(confused comment)
LDC's response to confused comment:
Monsanto's "terminator" seeds were merely seeds engineered to produce seedless plants so that farmers would have to keep buying seed from Monsanto. Farmers figured out pretty quick that this was a bad idea and the business model failed, as it should have, in the free market. The Monarch story was about corn engineered to be worm-resitant, so it wouldn't need to be grown with pesticides. A study showed that its pollen was also toxic to monarch caterpillars, who feed exclusively on milkweed. Milkweed often grows near corn fields, but the study failed to show that any significant amount of pollen actually gets onto milkweed leaves where any caterpillars might be harmed, and of course it entirely ignored the fact that without the gene mod, the fields would have been sprayed with pesticide that kills them all without question, so the gene can only be the benefit of the butterflies. --
LDC
Recent evidence shows that genetically-modified plants may "escape" from fields in which they were planted and out-compete unmodified plants in surrounding fields. (Provide references)
- This is very unclear what "escape" mean here. This would gain between explained. Is the plant escaping by moving itself (:-)), is it the pollen that is "escaping" and could maybe fertilize plants of the same family, or is it that new modified seeds are produced, and could be left, and colonize surroundings ?
- In the second case, it does not matter maybe that the pollen escape if they are no plants of same family around (for exemple, there is no "native" corn in europe).
The "escaping" that was observed was that genetically-modified plants were found in fields (in which they had not been planted) surrounding the test fields. "Escape" is a standard term in the field of biotechnology. Various means of emigration may be posited, including pollen capable of fertilizing unmodified plants and the broadcast of the seeds of modified plants. Whatever the mechanism, the findings are important because it was not previously thought that these particular modified plants could escape. The findings are therefore worthy of mention in the article. As time allows, I plan to look up the references. David 17:13 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
ah, the "escape" word is the standard one !
Well, that's a pb such a word is not more precise.
I think a link to the mexican corn contamination would be nice
More on the terminator gene would be nice too, for use of sterile pollen is a way to avoid contamination through pollen dissemination.
I also think that article is not balanced at all. Far too much cons compared to pros. As time allows, I could plan to give it a more proper aspect :-)
I moved the link below, for it appears to be broken
- Allison Snow, an Ohio State University professor who received Scientific American1s first annual Research Leader in Agriculture award, has reported (http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/sungene.htm) on several studies showing the strengthening of weeds due to genetic escape of the Bt variant.
I looked at the discussion page, and I see nothing. I suppose the reader is expected to look by himself in the search box for the Allison Snow; if so, that could be notified, rather than leading to a page where it is written in big large letters "
The page you are looking for has moved or is outdated."
Second, I put back the "possible" word. You can change it into any other word you like, but reading the article slowly again and again, I must insist it is only a "possible" that is discussed here. I don't consider a BBC article with a caption stating "Pollen from GM rapeseed crops has certainly escaped" to be proof enough that pollen escaped. I think that here the "certainly" expresses a personal conviction of the writer, not a fact. When reading the text, I see
- But before that happens, some pollen will escape from the crop and be carried into nearby fields by the wind, or by bees.
- But in any case, the chances of the GM pollen establishing a foothold in British plants seem vanishingly small.
- The GM pollen will certainly escape into the surrounding countryside.
- It may land on the stigmas of native plants like wild mustard or wild radish, and it may pollinate them.
- there could be a problem with "volunteer" rapeseed growing the following year, plants originating from seed which went astray at the time of sowing.
- So they could perpetuate the gene flow
- etc...
could, would, may...
All I see here is fair evidence that it is likely to happen, not fact it did.
There is "certainly" (personnal conviction) somewhere an article with facts. This is not fact. And this is not clearly discussing the fact it happened.
Or...it is that the word "escape" is definitly not the good one. I look again at your above comment and my question is
- does "escape" means pollen go away from the perimeter we could expect it to limit itself (ie, on the other surrounding fields) or
- does "escape" means the above + success in contamination of the surroundings crops
In the first case, escape is a evidence, in the second, it is not (at least in this article).
There are now three articles with closely related content:
genetically modified organism which is a laundry list of current concerns. As an article, this one is weakest, partially because it has no point of view (not the same as having a neutral point of view).
genetic modification which is about the process and potentials, long-term, of gene manipulation. It is not restricted to current technologies, nor to current industries, and is not afraid to go off into science fiction territory with the Raelians. Nor should it be, as at least one article has to talk about the long term potentials without getting bogged down in Monsanto and the left-right arguments.
genetic engineering which is about the field the way the gene hackers themselves see it - with some limited lip service paid to the objections of those who deny it's engineering. Presently genetic manipulation links here, which might be appropriate if that term is explained as a more neutral replacement for 'genetic engineering' - presently in the 'modification' article.
All three articles contain content worth saving, and one article could probably not do what the three do. Probably it's important to confine speculation to a couple of lines and a link to one article that is mostly about those potentials and ethical dilemmas and politics, that presently being genetic modification.
Is it really correct to have two separate articles for genetic engineering and genetically modified organism, however? The issue seems to be that an 'engineering' process that outputs an 'organism' is totally new ground for the professions, and so it may be appropriate to discuss these in one article, but leave the speculations (as they are) off in another article.
"For instance, a bell pepper may have DNA from a fish added to it to make it more drought-tolerant." - Was this meant to be a joke or something? -Jedi Dan 16:55 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
- I can't tell from the history where this statement came from, but it appears to either be an error, a joke, or reference to something very obscure. -º¡º
sigh...yes...a tiny gene copy for frost tolerance from a fish, the Arctic flounder, has been transferred to plants (strawberries initially, other perhaps, I havenot checked).
It is neither a joke, nor an error, nor anything obscure. This said, it is certainly not the best example that could be given...the majority of the initial generations are more about resistance to herbicides, salinity/drought/cold/frost (but from one plant resistant to another non resistant usually), disease or pest resistance, enhanced developement or final quality. user:anthere
- Read the above carefully and you will see where the error in the text is. The text says the DNA is to make the plant more drought-tolerant, which could be seen as a joke (a drought-tolerant fish?). The fact was the gene was to make the plant more frost-tolerant, which is a completely different thing. As I said, it was either a joke, an error, or an obscure reference. You have simply provided evidence towards the error scenario. -º¡º
- bah. Frost is certainly much much more correct. But, when a cell suffers from frost, one of the impact of frost is lack of water, for the water in the cell is in a non-available form (since frozen, he ?). Hence, the usage of "drought". Similarly, in tundra, the soil is very humid, but the climate is dry for most of the water is unavailable. I agree this might sound like a bad joke though. This example is not very good anyway, as it was used as a "pinpoint" (is that word correct?) by anti-gmos people, to insist on how un-natural gmo were. Hence, it is an example with "very heavy" history. Using this example in the introduction is imho pov. It certainly might be inside the text though. Besides, it sound so incredible that many would believe we are joking.
- I changed it. I couldn't find verification either. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:37 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks kq (hi btw :-)). Just type words like fish gmo strawberry tomato and should find it, all over the place. Hard to find scientific ref though. ant
- about the fish/frost example: If you know of an example with less cultural baggage, maybe you could put that in instead. I'm certainly not an expert on GMOs. Koyaanis Qatsi
- well, will see. We should perhaps give an example on cotton in China. It will have less cultural baggage than citing a Monsanto example :-)
- What "cultural baggage" does the current example have? Why would we replace it? -º¡º
- Oh Anthere, saying that the frost causes internal drought is really stretching things. Maybe this is something that comes from a difference between French and English, but we don't use the word "drought" in that way. Perhaps "dehydration" is a better fit, but drought, no that had to be an error. -º¡º
- ah, possibly. Well...that was a fun error anyway :) Imagination allow geneticians to stretch reality pretty far away. I will always dream of my blue roses...
- Hopefully you won't have to wait very long. Florigene (http://www.florigene.com.au/) has already patented the blue gene and is working on splicing it into roses. Maybe next year? -º¡º
- some years ago, I tried to breed blue roses. And hoped to see new colors and new features appear with some biotech techniques. Not with foreign gene insertion though. Some experiments worked. But, not the blue roses :-(
All Wikipedia text
is available under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License