Seed Keepers

[Anders Skarlind <Anders.Skalman@telia.com>]

Hi Warron
Comments below.

At 00:19 2008-03-01, you wrote:
>   Hi People, Anders
>
> > I would tend to agree to about 50%. But there a
> > considerable side-effects, like stray pollination
> > an and production of artificial bichemichal
> > compounds with unknown effects. Just like any
> > pollution it will spread to places where it
> > doesn't belong. I think they ought to do proper
> > research for another 100 years first. And then it
> > wouldn't be commercially interesting and the money
> > would go somewhere else.
> >
>
>   For sure, this is an infant sciencxe :)  however we
> just can`t forget what we learnt, mindless of the side
> effects.

I think the knowledge of genes and their 
functioning may be used in other ways. For one to 
analyse and guide normal plant breeding (marker 
assisted selection; see the good news Allan 
posted). I think we already know that our present 
knowledge is too limited to start playing God. 
(And it will always be so but we will in periods 
not admit or see it.) I think it will soon be 
publically accepted too. It only takes a few gm 
catastrophies that reach media full scale. Can 
happen any time now. But there is considerable 
counterforces to that so I am not sure. After 
that research will proceed in one way or another.

What is really of primary importance is to 
develop alternatives to gm seed technology. They 
are there too a large extent already of course, 
and they are being used, but they are under 
attack as gm is still taking on so much. It seems 
one major strategy from the gm companies is to 
buy genetic resources and plant breeding 
resources. When they have done that, I think they 
might even be ready to admit some of the 
fallacies and drawbacks of gm technology, if they 
become too obvious. And then start some brand new 
mega projetcs to help them up, etc. But when they 
get this almost monopoly situation, it is also 
very important that we have at least on a 
grassroots level a counterforce with 
decentralised gene banks and elementary plant 
breeding. Just to grow seed consciously, with 
good selection, is really a form of plant breeding, albeit a slow one.

>  As to "commercially" I´ve learnt that for an
> idea to be sucessful it has to be commercialy
> viable....cèst la vie.
>
> > >  Such products
> > >with an increased yield/ha
> >
> > I think so far gmos do not produce higher yield,
> > AFAIK.
> >
>
>
>   thats because the haven`t got their priorities
> right.  Once they figure out they can increase their
> alcohol content from crops, the biofuel industry will
> take off and hopefully leave the food crop science
> alone.

Well, we'll see. So far lots of promises and 
problems. The only success seems to be the 
commercial one. Unless you count in the possibility to spray roundup haywire.


> > I think there is a fair chance we can roll back
> > chemical fertilisers and pesticides in a century
> > or so, despite the dominating position they've
> > had the last century. So we can do that with gm
> > too, although it will take some while.
> >
>
>   Agreed!. First I think that we would need a viable
> GM industry.

I think this is a fundamental misapprehension.
Look at the growth of ecofarming, at least in 
economically leading countries. I think it is 
approaching 10% of the acreage or production now 
in some countries. In Sweden it is at least well 
on its way. And ecofarming of course uses nil 
gmo, as well as nil chemical fertiliser and pesticide.
As far as I can see, gm technology has the same 
roots as chemical fertiliser and pesticides. Now 
the latter are on their way out, and threaten to 
take the profit with them. Then comes gmo.

>  Before this happens , my grandchildren
> will be running around.  But it is never too early to
> start the counter attack!  I`m with you all the way!..
>  Now we do what we can, or should!
>
>   Nice to meet you Anders!!!!!
>
>   Warron

Same to you! Keep up the good work
Anders