India Says No to Genetically Modified Eggplants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Tell that to the farmers. First you dis nurses, then farmers. Who else do you hate, Bill?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The result of 7000 years of "genetically modifying" corn:

Look up the difference between hybridization and genetic engineering of crops. Which liberal professor told you they were one in the same? Or did you just make it up?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Look up the difference between hybridization and genetic engineering of crops. Which liberal professor told you they were one in the same? Or did you just make it up?

Everything you use in your life, from the bed you sleep in, to the marijuana you smoke to keep your brain from functioning properly, has been engineered over the years, to bring to the form you use it now. Your dog, your cat, the cotton in your tidy whities, has been selectively modified to make it "domesticated". There is nothing "natural" or "organic" (sic) left in your life. Get used to it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Everything you use in your life, from the bed you sleep in, to the marijuana you smoke to keep your brain from functioning properly, has been engineered over the years, to bring to the form you use it now. Your dog, your cat, the cotton in your tidy whities, has been selectively modified to make it "domesticated". There is nothing "natural" or "organic" (sic) left in your life. Get used to it.

Why do insist on implying that hybridization of plants and genetic engineering are one in the same? Seriously, I'm curious where you got that idea from? Read it in a book? Heard it on some RW talk show?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Why do insist on implying that hybridization of plants and genetic engineering are one in the same? Seriously, I'm curious where you got that idea from? Read it in a book? Heard it on some RW talk show?

If there is any difference, it is just a question of whether you wait for "nature" to provide the desirable mutation you seek, or you sequence the genes the way you want to produce the desired trait. Every heard of the Genome Project? Stem Cell Research? We do the same thing to humans, why not do it to plants?

Edited February 13, 2010 by Lone Ranger

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If there is any difference, it is just a question of whether you wait for "nature" to provide the desirable mutation you seek, or you sequence the genes the way you want to produce the desired trait. Every heard of the Genome Project? Stem Cell Research? We do the same thing to humans, why not do it to plants?

Hybridization and GMO's are not the same. You won't find one scientific opinion that they are.

Hybrids should not be confused with genetically modified organisms or (GMOs) which, according to About.com’s Biotech Guide, can be any plant, animal or microorganism which have been genetically altered using molecular genetics techniques such as gene cloning and protein engineering. Plants like corn that has the pesticide Bt engineered into its genetic makeup to make it resistant to certain pests are GMO crops. Bt is a natural pesticide, but it would never naturally find its way into corn seed.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Market needs related to agricultural biotechnology are addressed through market and trade

facilitation, research in biotechnology and biosafety, and regulation to ensure the safe

development, release, and movement of biotechno logy products. In 2005, approximately 87

percent of U.S. soybean acres, 52 percent of U.S. corn acres, and 79 percent of U.S. cotton acres

were planted using seeds incorporating biotechnolgy.

In 2002, USDA established Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) within the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service to better regulate field testing, interstate movement, and

importation of genetically engineered (bio technology) organisms. BRS evaluates genetically

engineered organisms to ensure they are as environmentally safe as their traditionally bred

counterparts and thus can be used freely in agriculture. During 2005, over 1,400 biotech

notifications were ackno wledged, over 500 permits were approved, and 6 articles were

deregulated. USDA is developing an environmental impact statement (EIS) and revised plant

regulations under its authorities of the Plant Protection Act of 2000.

USDA conducts biotech-related research in areas such as creating more specific ways to transfer

only desired genes, new models for biotechnology risk assessment, and carrying out long-term

monitoring. Biotechnology (DNA markers, software, genome databases, and genetic resources)

to facilitate crop breeding has also been developed by USDA. USDA’s Agricultural Research

Service has released more than 400 new crop germplasm lines/varieties since 2000, often in

partnership with university and private sector breeders. A total of 157 USDA patents to date

have been issued for biotechnology products and methods. USDA spends about $220 million

annually on research related to biotechnology.

http://www.usda.gov/documents/BIOTECHNOLOGY.pdf

At least you are beginning to get the terminology right.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Brazilian Corn Production Could Be 50% GMO In 2010-11

Brazilian farmers are moving rapidly to incorporate GMO corn hybrids into their production practices. The full-season corn crop that is now being planted in Brazil is estimated to be 30% GMO corn hybrids. The safrinha corn crop, which will be planted early in 2010 primarily in Mato Grosso and Parana, could be as high as 55% GMO hybrids and the full-season corn crop that will be planted next year in Brazil could surpass 50% GMO hybrids.

The 2008-09 growing season was the first time the Brazilian government allowed GMO corn hybrids to be planting in the country. Estimates are that 19% of last year's corn crop was GMO hybrids. The percentages would have been higher if the seed supply would have been greater. The first gene inserted into Brazilian corn hybrids was the Bt gene used for biological insect control. This technology is very important in Brazil because the hot and tropical climate fosters a lot of insect pressure. It is not unusual for farmers in central Brazil to make 6-8 insecticide applications during the course of the growing season in order to control insects. With the Bt gene, the insecticide applications can be cut back to zero saving not only money, but also simplifying the farmer's production practices.

Since 2007, the National Commission on Biosecurity (Comissao Technica National de Biosseguranca - CTNBio) has approved eleven corn hybrids for planting in Brazil. Only Monsanto had enough seed available of one hybrid to sell last year. For this growing season a number of hybrids were available from not only Monsanto, but also from Syngenta and DuPont/Dow. Syngenta has also introduced the first stacked corn hybrid in Brazil that has insect resistance and herbicide tolerance.

In the U.S. approximately 85% of the corn hybrids are GMO and in Argentina, they account for approximately 60% of the corn production.

As far as soybeans are concerned, estimates are that as much as 70% of Brazil's 2009-10 soybean crop will be GMO. Herbicide resistant soybeans (Roundup Ready) have been planted legally in Brazil since 2003, but they were planted illegally in southern Brazil as long ago as the late 1990s. In Rio Grande do Sul, nearly 100% of the soybeans are Roundup Ready varieties. In Mato Grosso, it is estimated that about half of the soybeans planted are Roundup Ready. The percentage will certainly grow as new adapted Roundup Ready varieties are introduced into the state.

It is unlikely that Brazil will ever be 100% Roundup Ready because there is a niche market in Europe for non-GMO soybeans. In fact Blario Maggi and his company (Grupo Andre Maggi) has designated a region of western Mato Grosso as a Roundup Ready free zone. They felt they needed that designation in order to meet the strict requirements of some of their European customers that have zero tolerance for GMOs.

http://soycorn.org/news/Nov18_09-Brazilian...-GMO-In-2010-11

[scandal 951]

Hybridization and GMO's are not the same. You won't find one scientific opinion that they are.

Steve, this is not my area of expertise by any stretch, but I really disagree with you here.

First - I would disentangle two different themes in this thread. (1) the nature of GMOs themselves, and their safety (2) the practices of large companies, particularly Monsanto, in marketing and distributing GMO seeds.

I believe that GMOs are on balance a very good thing - they are human ingenuity using science to improve the quality and quantity of our food supply. GMOs are in fact an extension of what humans have been doing ever since we adopted agriculture. We've simply accelerated the rate of change due to our vastly improved understanding of the genetic structure of our foodstuffs as compared to previous generations.

I am also prepared to believe that Monsanto is a "big bad and ugly" corporation which is abusing its monopoly status and coming down heavy on farmers who it feels aren't complying with its licensing terms.

Those two things don't contradict each other. GMOs can be beneficial, and the company developing and marketing them can be nefarious. Happens all the time.

Coming back to GMOs, I think there's a lot of media hoopla about "frankenstein" mutants which is way off base. Ultimately a genetic code is nothing but a sequence of amino acids. The sequences of every living thing on Earth - you and me included - have been arrived at due to mutations in that code. An A here transcribed to a T there. Those mutations are random in nature, and then natural selection acts on them over time to choose the hardiest mutants and weed out the less hardy. Human agriculture - whether the selective growing and hybridization of plants, or animal husbandry - has for 10,000 years or so tried to "speed up" that random mutation process by intentionally picking mutations that had superior characteristics. GMOs are just the logical next step - not waiting for a random mutation to occur, but intentionally inserting a mutation. I really fail to see a difference.

I'm all for preserving ancient species - wild grasses, original grains, rainforest plants. I'm all for land and water conservation. I think you know me well enough to know I'm not a loon. But on this issue, I think the science of GMOs is ultimately benefiting us, by giving us higher crop yields with less chemicals. That means more food on less land, which in turn means less land and water needed to be converted to agriculture, which means more forests and wetlands. You'd think environmentalists would be all over this.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Stupid Europeans!

Europeans

Americans

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Europeans

Americans

Don't make me get out the pictures of German tourists in speedo's!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Don't make me get out the pictures of German tourists in speedo's!

Truth hurts again?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Truth hurts again?

Nope. American's are getting way too fat, and lazy. The passengers always seem to weigh more leaving the US, than the ones arriving. I noticed that on my first flight to the Philippines.

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

Europeans

Americans

now that you're american, you trying to tell us something changed since you moved here?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

now that you're american, you trying to tell us something changed since you moved here?