressingly asinine. There's a very good concern, which is seldom raised clearly -- if Monsanto patents the genomes that we

I find the whole GMO debate to be depressingly asinine. There's a very good concern, which is seldom raised clearly -- if Monsanto patents the genomes that we need to feed the planet, then that is likely to be very harmful for the development of the poorer half of the world. But there's simply no credible concern at this point about "genes escaping from one plant to another". There are mechanisms by which gene transfer can occur between bacteria and viruses, but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I hear complaints mostly about the latter, and seldom about the former -- but note that the former concern could be ameliorated by having governments or other public institutions do the research, and either hold the patents or just make them available for all.

gumby 9y ago
> but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I'm not sure why you say that; this has been unremarkable for a while and is often seen in the wild. Insects play a role too, though this article from Nature specifically discusses cross-pollination. https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517 https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-...
- theptip 9y ago
  Thanks, I think my claim was a bit sloppy and underspecified there. The typical anti-GMO concern that I was addressing is that a gene, once introduced, could spread into any plant in the ecosystem and into the weeds that compete with farmed plants, i.e. beyond the species with which the organism can pollinate. The paper you linked shows: > that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance which I believe is a much narrower claim. If the anti-GMO claim was that "GMO crops can share their genes with wild/weedy/non-GMO versions of those crops", I don't think anyone would be freaking out in the same way. But my specific claim was about gene transfer to unrelated species, which (to my understanding) is not likely. (There's also horizontal gene transfer to worry about, but this is very unlikely in eukaryotes, e.g. see https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742.pdf https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742...)
crispinb 9y ago
> There's a very good concern .. if Monsanto patents the genomes .. The trouble is the anti-GMO-on-principle stance badly undermines the political case for taking such concerns seriously, by a sort of unintended divide-and-conquer. It's much easier for legislators to ignore corporate power over food production systems when so many of the objections come from obvious crazies. And it's hard for those of us who are suspicious of the Monsantos of this world but are otherwise pro-knowledge to make common political cause with people who think GMOs are 'evil' (due to their Manichaeanism they'll reject anyone who isn't anti-GMO on principle as political allies).

gumby 9y ago

> but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I'm not sure why you say that; this has been unremarkable for a while and is often seen in the wild. Insects play a role too, though this article from Nature specifically discusses cross-pollination. https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517 https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-...

theptip 9y ago
Thanks, I think my claim was a bit sloppy and underspecified there. The typical anti-GMO concern that I was addressing is that a gene, once introduced, could spread into any plant in the ecosystem and into the weeds that compete with farmed plants, i.e. beyond the species with which the organism can pollinate. The paper you linked shows: > that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance which I believe is a much narrower claim. If the anti-GMO claim was that "GMO crops can share their genes with wild/weedy/non-GMO versions of those crops", I don't think anyone would be freaking out in the same way. But my specific claim was about gene transfer to unrelated species, which (to my understanding) is not likely. (There's also horizontal gene transfer to worry about, but this is very unlikely in eukaryotes, e.g. see https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742.pdf https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742...)

crispinb 9y ago

> There's a very good concern .. if Monsanto patents the genomes .. The trouble is the anti-GMO-on-principle stance badly undermines the political case for taking such concerns seriously, by a sort of unintended divide-and-conquer. It's much easier for legislators to ignore corporate power over food production systems when so many of the objections come from obvious crazies. And it's hard for those of us who are suspicious of the Monsantos of this world but are otherwise pro-knowledge to make common political cause with people who think GMOs are 'evil' (due to their Manichaeanism they'll reject anyone who isn't anti-GMO on principle as political allies).