In Florida, they are developing a disease resistant type of V. vinifera cultivars ( grapes! ). Florida is the nations 2nd or 3rd largest consumer of grapes, (all the Golden Girls love them I guess?) and they're importing almost all of them. They are developing heat-tolerant varieties that could be grown in Florida, and have accomplished very promising rot resistance in Thompson Seedless fruit from plants containing a gene known as "VVTL-1",
This gene comes from a "phenotype" of grape, meaning, "it shows itself" in the grape, just not in all grapes... It is implanted by transforming the plant's gene sequence through the use of an "Agrobacterium"... these bacterium are what the "new gene" is attached to, and this "invades" the cells of the plant, infecting it with the new genetic "instructions". (that's the best way I know how to describe how they do this in the lab).
This is an "intraspecies implantation", whereas some are not. (those are "interspecies" such as a "fish gene inserted into a different species of fish, as with the proposed genetically engineered salmon)
Because it's intraspecies implantation, these traits could be bred through meticulous cross pollination techniques, like Gregor Mendel's peas... but that takes meticulous efforts, taking more genetic "shots in the dark", and requires far more time than these techniques applied in a lab through the use of bacterium. Quick, efficient, proven to be effective. No doubt, it's a blessing that we have such technology, because in the event of some crisis (such as global warming) we can try to develop crops that acommodate new environmental conditions quickly, and science is busy doing just that. It's really fascinating and exciting, but it's not a miracle that we should accept without question.
Some genetically engineered plants are changing the plants so that they actually put off their own insecticide, and I feel that this is likely to be contributing to the problems we're seeing with Colony Collapse Disorder with the honeybees. I've seen some coverage of this issue, but it really isn't made widely known. When you talk to anyone in charge, they just can't say for sure, it hasn't been proven, or they just "don't know", and leave it at that.
I think that the increased dependency on science to quickly remedy bad situations is one way to dismiss these bad situations we face which cause the demand for such applications. In other words, enabling environmental degradation because we can simply "fix" food, instead of protect our environment. When you start to examine where there is an incentive to destroy (in order to "fix"), you realize this type of technology isn't all bad, but control of it can fall into the wrong hands. Then what? So, I feel that, really all we're doing is becoming more dependent on the good will of big, profit-bound corporations whose best interests are those of shareholders, not the future of the planet, or the environmental conditions our children will inherit.
Ethically, it seems to me that having a few major corporations holding patents on genetic material is wrong. I don't believe that anyone should have the right to patent DNA any more than anyone can claim to have control over the dna that causes freckles on a child's face. It's the same principle. How convenient is it that we have an ex-Monsanto lawyer / policy lobbyist on the supreme court, (Clarence Thomas) and the Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is Michael Taylor, another ex-monsanto lawyer / policy lobbyist? I love all the Crony-Corporatism in bed with our government. I don't know about you, but it really makes me feel safe. insert sarcasm here
There are some applications that at first blush seem to be a good idea, like the Florida friendly grapes. This is using the genus and species' own genetic variety, and speeds up the hybridization process. Great. Those are the rational arguments being used, and I am not completely blind to the benefits and common hybridizations, that's been going on for generations. I don't believe in the patents, or that such things should be in the control of profit-seeking big corporations. I also think that making crops that are then also dependent upon a specific, patented chemical application to coincide with the genetic traits is total B.S., and is a corruptible arrangement of control over vast amounts of the world's food supply. Also, environmentally, I believe that getting plants to produce their own insecticide, or to be resistant to an herbicide (round up) is ethically wrong, and dangerous to the ecosystem, since it is upsetting a natural balance, creating ever more resistant insects or fungus, or superweeds that then plague us.
I've also petitioned, and am still pestering our esteemed representatives in government to require labeling. How can consumers make good choices if they're kept in the dark about their choices, and what they're buying? It's our money, we should be able to support technologies we believe in. First we have to understand them!! I see a strong need for developing public understanding of this technology in more "layman's" terms... so consumers can make smart choices. I would eat the florida grapes, but I don't want to lend my support to Bt crops, or any other "chemically dependent" food source.
http://cris.nifa.usda.gov/cgi-bin/starfinder/0?path=fastlink1.txt&id=anon&pass=&search=R=15264&format=WEBLINK
No comments:
Post a Comment