8 ms·

"The process required no genetic modification of the crops." How did they create a new strain of wheat without modifying on the genetics of an existing strain?

"The process required no genetic modification of the crops." How did they create a new strain of wheat without modifying on the genetics of an existing strain? And given that it states that they cross-bread two strains, how did they prevent the resultant strain from not inheriting modified genes from the mixed parents?

ownagefool 13y ago
"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties."
- JulianMorrison 13y ago
  It's a ritual of appeasement for the idiot anti-GM brigade. The effect is the same, the circumlocution allows them to say "it's natural!"
  - da_n 13y ago
    In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with chemicals. Basically they are clueless.
    - Beekon 13y ago
      Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking? Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural. That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer. Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
      - JulianMorrison 13y ago
        Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.) But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
        adrianN 13y ago
        That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.
        biofox 13y ago
        Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment? A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities. On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain. There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.
        6d0debc071 13y ago
        No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything. Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
    - zwieback 13y ago
      I think that particular subpopulation thinks gluten is a chemical that should be avoided so it won't make much difference for Weetabix
    - Myrth 13y ago
      I'm sure many people understand this but I'm going to say it anyway: People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components. The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death. I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition. This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.
      - da_n 13y ago
        A lot of our food is already 'unnatural' due to humankind practicing genetic modification for thousands of years using plant breeding techniques. If we follow the line of reasoning you present we should also stop all medical research because some companies prioritise monetary gain over the welfare of humankind. I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.
        specialist 13y ago
        I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly. Huh?
        da_n 13y ago
        I don't know what your question is.
    - sneak 13y ago
      Just explain to them that distilled water is inorganic and watch their brains hurt.
  - graeme 13y ago
    It's not quite the same effect. The ancestor gene has the benefit of having been field tested over time. If we invent a new gene, the odds are higher that it has visible benefits but hidden downsides.
    - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
      By no stretch of the imagination is a cross 'field-tested'. There is an entire relationship between genes in an organism, all working together, even cooperating between generations to ensure the population survives. Cross-pollination can produce entirely unfit specimens, or strains that prosper in one clime but fail in another. This can all have wonderful yield/resistance benefits for farmers. But it has always brought risk too. My father had whole hybrid crops fail when an unsuspected fungus deformed every cob. Think of genetic modification (yes, even cross-pollination) as an accelerated, guided evolution. Except instead of trying millions of experiments, seed companies sell a dozen each year. Each stalk in each wild generation is a cross; only a few have to survive to ensure the population survives. Our vastly reduced commercial genetic diversity puts our food sources at risk. Yet we cannot use plain wild strains in the modern world; half of us would starve.
      - gizmo686 13y ago
        Is their any reason we cannot bread in genetic diversity? For example, if we cross polinate are artifical strains with wild strains, and then use standard artificial selection for the most high yielding strain, we should return to genetic diversity. The only way I can see this not working is if the specific changes we made that yield improved output are the same ones that cause problems. However, my understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, and the likely problem is that in order to get those changes we were only working with a small number of strains, so we lack genetic diversity across the entire genome. There is still the economic problem that doing this is expensive, yet causes no benefit to anyone in particular. This seems to make it the perfect candidate for the government to step in and do it.
        JoeAltmaier 13y ago
  - kzrdude 13y ago
    it's quite simple to be anti-GM today with the grip that Monsanto is trying to grab. Soon we'll hear it's "too big to fail"..
  - specialist 13y ago
    As a proud member of the idiot brigade, I thank you for working overtime to understand my camp's objections to GM. I'm ok with breeding. I probably don't even have a problem with transgenetics, but I'd want each effort vetted. What I oppose, utterly, are two things. 1) GM foods engineered to enable ever greater use of pesticides. 2) GM foods engineered to create their own pesticides. See, I've got this weird idea: first, do no harm. Some people call it the precautionary principle. Also known as the Hippocratic Oath popular in the healthcare professions. Now, I understand that it may not be possible to completely prove any particle thing completely safe. I get that. I'm not a zealot. And some things thought safe today could proof unsafe in the future. Or vice versa. Because science marches on, values change, and context matters. But here's two things I do know. With absolute certainty. Based on readily available data: 1) The parties pushing GM are bad actors. Repeatedly. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc are only too happy to poison people to make a buck. 2) The parties charged with safe guarding public health and the environment are completely enthrall to megacorps profiting from poisoning us. These two points are not in dispute. So while, in principle, further GM efforts may be all well and fine, in an ideal world, we, unfortunately, do not live a libertarian fruit cake free market utopia. And I prefer to judge things as they are, not by what they should be.
- protomyth 13y ago
  So, a politically correct way of saying genetic modification.

ownagefool 13y ago

"The scientists used cross-pollination and seed embryo transfer technology to transfer some of the resilience of the ancient ancestor of wheat into modern British varieties."

JulianMorrison 13y ago
It's a ritual of appeasement for the idiot anti-GM brigade. The effect is the same, the circumlocution allows them to say "it's natural!"
- da_n 13y ago
  In my experience the people who are anti gm also say they won't eat food with chemicals. Basically they are clueless.
  - Beekon 13y ago
    Yeah! Those idiots trying to get food on their plate that is healthy and without side-effects. What on earth are they thinking? Do you really find it odd? Nowadays, if you're not a chemist, you have no idea what you're eating. So it is only natural that people react by avoiding everything that is unknown, unfamiliar, or even seems unnatural. That's perfectly normal behaviour. What IS NOT normal behaviour is sticking your head in the sand when 1 in 2 get cancer. Who do you think is looking out for your well being? The companies selling you these things?
    - JulianMorrison 13y ago
      Here's a hint for you. Natural does not mean healthy and without side effects. When you are eating a lifeform that contains myriads of chemicals in its purely natural makeup, you have no idea what you are eating. (Often, with herbal medicines, this proves to be an issue, and they get yanked off sale for side effects.) Ironically, it is precisely the synthetic chemicals that you can look up on wikipedia. And if you live long enough, immersed in this flow of entirely natural chemicals and radiation, yourself made of complicated and imperfect chemical reactions, you too will get cancer. (Actually, your body is cancering (deliberate verb coinage) all the time, and nearly always its repair mechanisms catch it early and stop it. It's that "nearly" that's the trouble.) But hey, facts, harder to process than irrational fear of the new, and a crude prescientific search for "purity".
      - adrianN 13y ago
        That is not a very convincing argument. We have evolved eating other lifeforms. That makes it much more likely that our bodies know how to handle the chemicals in plants and animals than the fancy colourings, preservatives and flavours in processed food.
        biofox 13y ago
        Would you be confident foraging for food in our "natural" environment? A great deal of plants, fungi, nuts, and fruits are highly toxic. Even staples like rice and fish have high levels of naturally occurring arsenic and lead; and most table spices are lethal in high quantities. On top of that, there are countless carcinogens, allergens, pathogenic bacteria and parasites in the food chain. There is a reason lifespan has been increasing.
      - 6d0debc071 13y ago
        No, that's true - natural doesn't mean healthy and without side effects. But it's at least relatively well understood. Perhaps not in exact chemical makeup but we've co-existed with most of what's in a supermarket long enough to know it's probably not going to cut our lifespans in half or anything. Suddenly people are making extremely rapid changes to food and it's not unreasonable for people to be cautious about it.
  - zwieback 13y ago
    I think that particular subpopulation thinks gluten is a chemical that should be avoided so it won't make much difference for Weetabix
  - Myrth 13y ago
    I'm sure many people understand this but I'm going to say it anyway: People who are anti-GM are skeptical about scientists' ability to predict all the consequences of their meddling in living genes and chemical balance of nature components. The nature had millions of years of coming up with sustainable balance between growth and death. I hope no one will argue that many of the priorities in our current scientific environment are short term individual benefits, whether it is political, wealth or recognition. This is the basis of anti-GM folk mistrust, and not inability to detect that everything is chemicals and cross-pollination is a gene modification as well.
    - da_n 13y ago
      A lot of our food is already 'unnatural' due to humankind practicing genetic modification for thousands of years using plant breeding techniques. If we follow the line of reasoning you present we should also stop all medical research because some companies prioritise monetary gain over the welfare of humankind. I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly.
      - specialist 13y ago
        I wouldn't argue that it needs regulation to ensure it is used responsibly. Huh?
        da_n 13y ago
        I don't know what your question is.
  - sneak 13y ago
    Just explain to them that distilled water is inorganic and watch their brains hurt.
- graeme 13y ago
  It's not quite the same effect. The ancestor gene has the benefit of having been field tested over time. If we invent a new gene, the odds are higher that it has visible benefits but hidden downsides.
  - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
    By no stretch of the imagination is a cross 'field-tested'. There is an entire relationship between genes in an organism, all working together, even cooperating between generations to ensure the population survives. Cross-pollination can produce entirely unfit specimens, or strains that prosper in one clime but fail in another. This can all have wonderful yield/resistance benefits for farmers. But it has always brought risk too. My father had whole hybrid crops fail when an unsuspected fungus deformed every cob. Think of genetic modification (yes, even cross-pollination) as an accelerated, guided evolution. Except instead of trying millions of experiments, seed companies sell a dozen each year. Each stalk in each wild generation is a cross; only a few have to survive to ensure the population survives. Our vastly reduced commercial genetic diversity puts our food sources at risk. Yet we cannot use plain wild strains in the modern world; half of us would starve.
    - gizmo686 13y ago
      Is their any reason we cannot bread in genetic diversity? For example, if we cross polinate are artifical strains with wild strains, and then use standard artificial selection for the most high yielding strain, we should return to genetic diversity. The only way I can see this not working is if the specific changes we made that yield improved output are the same ones that cause problems. However, my understanding is that this is extremely unlikely, and the likely problem is that in order to get those changes we were only working with a small number of strains, so we lack genetic diversity across the entire genome. There is still the economic problem that doing this is expensive, yet causes no benefit to anyone in particular. This seems to make it the perfect candidate for the government to step in and do it.
      - JoeAltmaier 13y ago
- kzrdude 13y ago
  it's quite simple to be anti-GM today with the grip that Monsanto is trying to grab. Soon we'll hear it's "too big to fail"..
- specialist 13y ago
  As a proud member of the idiot brigade, I thank you for working overtime to understand my camp's objections to GM. I'm ok with breeding. I probably don't even have a problem with transgenetics, but I'd want each effort vetted. What I oppose, utterly, are two things. 1) GM foods engineered to enable ever greater use of pesticides. 2) GM foods engineered to create their own pesticides. See, I've got this weird idea: first, do no harm. Some people call it the precautionary principle. Also known as the Hippocratic Oath popular in the healthcare professions. Now, I understand that it may not be possible to completely prove any particle thing completely safe. I get that. I'm not a zealot. And some things thought safe today could proof unsafe in the future. Or vice versa. Because science marches on, values change, and context matters. But here's two things I do know. With absolute certainty. Based on readily available data: 1) The parties pushing GM are bad actors. Repeatedly. Monsanto, ADM, Cargill, etc are only too happy to poison people to make a buck. 2) The parties charged with safe guarding public health and the environment are completely enthrall to megacorps profiting from poisoning us. These two points are not in dispute. So while, in principle, further GM efforts may be all well and fine, in an ideal world, we, unfortunately, do not live a libertarian fruit cake free market utopia. And I prefer to judge things as they are, not by what they should be.
protomyth 13y ago
So, a politically correct way of saying genetic modification.