JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 No ****, Sherlock. Now, do you understand what it means when we say that we have genetically modified an organism to be resistant to glyphosate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 No ****, Sherlock. Now, do you understand what it means when we say that we have genetically modified an organism to be resistant to glyphosate? give a link that GMO is resistant to roundup . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 my mistake you are right . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 NO! GMO does not equal glyphosate resistance! There are most certainly GMOs that are resistant to glyphosate, though. I don't want to let this go with you agreeing that you've made a technical mistake. My point is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what we are talking about when we discuss GMOs. Not all GMOs are glyphosate resistant. Not all glyphosate resistant organisms are GMOs. Do you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 NO! GMO does not equal glyphosate resistance! There are most certainly GMOs that are resistant to glyphosate, though. I don't want to let this go with you agreeing that you've made a technical mistake. My point is that you seem to fundamentally misunderstand what we are talking about when we discuss GMOs. Not all GMOs are glyphosate resistant. Not all glyphosate resistant organisms are GMOs. Do you understand? yes explain further your point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 OK. When you're trying to produce a new and agriculturally useful strain of a species, you have a few methods available. The oldest is to just maintain many thousands of different lines and to hope that a natural mutation arises that you can identify and maintain through selective breeding. More recently, breeders have used chemicals or plant stress to initiate phenotypical changes that, under the right circumstances, can be maintained through a proper breeding structure. Still more recently, we have been able to add, delete, or change specific strings of genetic code in organisms in order to accomplish a desired goal. In no way would I argue that all genetic modification is inherently good. Likewise, it should be clear to anyone that has worked with many generations of plants, that not all naturally random mutations are beneficial. However, I do not accept the claim that because GMOs are a targeted mutation, they are therefore something to be feared. Glyphosate resistance in wheat could be a good thing if it results in less broad spectrum herbicides used in order to produce a given quantity of wheat in a portion of land. It could be a bad thing if the grower relies too heavily on roundup rather than other growing practices and inadvertantly causes glyphosate resistant weeds to develop. I hesitate to even continue to refer to glyphosate in this discussion, however, as round up ready crops are not the only GMOs. My point is that genetically modifying crops is a technology. In some instances it can be good, in others it can be bad. To tie GMOs to Monsanto, Round Up, or any other specific instance is to falsely assert that because x is bad, all that can be associated with x is also bad. I would like for people to realize that 1) There is no evidence whatsoever that any GMO approved for human consumption has any deleterious effect beyond the original organism and that 2) Genetic modification is one of many technologies available to us to alter the character of organisms that we produce. It could be the case that a specific alteration is not ideal. If so, then the argument should be made against the newly created organism due to the merits rather than how the organism was created. OceanBreeze 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Glyphosate resistance in wheat could be a good thing if it results in less broad spectrum herbicides used in order to produce a given quantity of wheat in a portion of land. It could be a bad thing if the grower relies too heavily on roundup rather than other growing practices and inadvertantly causes glyphosate resistant weeds to develop. I hesitate to even continue to refer to glyphosate in this discussion, however, as round up ready crops are not the only GMOs. what do you mean ? Edited March 10, 2017 by current Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) I mean that it could be a good thing that an herbicide resistant strain of wheat was developed if it meant that less herbicides were used to produce a given amount of wheat. It could be a bad thing if an herbicide resistant strain of wheat were developed that required a greater environmental impact of herbicides to be used for the same amount of wheat production. Both or neither of these situations could be a result of GMO production of wheat. It could be the case that a particular GMO strain of wheat led to less herbicide impact on the environment. It could be the case that a particular strain of GMO wheat led to a greater impact of herbicides on the environment. Regardless, the fact that the strain of wheat was GMO should not be a source of fear. Instead, the strain and the cultural practices around it should be assessed in their own merit. The fact that the strain of wheat was GMO, all other considerations being equal, should have no more import than anything else. EDIT: Alternatively, there is an additional problem that as of yet seems unique to "round-up ready" crops, though I admit that this view is heavily reliant on personal bias that is likely to be misfounded. In the past, if one wanted to mass-produce a crop like wheat, one would have to use mechanical practices that were preferential to wheat other than other species. Because "round-up ready" wheat enables one to be lazy and cheat, one might be more likely to use glyphosate to ensure a successful monocrop of wheat. I do not know how this more likely use of herbicide compares to crops that aren't "round-up ready". Neither do I know how the influence of glyphosate on a region is different than the other herbicides that would be used otherwise. The point is that I don't know. Fear mongers claim that GMOs are evil simply because they are evil, and this is something I'd like to counteract. Edited March 10, 2017 by JMJones0424 OceanBreeze 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) Members874 postsPosted Today, 04:32 AMI mean that it could be a good thing that an herbicide resistant strain of wheat was developed if it meant that less herbicides were used to produce a given amount of wheat. Members874 postsPosted Today, 04:32 AMI mean that it could be a good thing that an herbicide resistant strain of wheat was developed if it meant that less herbicides were used to produce a given amount of wheat. make this make sense to me Edited March 10, 2017 by current Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 I think I get it now crop resistence to roundup means that roundup wouldn't kill the crops but kills the weeds . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 (edited) I will try to make this make sense to you, given that I'm not sure what you're asking about. It could be the case that a strain of wheat is developed that is resistant to a particular herbicide. This herbicide is relatively benign, has a half-life measured in days, and has been in use for decades, and there is no reason to believe it is specifically more harmful to the environment than other herbicides of its class. If such a strain of wheat were developed, then all a farmer needs to do is plant this wheat just like they always would and then four weeks later come by and spray the herbicide to kill all but the wheat that is genetically resistant to this herbicide. The over-all herbicide load on the environment would be minimal. This seems like a good solution in that compared to other practices, only a small amount of relatively benign herbicide has been sprayed on the field and only once. It could be the case that after a few years, weeds that are resistant to this herbicide flourish in the field because the farmer is no longer employing mechanical measures to control weed growth. It could be the case that these same weeds spread to neighboring farms that don't even use the integrated pest management system that this farmer uses. It could be the case that this farmer has inadvertently constructed a hyper-resilient strain of weeds simply because he relied on herbicides alone to control the competitors of his desired crop. This fear is well-founded, and is a legitimate concern when using round-up ready crops. However, this fear has nothing at all to do with the fact that the crop is a GMO. Instead, this is a problem of cultural practices. The exact same problem could have happened if the crop were "natural" rather than GMO. Again, I must re-iterate that there are more GMOs than just glyphosate resistant organisms. Monsanto is a large corporation and has engaged in many dubious trade practices. However, GMO does not equal Round-up ready and anti-Monsanto should not equal anti-GMO. Edited March 10, 2017 by JMJones0424 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 the problem lies though in eating this wheat which is ; roundup resistant . this wheat is genetically modified , genetically modified , there is no reason to think that genetics could not modify OUR genetics . in the end , down to the cells of wheat , there is no reason to think that the modification of wheat to roundup could not end up in our cells . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 this wheat is genetically modified , genetically modified , there is no reason to think that genetics could not modify OUR genetics . in the end , down to the cells of wheat , there is no reason to think that the modification of wheat to roundup could not end up in our cells . Herein lies the problem of FUD that I railed so vehemently against others previously. When you eat a plant, do you gain the ability to make chlorophyll? No, of course not. And yet, you maintain that some slight genetic difference, if consumed by you, could end up with some stray DNA causing a problem in you. When is the last time you addressed the genetic variability of the food you consumed? You know that no two organisms have the same genetics. When, then, does the difference in genes cause an issue for your consumption? Of all the issues that could be raised about GMOs, this is both the most common, and the most ludicrous. There is no bit of wheat DNA that makes it into your cells when you consume wheat, regardless of whether that wheat was a "natural" aberration caused by millennia of selective breeding and random mutations or a GMO caused by one specific and targeted change in DNA. Your fear here is simply unfounded, and stupid. It is the product of FUD. sanctus 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 chlorophll is Natural , the chemical to make crops resistant to roundup is not . we have no idea whether the genetics of a resistant roundup crop can transfer into our genetics . time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMJones0424 Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 BULLSHIT I reject your claim entirely. I thought I adequately addressed it previously. There is no reason to believe any organism can infect its DNA into ours through the process of eating it. You do not address the DNA differences in the heads of lettuce you consume, even though you know that each head of lettuce you consume contains different DNA. Time will tell why that last head of red romaine didn't cause you to grow a third arm. This is what I mean when I use the term FUD, sanctus. It is precisely this kind of idiocy that you are supporting when you fail to assess your pre-conceived notions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billvon Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 chlorophll is Natural , the chemical to make crops resistant to roundup is not .It's not a chemical. It's a gene sequence. It comes from a soil bacteria that you have also been exposed to (anyone who has touched dirt has been exposed to it.)we have no idea whether the genetics of a resistant roundup crop can transfer into our genetics . Actually, we kinda do - since the bacteria we eat does not transfer that sequence to us. JMJones0424 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
current Posted March 10, 2017 Report Share Posted March 10, 2017 BULLSHIT I reject your claim entirely. I thought I adequately addressed it previously. There is no reason to believe any organism can infect its DNA into ours through the process of eating it. You do not address the DNA differences in the heads of lettuce you consume, even though you know that each head of lettuce you consume contains different DNA. Time will tell why that last head of red romaine didn't cause you to grow a third arm. This is what I mean when I use the term FUD, sanctus. It is precisely this kind of idiocy that you are supporting when you fail to assess your pre-conceived notions. you didn't adequately address my question ; obviously . a chemical that makes a crop resistant to roundup has not yet been proven not to effect our Human genetics . to this third arm stuff ; we don't know , that is the bottom line . we don't know . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.