You very correctly pointed out that agriculture is detrimental to ecosystems. Would it not make sense to farm in an ecologically acceptable way, a way that minimizes any damage to soil,air and water?

Look at what's happened to major agricultural areas (Canada's prairies, or India's rice growing fields). They've been used to grow high-yielding crops to feed as many mouths as possible and the effect on the land has not been pretty.

You said "I would think hybrids and genetically engineered plants that yield more per acre would be better for the environment and economy"

I agree with only half the statement. I don't think that it's possible, at least in the current global situation, to have something that's good for BOTH the environment and economy. It's all about compromise. That's why organic stuff is so much more expensive. Solar power isn't good for the economy either (at least not in the short run).

I think the GMO thing is a slightly different issue. I still sit on the fence on that debate but I understand those opposed to it. We don't know about their future repercussions. Think of that Canadian farmer who was taken to court for having GM Canola on his field. Perhaps that's an isolated incident but everything starts with isolated incidents. Who pays the price if a biological experiment suddenly spins out of control and a GM crop begins to wipe out other varieties?

1. Many people do not want to eat pesticides w/ their food(or cannot tolerate them) - esp. since they're mostly carcinogenic(among other things).(& altho even organic foods have been found to contain pesticide residues - just a lot less!)

2. Many people do not want to support chemically-dependent industrial agricultural practices, companies, &/or pesticide manufacturers, among others.

3. Many people want to support farmers, companies who use organic practices.

4. Organics are often of higher quality & nutrition than 'conventional' & many people prefer that.

These are not necessarily in order of importance.

Not quite sure what your topic title RE:genetic engineering has to do w/ your questions in your post - altho many people do not want to have anything to do w/ it - for a number of reasons; some of which are listed above.

FWIW, HTH

Human genes are being inserted into plants creating unimagined transgenic life forms.

Cannabilism anyone?

Thats all that needs to be said on Genetic Engineering as far as I am concerned.

ludicrous.

I'd be interested in hearing some facts about those plants that have human genes

GMO's are not desireable in many ways - most of what is currently on the market is simply things that have had their genetic material modified so that patented chemicals can be used on the fields they're grown in w/o killing them, or so the plants themselves act as an 'insecticide' on particular crop pests - supposed to be cheaper/easier for the farmer, but in fact what happens is the farmer is trapped into using the patented seeds the chemical company sells, along w/ the chemical - the export of the technology to poor, 3rd world countries winds up trapping those farmers into a dependence on the patented crops and chemicals, decreasing natural genetic diversity, and decreasing those countries self-reliance in food production - it's also the case that the GE crops are not turning out to have appreciably higher yields

agriculture is not "detrimental to ecological balance", but intensive chemical mono-cropping is - organic agriculture strives to develop and maintain a healthy soil environment, contributing to the ecological balance on the farm and in the community
getting away from chemical dependance is what will begin to return the soil to a healthy fertility, and cease the 'mining' of the planet's soil for the benefit of a few mega-transnational corporations - Monsanto would love it if every corn plant in the world was their patented variety, that could only be bought from them, and would only produce a crop if used w/ the chemicals that also have to be bought from them!

Bill

Maybe if Monsanto genetically engineers a cross between wheat and grandmothers, we'll be able to buy flour that makes itself into a pie.

Scientists have begun putting genes from human beings into food crops in a dramatic extension of genetic modification. The move, which is causing disgust and revulsion among critics, is bound to strengthen accusations that GM technology is creating "Frankenstein foods" and drive the controversy surrounding it to new heights.

"The industry is capable of anything and this development certainly smacks of Frankenstein."

Here is a link that might be useful: Human Gene Rice

thanks - "In the first [laboratory] modification of its kind ... " sounds a bit different than "Human genes are being inserted into plants creating unimagined transgenic life forms." let us know when it hits the shelves - meanwhile I'll keep buying only organicly grown of any foods that are currently GMO's in the field

Bill

Genetically Modified foods are objectionable because there has ben no testing done to see if there may be harm to humans or not. The manufacturers of GMO foods convinced the FDA that inserting a gene that would never, ever get into a plant was "substantially" equivelent to pollination, even though what they are doing would not happen naturally and we have no idea what will happen when we consume these genetically altered foods.
We know that some of the pesticides and herbicides these companies produce alter the genetics of people exposed to them so why would these foods not do the same? Something we won't know for several generations, now.

Isn't it ironic that something that is "substantially" equivalent for health purposes is Unique for patenting purposes!
Ann

Genetically Modified foods are objectionable because there has ben no testing done to see if there may be harm to humans or not.

You must understand that plants and people are very different. Plants SHOULD BE TESTED to see if they are harmful before introduction into the enviroment. Newborn humans SHOULD NOT BE TESTED before birth to see if they will be harmful to the environment.

IMHO, transgenics are certainly something to be looking into, but not something to be rushed into. Seems to me that most of the ones supposed to be easier on the farmer are the ones capable of doing serious damage (like selecting for Bt resistant caterpillars, or encouraging overuse of certain herbicides, which selects for resistant weeds). The RU-ready stuff is also probably fairly contaminated with glyphosate and whatever's being used to stick it, so I really do try not to eat GM corn and soy.

The rice in the article linked above is more interesting to my mind, as it's being developed to clean up the environment (though it probably needs that "terminator" gene, and a terminatoron the terminator so it doesn't spread to other rices via pollen).

AsI type, I'm smoking a cigarette containing GMO tobacco, which produces no nicotine, which gives me a psyco-somatic accompaniment to the transdermal patch I'm wearing. If all goes well, it's a GMO that will make me live longer :).

Tell me more about this GMO tobacco Johnny, I'm a hopeless addict, and I'd love to get clean.

The brand is "Quest". it has 3 steps: step 1 is 2/3 regular tobacco, 1/3 gm, step 2 is 2/3 gm, step 3 has no nicotine to speak of (less than 0.01 mg or something like that). I'm back on the step 2 for now...too sweaty to keep the patch on the last week or so, but it's still a pretty low load of the addictive stuff (0.3 mg).

I'm a pretty serious smoker, but have noticed a difference since using the low nicotine stuff, especially when in airports and airplanes, which used to be a painful experience, but don't bother me so much lately.

Oddly enough, I originally came across the GW forums when googling for this stuff a coupel years ago (before it was on the market). There was a thread on the discussions side about it (I think this was pre-conversations).

The main problems with GM foods are that no one knows their long-term effects, the PR about better yields and fewer pesticides has turned out to be hype, and too many serious problems have arisen already.

The worst mistake I've heard about was a GM Klebsiella bacterium intended to help compost wood waste and produce ethanol. But when it was added to soil in the laboratory, all the seeds that were planted died because the GM Klebsiella killed off the mycorrhizae in the soil. http://infochangeindia.org/fetaures11.jsp

Other mistakes include a brazil nut gene inserted into soy that triggered allergies in people allergic to brazil nuts; StarLink corn used in corn chips, although the StarLink GM strain was not approved by the EPA for use in human food; and GM potatoes that affected the growth of internal organs in rats. These products were removed from the food supply because they showed immediate effects, but no one knows what long-term effects may arise, or what synergistic effects may turn up.

Practically speaking, whenever you eat any processed foods, you are participating in a massive unprecidented experiment on the effects of GM foods on human health. That's because there are 5 main GM crops in North America (corn, soy, canola, cotton, and I forgot the 5th) and dozens of other crops using GM strains. Practically speaking, all of the big 5 that were not organically grown (or even wind-pollinated crops that were OG) are GM or have been contaminated with GM genes.

The other worrisome thing about GM crops is that it is impossible to avoid (or to know whether you are eating) GM crops, because GM ingredients are not required to be identified. The industry has spent millions of dollars to defeat GM-labeling bills every time they have been proposed. So if you want to avoid GM crops, you need to avoid crops grown in North America, avoid the big 5 altogether, or grow all your own food and be miles away from any possible GM field (because the pollen from GM corn in particular has contaminated the entire North American crop, including possibly all organically grown corn, according to some sources).

While I have been a long-time skeptic of current generations of gmos and a frequent critic of these on these fora, I think you are overstating and oversimplifying. There are still relatively few legal gm strains being grown commercially other than for the crops you mentioned (and squash and a few processing tomatoes). Soy bean, cotton and and maize make up the bulk of transgenic production. There is much research, including field testing, of other gm-crops (rice, wheat, barley, tomatoes, squashes, tobacco, sweet potatoes, sugar beets, papaya, grapes...), but market resistance seems to be limiting their commercialization. California alone has over a thousand field trials of gm crops as reported recently.

In your examples of past problems with rDNA constructs, only the Starlink became a major consumer issue. The Klebsiella study never got out of the lab and the Soy with DNA from Brazil Nut never got beyond the early stages before the whole "transgenic event" was abandoned. Only the potato line was ever commercialized and may still be grown in the UK.

Like you I don't want to eat gmos or at least to want to have a choice not to eat same. As an organic farmer, I don't want to grow transgenic crops because my goal is to grow healthy food as naturally as possible. BTW of those gm crops you cite, corn is fully wind pollinated as is beets and to a lesser extent canola. The others as insect-pollinated. I am as much worried by cross-contamination post-harvest when harvesting, transport, and storage systems fail to maintain separation of gm from standard lines. Already, processing and handling of organic product is expected to be segregated to maintain the integrity of organic certification.

The serious problem is the apparent campaign to make gmos moot by allowing contamination of both seed and crops. When gmos are ubiquitous and unretrievable, protesting no longer has much meaning or impact.

a little "food for thought" here

as it happens, geneticly modified bacteria [usually e-coli] are used in the manufacture of many [most?] pharmaceuticals, particularly vaccines - simplified, the bacteria is modified to create the desired compound and some medium or organism is inoculated w/ that modified organism, which grows rapidly to create the volume of material necessary to produce the flu vaccine [or whatever]

genetic engineering has been an important part of life in our modern, high tech, comfortable western culture for quite some time

Bill

The news page I looked at before I came to Gardenweb had a relevant story today. A GM field pea project in South Australia has been abandoned after it was found that the mice being fed the peas were developing lung inflammation.
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1509512.htm

See "No messing with peas for now" in discussions.