Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Alachua County, FL, USA
    Posts
    6,851

    Default Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Spatial and Temporal Assessment of Pollen- and Seed-Mediated Gene Flow from Genetically Engineered Plum Prunus domestica
    Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants is a topic of interest and concern, and as such it has been the subject of a number of studies and review articles [1]–[14]. Concerns related to pollen-mediated transgene flow (PMTF) generally center around issues of developing weedy variants of wild species due to the acquisition of transgenes, or loss of species diversity due to increased fitness of GE hybrids [5], [10], [15], [4]. The majority of PMTF studies have been undertaken on agronomic crops such as soybean [8], maize [13], cotton [14], canola [15], and rice [16], or on herbaceous horticultural crops including tomato, sugar beet, strawberry [17], Chinese cabbage [10] and summer squash [11]. While there have been reviews [18] and theoretical and modeling studies [9], [19], there are few reports documenting PMTF in tree species with the exception of citrus [20], apple [21], and papaya, which is a relatively short-lived herbaceous tree species [22].
    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0075291
    americasbeekeeper.com
    beekeeper@americasbeekeeper.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN USA
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    I don't care.

    I fully support GMOs because I understand the science behind them. I do not worry about "loss of species diversity" when the only things being GE'ed are already so terribly inbred and genetically weak monocrop that there was no diversity there to begin with.

    The GMOs are not going to rape your wife, they're not going to shoot your dog, and they're not going to turn you into the blob monster from Akira. The funding for all of the anti-GMO stuff is coming not from actual public safety or scientific groups, its coming from farmer coalitions that can't compete with the improved crops and are trying to get the public so riled up about it all that they turn public opinion against them before they can actually be a market place threat.

    Educate yourself on how these plants are being modified, and what the actual threat of genetic drift is (hint, only things that could normally crossbreed with unmodified versions of the base plant could possibly be affected, and they have had systems in place for decades to prevent that).

    It is a non-issue, IMO, that is just getting played up by those who stand to lose money in the face of a superior product that they cannot compete with.

    (Now, Monsanto being a major ass of a company that needs to be taken down a few pegs is a totally separate issue)
    Beekeeper since 2013. Read my bee blog at:
    http://harrisonbayhoney.blogspot.com

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Johnson County, Indiana, USA
    Posts
    93

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    In my quick scan of the article, it seems to say that the GMO genes do not 'spread' to non-GMO species at a significant rate. In the sutdy, it only happened in 4 of 11 years, and when it did happen, it was only at a rate of 0.31%. The article concludes that GMO plums and non-GMO plums can be raised in close proximity with out any 'contamination' of the non-GMO varieties.
    Once the bee is inside, Mr. Veil is no longer your friend.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Otero County, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    The loss of diversity comes with the extinction of "heritage" varieties and breeds, as we see with the poultry and tomato industry. Everyone ends up raising the same thing and nobody propagates the older stuff. Not a good thing when you end up with a single species in the end.

    For example: poultry - the industry breeds modified cornish rock broilers that reach their full market weight at approximately 9 weeks. If you let them mature, they develop heart problems and die, normally. Since the industry has changed to this breed instead of the previous breeds, the other more versatile breeds are gradually becoming endangered of being lost. Same with egg production. The previous breeds were developed more as egg layer/meat production, but the new breeds are specialized to a single function. That is a step further out on the branch that is keeping us from falling, and it is a long way down.

    GMO has it's place, but the current execution is not what is intended or in our best interest. It seems to be mostly used as a weapon to force farmers to grow certain crops from certain suppliers. It is a marketing scam in my opinion. If it was done truly for science for mankind, with no profit involved I would have a different opinion.

    All of this is totally beside the point about the plums in the article...
    NM desert/mountain beekeeper - Black Mesa Honeybees.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN USA
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Quote Originally Posted by khicks12 View Post
    In my quick scan of the article, it seems to say that the GMO genes do not 'spread' to non-GMO species at a significant rate. In the sutdy, it only happened in 4 of 11 years, and when it did happen, it was only at a rate of 0.31%. The article concludes that GMO plums and non-GMO plums can be raised in close proximity with out any 'contamination' of the non-GMO varieties.
    I may have jumped too quick, my apologies.
    I'm just so used to seeing people buying into the fear mongering that when I see GMO and any talk about it spreading I automatically assume its another scare piece.

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul McCarty View Post
    GMO has it's place, but the current execution is not what is intended or in our best interest. It seems to be mostly used as a weapon to force farmers to grow certain crops from certain suppliers. It is a marketing scam in my opinion. If it was done truly for science for mankind, with no profit involved I would have a different opinion.
    Most of the modifications for these crops are things to reduce the amount of pesticides that have to be used, increase their disease tolerance, or allow them to grow with less water, more salt tolerance, or more nutritional benefit.

    It isn't that farmers are being "forced" into growing them, its just that the ones that do grow them can grow them cheaper, more easily, and under harsher conditions where that crop would not have grown in the first place. Nobody is out there gene splicing giant veggies or crossing corn with bananas (that I'm aware of) or other frivolous things, they're making the existing stock better.

    Farmers don't have to grow the engineered stuff, but they will have to accept that by sticking to the traditional lines that they will have to put more work into them.
    Beekeeper since 2013. Read my bee blog at:
    http://harrisonbayhoney.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Otero County, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    I am not a farmer in this sense, but my understanding is that you sign on in a contract and are locked into the deal with the supplier. Nor can you grow anything else similar. Maybe a real farmer that uses GMO will chime in. The whole thing is just a way to sell more "Round-up" it seems. Remove that, and I would say it might be a good thing for humanity. Money always ruins a good thing.
    NM desert/mountain beekeeper - Black Mesa Honeybees.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    KC, MO, USA
    Posts
    1,152

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul McCarty View Post
    I am not a farmer in this sense, but my understanding is that you sign on in a contract and are locked into the deal with the supplier. Nor can you grow anything else similar. Maybe a real farmer that uses GMO will chime in. The whole thing is just a way to sell more "Round-up" it seems. Remove that, and I would say it might be a good thing for humanity. Money always ruins a good thing.
    You sign a contract in order to buy the seed, "The agreement specifically states that the grower will not save or sell the seeds from their harvest for further planting, breeding or cultivation"

    You can plant whatever you want on your land before and after you buy GMO seeds. You are not locked into anything.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN USA
    Posts
    685

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    And those are the bad business practices of the companies (namely Monsanto), not anything to do with GMO's themselves.

    Good product, lousy distributor.
    Beekeeper since 2013. Read my bee blog at:
    http://harrisonbayhoney.blogspot.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    Posts
    2,764

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    You need to understand why there's a contract, it's to guarantee product performance and stewardship. Not all crops are de-regulated in all countries so there is some guidelines that need to be followed via contract to maintain compliance and product integrity.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mirabel, Québec, Canada
    Posts
    423

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Quote Originally Posted by Edymnion View Post
    I don't care.

    I fully support GMOs because I understand the science behind them. I do not worry about "loss of species diversity" when the only things being GE'ed are already so terribly inbred and genetically weak monocrop that there was no diversity there to begin with.

    The GMOs are not going to rape your wife, they're not going to shoot your dog, and they're not going to turn you into the blob monster from Akira. The funding for all of the anti-GMO stuff is coming not from actual public safety or scientific groups, its coming from farmer coalitions that can't compete with the improved crops and are trying to get the public so riled up about it all that they turn public opinion against them before they can actually be a market place threat.

    Educate yourself on how these plants are being modified, and what the actual threat of genetic drift is (hint, only things that could normally crossbreed with unmodified versions of the base plant could possibly be affected, and they have had systems in place for decades to prevent that).

    It is a non-issue, IMO, that is just getting played up by those who stand to lose money in the face of a superior product that they cannot compete with.

    (Now, Monsanto being a major ass of a company that needs to be taken down a few pegs is a totally separate issue)
    But it does matter, because people care. If I read things right, I can't have organic certification for my bees' products if there are GMO crops within their radius. Are the organic standards justified? I guess you could debate it, but I think it's one of the less ridiculous demands of that industry. Still, organic honey sells for more, for what would otherwise be pretty much exactly the same work load for a lot of beekeepers. GMO crops therefore directly attack beekeepers' potential income and profitability. Is it justified that a

    There are also various agronomic concerns with a variety of the GMOs. BT corn, for example, is unnecessarily flooding the agroecosystems with the BT toxins, which creates a selection pressure that may very well lead to resistance cases. Round-up ready crops lead to indiscriminate use of, as the name implies, Round-up, which in turn has led to the apparition of a few round-up resistant weeds. The systematic use of any pesticide is a horrible agronomic practice, because it favors the apparition of resistance and therefore scraps the usefulness of the product. And that's essentially what these GMOs do. Some studies have also suggested that Glyphosate (Round-up) is not as harmless as the industry may have put it, that combined with other pesticides it had a dangerous synergistic effect. Some studies also suggested that BT corn may have harmful effects on honey bees and favor nosema (I'll hand it to you that this particular research wasn't too serious, though).

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sacramento, CA, USA
    Posts
    2,764

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Dominic,

    Your point is moot, using a product over and over generate resistance, we all know that so how is it the products fault? No one forces the farmers to discontinue proper rotations of chemistry but relying on one product was a whole lot cheaper and easier. Kind of like that dropping the bottle of honey and wanting a replacement for free concept.... well, it's the GMO's fault now because the farmers kept spraying round up over and over and over and over....

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Fort Wayne, IN
    Posts
    929

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Dominic, that is one of the reasons for the contracts. They require farmers to plant refuse acres (acres without the GE trait) so that resistance will be slowed considerably if not completely. This allows insects that are not resistant to the trait to reproduce. As we learned with Apistan, etc. resistance will develop eventually. But it can be slowed. If beeks had been more judicious in their use of Apistan, it would have remained effective for many more years. The other reason for the contracts is to allow companies to protect their investment. Just like you can't make an iphone and sell it you are not allowed to reporduce a companies trait and sell it without paying a fee.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Knox Co, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    802

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Quote Originally Posted by Dominic View Post
    But it does matter, because people care. If I read things right, I can't have organic certification for my bees' products if there are GMO crops within their radius. Are the organic standards justified? I guess you could debate it, but I think it's one of the less ridiculous demands of that industry. Still, organic honey sells for more, for what would otherwise be pretty much exactly the same work load for a lot of beekeepers. GMO crops therefore directly attack beekeepers' potential income and profitability.
    Conversely, why should someone be limited in what they can grow on their land because you have bees and want to have certified organic honey?

    Tom

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Columbus, Oh
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul McCarty View Post
    The loss of diversity comes with the extinction of "heritage" varieties and breeds, as we see with the poultry and tomato industry. Everyone ends up raising the same thing and nobody propagates the older stuff. Not a good thing when you end up with a single species in the end.
    If this happened in nature (and it does) it would be called natural selection. All species tend to move from more diversity to less diversity, until something wrecks the system and creates an opportunity for more variation again. In addition, the genetic diversity is not necessary lost. It's been shown that under extreme conditions after populations crash and species are lost, 'relatives' will soon produce the variation within the species that exsited previously but seemed to be extinct. In other word's the genes are still there, they just need the environment to be such to faver those wiht the trait or gene.

    Even if we end up with nothing but 'fat chickens', I imagine we could selectively breed a leghorn again given enough generations.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Otero County, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    1,384

    Default Re: Gene flow from genetically engineered (GE) crop plants to non-GE plants

    The "fat chicken" reference misses the point. Say for example, we have nothing but battery chickens incapable of living a standard life outside a factory farm and all "heritage" or standard breeds go extinct - which they are currently doing. What if something catastrophic happens disrupting our normal economic and food supply chain. We would have nothing but these GM birds requiring heavy doses of food and antibiotics to get them to market, while all the other breeds capable of foraging on their own and living a more hardy existence have died out through lack of propagation. That is NOT natural selection. It would be natural selection, however, when WE died out because we designed a food supply with no reserve or back-up capability because we let the old breeds go extinct.

    The risk with GMO products is Human Species survival in the end, and it is being used for profit instead. I would have more respect for it if it was genetically spliced organisms, like Frankenstein, and not just a delivery system for more Round-up.
    NM desert/mountain beekeeper - Black Mesa Honeybees.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads