Agr. Sprays

[cakadu]

One thing I have never been able to figure out is why it is okay for corn growers to have to go and buy their seed every year - it is a hybrid and therefore sterile, if my limited knowledge is correct - but when the terminator technology came along, everyone was against it. It would have taken care of this concern about volunteer crops where we don't want any, wouldn't it?

Muttley, I agree with you that we have to approach this with caution and not take everything at face value. They have also taken products off the market (for no apparent reason or at least none was given) that seemed to work very well. The precautionary principle is built into everything that is done in the name of genetic engineering, so there are mechanisms in place to avoid a free-for- all.

This is a hard debate which I'm sure will continue for some time, and there are many opinions - being the eternal optimist, I'm sure we will find some middle ground somewhere.

[DanMoore]

How is terminator seed supposed to help the poor farmer or those in the third world. The age old practice is saving seed for the next year. And what about choices? Every year there are new varieties and those of past are discontinued. The planting of any new hybrid variety can only be a trial; to see if it will grow to desire. If every year there is a new variety you are faced with a trial, how can the farmer plan? We must maintain a continuity in seed stock. The farmer must be able to forecast what he will have versus waiting to see what he gets. That is the reason I have switched to non-hybrid seed. I know what I will get and am able to save seed for the next year. Let the hybrid and GMO merry-go-round stop so we may see the future.

[rodbradshaw]

Dan
Farmers have the ability to choose just as you have done. If you don't like some aspect of the variety whether it be price, GMO, hybrid or whatever no one is forcing you to use it other than our need to try something new. If farmers or gardeners like a practicular variety of seed, the market will continue to produce it for sale. Lets get off this paranoia or the the aliens will get you.

[cowman]

And Dan make no mistake about it...the big seed companies are in business to make a profit and the only way they can do this is to sell their seeds. There has to be a demand for their product. And if farmers were not making their own profit they would not demand these GMOs. Take a look at round-up ready canola...it is now the dominant variety. Why? Because it works! It makes the most money! We have to go with the "best" science of the day. If not there would never have been any progress made down through the ages. We have to have some faith in our government agencies...if they say it is safe we must assume it is. There isn't really any other option.

[DanMoore]

OK! Everyone is making a profit. I expect that there will be a reduction in subsidies and less of a draw on the public purse at the end of the growing season.

Here is another bullet to chaw on.

Prior to scientific intervention, every species was genetically isolated. Some wise test tube wizard desided to jump the genetic boundary. After many attemps they gained the desired effect as determined by visual or actual effect. The plant looked better, shipped better, or withstood a pest or chemical. But what other unknown affects have gone unnoticed?

In the still juvenile science, they blast a gene with hope of insertion. They are attempting to change the genetic formulae to gain a desired result. What new chemical or cell is also created in this gene processor. Is there a new acid, protein, or organism created? Is it detectible with conventional testing? And if a new creation, what is it affect(s) on/within the food chain?

Is there any guarantee? And more importantly, if there is a control existing or means of stopping what has been started?

If you think there is any stopping now, then you better drop into the spiritual vignettes to offer a few words.

[countryguy]

What worries me isn't what has gone unnoticed,but rather HAS been noticed and not revealed to anyone.

[countryguy]

Danno: Maybe we could live to 125 years old with the help of GMO's. With conventional food we are living to the ripe old age of 70 something. Back in the days of organic farming prior to 1950 we were living to the average age of 65 years old or alittle better.

Genetic Modification in plants and animals in the past 40 years has added to our longivity.

I admire people who do organic farming in the proper way by crop rotation and having the ability to seek out niche markets. Now as you know we were not all cut from the same cloth and do not believe in the same theories of making our lunch.

By the way I eat all kinds of organic food, apples from my tree in the back yard vegetables from my garden which are all grown by organic means. An my oh my do they taste good but its not because they are organic but because they are fresh.

Your humble servant The Kernel

[cakadu]

I have to agree with Rod somewhat in that we need to take the fear and emotional aspects out of the argument. What appears to me to be lacking in many instances is a knowledge of traditional plant breeding techniques for example. The simple version, at least my understanding of it, is that we put two species together through pollenation, waited for results and hoped that something good would result.

What is also lacking is a good background for science and the way genes, DNA etc. works, and it seems to come from those of us who didn't have the benefit of all this newer information when we were in school, and I include myself in this group. 25 years ago, our science books were basically touting the wonders of DNA, which hadn't been discovered too many years prior to that. It seems to me that we don't hear as much hue and cry from younger people and budding scientists as we do from those of us who pre-date the rapid change in science. Now I'm not saying this is either good or bad, just an observation I have made and I welcome anyone who has evidence to the contrary to pass it along.

Again, my understanding of what happens is that a particular strand of DNA is encoded to do a specific function only. Without the necessary "keys" in whatever it is inserted to, it will not function. Therefore, scientists can be far more precise and concise in what they are doing because they know that a certain gene in the sequence will only perform one specific function.

Without naming names, we have had people with (perceived) credibility speak out against GMO's without offering any proof that they don't work. How can something that will help half a million children per year to not go blind be a bad thing? The companies that have this technology are not charging the poor countries for it. In terms of holding seed for the next year, Rod has also said we have a choice and it would seem to me that poorer countries who do not have the ability to pay for this seed would simply not buy it. They will buy things that will grow in their own climates and own locale.

What would happen, if through the wonders of biotechnology, we were able to grow plants in extremely arid areas, such as the outback of Australia or in areas of high salinity? We are quite frankly running out of land to grow crops and with this burgeoning population, it is an ever increasing concern.

We also need to look at multi-species cropping and economies of scope rather than economies of scale, but that is a whole other debate. It seems to me that with some of these current technologies, we are leaving less of an environmental footprint on the land in general and are preserving areas that should not be disturbed. Can't there be some way to find a win/win?

What would it take for people to feel comfortable with the idea of the technology?

[DanMoore]

GMO is not the answer to the starving millions. It is doing more harm than good. 80% of the malnourished are in countries with good food production. The problem is simple poverty. The people cannot afford the food. In all instances it is a lack of nutritional diversity that is the cause. There is the need of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etcetera so that the nutrients from the food can be ingested. As a grower you should know that from experience. I have done some surfing (can't call it research) and offer a few sites for you to read. A mix of sources was attempted to gain both sides of the story. Read and let us continue to discuss the GMO question.

[DanMoore]

GMO is not the answer to the starving millions. It is doing more harm than good. 80% of the malnourished are in countries with good food production. The problem is simple poverty. The people cannot afford the food. In all instances it is a lack of nutritional diversity that is the cause. There is the need of fats, carbohydrates, proteins, etcetera so that the nutrients from the food can be ingested. As a grower you should know that from experience. I have done some surfing (can't call it research) and offer a few sites for you to read. A mix of sources was attempted to gain both sides of the story. Read and let us continue to discuss the GMO question.