Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition 194
A user writes "The concerns, legitimate or otherwise, about genetically modified foods such as Monsanto's Round-up Ready soy-beans, may be causing unintended consequences: Monsanto's rivals such as BASF are selling 'naturally' mutated seeds where extreme exposure to ultra-violet is used to increase the rate of mutations in seeds, a process called mutagenesis. These seeds end up with many of the same properties, such as herbicide resistance, as GM seeds, but inevitably end up with other, uncontrolled, mutations too. The National Academy of Sciences warns that there's a much higher risk of unintentionally creating seeds that have active health risks through mutagenesis than by other means, including relatively controlled genetic engineering, presumably because of the blind indiscriminate nature of mutations caused by the process. But because mutagenesis is effectively an acceleration of the natural system of evolution, it's very difficult to regulate."
The real risk (Score:5, Insightful)
is letting one corporation get a choke-hold on the world's food supply.
Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score:0, Insightful)
It might be because most of these GM fear mongers have their brains stuck in 1975.
Errrrmm (Score:4, Insightful)
If this is so "natural", they won't be patenting the result.... RIGHT????
Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score:5, Insightful)
In what universe can you called suing farmers for cross-contamination and then locking farmers into having to buy seeds from Monsanto an ethical or sustainable business practice?
People see smoke all around and then start asking for evidence of the fire.
Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score:4, Insightful)
2. The article is about how the techology is being used as an end-run around bans and other restrictions on GM foods.
4. You're criticizing attacks on alternatives to GM foods, that are being introduced because of a nonsensical fear mongering campaign against GM foods, where those alternatives are objectively not as inherently safe as GM foods, as "fear mongering bullshit". Really? Seriously?
Trying to separate GM food from the use of this technology is also a joke. The logical conclusion of the wide use of GM food is that you won't be able to grow anything without Monsanto. That is their business model. We also have no idea what the long-term effects would be of this level of trust in a handful of powerful companies nor what kind of crops we would get with this unfettered. You're faced with a future situation where even growing anything in your back garden could cease to be a viable alternative. People can call it scare mongering all they like, but we won't know until we're in that situation and if and when we are it will be too late. Allowing companies to control natural food production is inherently dangerous and unethical.
Re:Hail to the uninformed (Score:4, Insightful)
Bingo. That right there is the point of articles like this. It isn't fear mongering, it is putting things into context. As it says in TFA:
The academy has warned that regulating genetically modified crops while giving a pass to mutant products isn’t scientifically justified.
I certainty don't fear mutagenic crops. Lots of good has come from it (seedless citrus anyone?) but it is hugely inconsistent to attack GE crops while these get a free pass. Then again, since the anti-GMO movement is basically the creationism of agriculture, they aren't in touch with science much anyway, so this issue is just par for the course.
Articles like this are sort of like talking about plant pesticides. Anti-GMO people love to cry up and down about GE crops producing their own insecticides, but strangely never give the background biology required to put that into context (for example, that being that all plants make toxins, such as solanine, psoralens, falcarinol, oxalic acid,and maysin that naturally occur in potatoes/tomatoes, celery, carrots, rhubarb, and corn, respectively). Articles like this give context that otherwise people might not get.