Market Farming

["William H Shoemaker" <wshoemak AT illinois.edu>]

Good comments Steve. While I think the technology will be refined, I’m afraid the issue of “unintended consequences” will continue to haunt us.

 

Bill

William H. Shoemaker

Sr. Research Specialist, Food Crops

University of Illinois - Crop Sciences

St Charles Horticulture Research Center

535 Randall Road, St Charles, IL, 60174

630-584-7254, FAX-584-4610

wshoemak AT illinois.edu

---

From: market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:market-farming-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Steve Gilman
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 9:43 AM
To: market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Re: [Market-farming] hybrid vs. selection

 

Hi Bill -- and All,

Thanks for the run-down on hybids and heirloom selection.

 

A few comments on the creation of GMOs -- Genetically Modified Organisms. There's a pristine PR lab coat aura that goes along with depictions of transgenic "insertion" that makes the processes seem far more precise than they really are. One method is to blast a package of genetic material (including antibiotic resistance genes so they could test if the process stuck) into plant cells using a (.22 caliber) gene gun with multiple wild results. While this transgenic process has developed more sophisticated applications -- using viruses as the carrier, for example -- the final GMO still has inherently unpredictable side effects. 

 

That's because science of genetics has moved beyond the originating, simplistic "one gene = one trait construct -- much depends on where in the DNA the transgenes end up -- and how they express in the organism -- which is also governed by outside stresses like drought, temperature extremes, etc. So to cite a previous post touting the benefits of manipulating plants for greater Omega 3's content -- that's not ALL you're getting in that GMO package. And coming up in the Monsanto pipeline are a whole new set of "pharm" crops -- food crops genetically engineered to manufacture pharmaceuticals in their cells.

 

And, as we've seen with GE Roundup Ready canola and now with GE alfalfa and sugarbeets -- these crops are highly promiscuous -- spreading their GMOs willy-nilly in the environment, and SURELY contaminating organic and non-GMO marketed crops. Monsanto and company have actually stated a strategy of contaminating the seed supply with their proprietary GMO genetics to complete their market hegemony. 

 

Further, as in the case with genetically engineered BT corn where the valuable pest control Bacillus thuringiensis, used responsibly by organic and sustainable farmers for over 40 years now, was given a governmental green light without concerted independent review, and is now planted annually on millions of acres. This is creating insect resistance that is beginning to render Bt ineffective for ALL farmers, as the genetically engineered Bt gene expresses in all parts of the corn plant full time and -- very worrisome --- persists in the soil. Bt is a soil organism, after all, with all the potential for widespread contamination and creating GMO soil organisms to interact in the soil foodweb.... yikes.

 

So, while Stewart Brand in an about-face now endorses GMOs (as well as Nuclear power by the way) there's also a better THIRD way of plant modification called "marker-assisted breeding" where some of the biotech lab tools that have been developed are beneficially used to IDENTIFY positive genetic traits -- saving many years of growing out plant strains and seed selection -- and then breeding the selected plant stock conventionally -- producing robust and stable (NON-GMO) hybrids.

 

 

best,

Steve Gilman

 

On Feb 7, 2011, at 9:19 AM, market-farming-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:

GMO's are totally different than standard hybrids, though many GMO's are
created with hybrids. GMOs could be created with open-pollinated and
heirloom varieties as well. What makes the GMOs different is that they were
created by mechanically inserting a gene into the plant that could not be
inserted naturally. There are many versions of this technique but
essentially they all involve the placement of a gene, or manipulation of a
gene, such that the result would not be found in nature. I really believe,
like Stewart Brand, that this technique can be incredibly valuable and do
much good. The problem is that the potential for selfish gain or other
irresponsible behavior drives some of those who use the technique. There is
a real moral dilemma involved in the power of this technique and until we
have thoroughly vetted the issue and placed reasonable limitations on the
use of this technique, there will be public backlash against it. Like many
areas of science, we have put tools in the hands of people who care less
about their impact on society than on their ability to accumulate wealth at
others' expense.



Bill

William H. Shoemaker

Sr. Research Specialist, Food Crops

University of Illinois - Crop Sciences

St Charles Horticulture Research Center

535 Randall Road, St Charles, IL, 60174

630-584-7254, FAX-584-4610 

wshoemak AT illinois.ed