This is true, but it's not an inherently bad thing. It may sound strange to splice genes from one organism into another, but there are homologous genes that are shared across many organisms. These are remnants of the evolutionary process. A genetic sequence that has a given function in one organism could have the same function in another.

So, that gene in the cedar tree was selected because it produced some desirable trait - a trait that farmers want to reproduce in a grape. This trait is usually something that the grape is already capable of - for instance, sweetness - but that farmers want to enhance, or produce more consistently. It's very unlikely to make the grape do anything that it wasn't already capable of.

 

[QUOTE=Rickjames,Jan 7 2005, 12:56 PM]First off, even though I am pro GMO, there are risks that people should take seriously, however I believe that there are environmental nuts out there that believe anything anyone tells them about how bad GMO's are without looking at the research and data.

 

I didn't say it was. I was only trying to pinpoint the difference between breeding (traditional genetic engineering) and "GMOs".

 

ok, gotcha

 

One of the arguments against GMOs is that they are often non-reproductive. So if you want to grow more of them, you have to buy more seed. I know that is what is done anyway in modern industrial farming, but it can mess up subsistance farmers. It's an economic concern.

Another thing to worry about is if these "roundup ready" plants can transfer those genes to the genepool of the weeds. If so, then the weeds become "roundup ready" too, and you lose not only the extra advantage but also the basic advantage of having a fairly safe herbicide like Round-up. One of the ideas behind organic farming is to avoid (as much as possible) a chemical/genetic arms race with the weeds. In that case you end up like the doctors who are trying to deal with multi-drug resistant bacteria.

As for people not trusting them -- people have always feared having their food and water supplies out of their control. For good reason. The answer to this is to have a more educated population which can participate in the discussion. I would caution you against just ignoring these fears as meaningless and inconsequential. That's what the nuclear power industry did, and it has cost them big in the long run. If people fear it and don't understand it, then the first time there is a problem they will just ban it.

As for Americans being picky, well they can afford to be picky. Plenty of other rich countries are just as picky. The Japanese and Europeans are just as picky, but they have their own little bugaboos instead of having the exact same ones that Americans have.

 

mike garrison did bring up some good points--here are some of my additions:

-I went to monsanto and toured their labs where they make the roundup ready and bt ready crops--I asked them about terminator genes. Now this might sound random, however 'terminator' genes are supposedly put in these plants such that the pollen being accepted or distributed from the altered plant is rendered inactive. When I asked about it, the monsanto rep said 'we dont use those, and the reason why we have farmers buy new seed every year is because we improve the seed every season and we are doing it for the farmers.' Ok, I smelled the bullshit. He tiptoed around the question. First off, I can't believe that monsanto is currently 'updating' the seed when the original roundup ready cotton took like 25 years to develop and billions of dollars and FDA approval. Now, I'm not saying they do/don't use terminator genes, but it is a possibility. The bottom line is that monsanto wants to make money and I dont think it is right to purposefully make the seeds so that you can not reuse the offspring.

-you made a good point about the genes being transferred to related weed species--to me, this is the biggest concern with GMO plants--one that I wish I had put in my previous response.

-As for ignoring the fears of the general population: I agree that the fears are warranted, however look at the independent data. My point is that average americans and other people don't look at the science and they base their views on the media elite (which is left for the most part) and environmentalists. It is important to take both sides into account, however when the general public receive only one side they automatically accept it because 'the media is always right' and 'environmentalists are always right'. I'm sorry to say this, but most people are ignorant and should learn to look at the facts/data before accepting what some environmental wacko says, when in fact environmentalists have been known to make claims without scientific facts to back it up. And yes, environmentalists are not necessarily scientists--they are usually lobbyists with political motivations--whereas ecologists and environmental scientists strictly look at the science. So my point of this long winded segment is that all people need to learn to start thinking for themselves and not someone's opinion.

-Yes Americans can afford to be picky. However, if Americans could learn to be more reasonable then not as many pesticides would have to be sprayed and items such as sweet potatos would not need to be waxed, thus driving costs down.

 

I guess that's one of the reasons the GM "roundup-ready" plants are not allowed to reproduce. If they can't reproduce, they can't pass on their "roundup-ready" genes, and therefore, the weeds cannot inherent those genes.