Do we really want to go there?

[liberty]

What's the problem with gene modification lasting forever?

Mother nature modifies genes all the time, and plant breeders have been doing it by conventional means for eons as well.

[Fransisco]

Looks like the conversation has moved on from checkings question but I'll answer it anyways. I don't see the Aussies finally realizing they were wrong about GM canola as a bad thing. We're going to see more and more of it as time goes on. Europe's time will come as well.

In the long run productivity and efficiency gains make us all richer. That's the main reason our standard of living is higher than that of our Grandparents.

I don't have a problem with honest competition. Honest competition has never been our problem. It's the barriers put in front of us by various governments that get in the way of us being able to compete that's the real culprit.

[parsley]

You could ancestorially lose the debate if you agree to a terminator gene for your marriagable children.

[parsley]

But, alas, I concede if the debate is about survival of the fittest.......

[Fransisco]

Not really sure about the GM is forever comment. One would think if we have the ability to insert a specific gene such as the one that delivers roundup resistance we would also be able to remove that specific gene. Removing unwanted traits is as an important part of plant breeding as is inserting desired ones.

Then there is the case of Starlink corn which shows that GM crops can be recalled if need be.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/pips/starlink_corn_monitoring.htm

Check out this chart

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4440/1858/1600/Starlink.gif

and this one

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cheRMv1X2oI/R0Ae0-GWQLI/AAAAAAAAACg/lm90SxIPjtE/s1600-h/StarlinkDieoffEPAOct07.JPG

Funny how the level just keeps dropping over time instead of steadily increasing.

[parsley]

Fran I'm going to let you think about that one for awhile. LOLOL

[oneoff]

If the tolerance level is an absolute zero; then GM is forever.

[parsley]

Is this a little better business model for recalls, charliep?
<p></p>
<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL="http http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/news/business-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23357895 "](The consumer is not sent the repair bill, nor ordered to buy from the same folks)[/URL]</strong></p>

[oneoff]

Seems like Nobody; and I mean nobody seems to want to discuss the prospect of 9 billion people.

[oneoff]

Seems your new link doesn't go very far parsley.

[parsley]

<p></p>





<p class="EC_style8ptBK"><strong>[URL=" http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/news/business-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=23357895 "](The consumer is not sent the repair bill, nor ordered to buy from the same folks)[/URL]</strong></p>

[burnt]

To the matter of feeding 9 billion mouths - it will be done no more easily with GM wheat than without.

Well perhaps I should modify that to say that it WOULD help if the modification would include a gene that would selectively assassinate despots and dictators that cause their countries immeasurable harm - i.e. Mugabe, Lenin types.

The world is able to quite easily feed its people with existing wheat types. The hindrance to full tummies is political rather than agronomic in nature.

Ironically, allowing the commercial production of GM crops is simply an insidious form of the same kind of despotic control as was demonstrated by Lenin or Mao.

You pay whether you play or not. If you don't want to play you will be either re-educated or eliminated.

The appetite of 9 billion people is not the problem - the ideology of a few is.