Beyond GM Food: New Cutting Edge MAS Technology Makes GM Food Obsolete

[nosmokes]

original

Published on Thursday, July 6, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
Beyond GM Food: New Cutting Edge MAS Technology Makes GM Food Obsolete
by Jeremy Rifkin


For years, the life science companies—Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Pioneer, etc.—have argued that genetically modified (GM) food is the next great scientific and technological revolution in agriculture, and the only efficient and cheap way to feed a growing population in a shrinking world. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including my own, The Foundation on Economic Trends, have been cast as the villains in this unfolding agricultural drama, and often categorized as modern versions of the English Luddites, accused of continually blocking scientific and technological progress because of our opposition to GM food.

Now, in an ironic twist, new cutting edge technologies have made gene splicing and transgenic crops obsolete and a serious impediment to scientific progress.

The new frontier is called genomics and the new agricultural technology is called Marker Assisted Selection, or MAS. The new technology offers a sophisticated method to greatly accelerate classical breeding. A growing number of scientists believe that MAS— which is already being introduced into the market— will eventually replace GM food. Moreover, environmental organizations, like Greenpeace, that have long opposed GM crops, are guardedly supportive of MAS technology.
~snip~
.

.
.
complete articlehere

[SpiralHawk]

1. Shut up and eat your protein wafer unit

and be sure you drink every damn drop of that Soylent-Green nutritional supplement food-like product, or you are going to bed early.

And I don't WANT TO HEAR any complaints from you noisy proles, out there.

[nosmokes]

2. but, but, but,

but they taste like ass!

[formercia]

4. Only the choicest cuts are used. n/t

[formercia]

3. Things just haven't been the same

since Charlton Heston became a right-wing nut job.

[w4rma]

5. Sweet. (nt)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Jeremy Rifkin's a Creationist nut.

He's to be disregarded off hand.

"Genomics" is the "naming" that is identification, study, etc. of genes. It's not some sort of "new frontier" that makes GM obsolete, rather they complement each other. MAS is sort of a cross between genomics and hybrid breeding, it's genetic engineering without the vector.

[nosmokes]

7. do you have a source for rifkin being a *creationist nut*?

because he's certainly been at the forefront of the green/enviromental movement for a long time, and i've never heard of any such thing from him. i think he is a 'christian', but not one of the radical religous right. but i'll sure take a look at anything ya got.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Carl Sagan (Demon Haunted World?)

I believe that was the source. I may be thinking of something Stephen Gould wrote. I'll look into it.

Jeremy Rifkin is radical religious right. He's co-opted the green/environmental movement because he found an audience for his luddite shit.

[NNadir]

9. "...genetic engineering without the vector..."

That's a very apt description.

It's best though not to know too much about what you're talking, especially if the subject is science. You may get in big trouble.

[nosmokes]

10. but w/o a vector

w/o introducing the DNA of another species into species X then all you're doing is just fancy hybridization, right? i mean it's not really genetic engineering in the terms we normally think of it, such as round-up ready corn or something, right?

[NNadir]

11. You are selecting genes with human intervention.

There are four nucleosides in DNA (subtract one and add one for RNA) with an infinite series of permutations, those permutations being something known as "life."

There is a huge amount of evidence that much, if not most, of human DNA was inserted over historical time by vectors, i.e. gene insertion by viruses. That those genes happen not to be inserted to give us a gene for Roundup resistance doesn't happen to have made much of a difference.

I really don't want to get into the whole GM "controversy" since it reminds me of most scientific controversies in which the general public participates with ever increasing assertions of authority or at least "appeal to authority": Generally the people who know the least speak the loudest and say the most. Our public knowledge of science just is worsering to go from worser to worserest.

I've got bigger fish to fry with scientific knowledge. It happens that climate change is a far worse crisis than GM can ever be. Deliberate ignorance plays a huge role there too.

[nosmokes]

12. yes, i understand that

my point is that we're not speaking of cross species genetic splicing here, which, along with ownership of a life-form are probably 2 of the 3 biggest complaints against GM crops. the 3rd would be cross contamination. but if the new plant were derived by a hybridization process you could largely negate the contamination argument. someone with a nut allergy doesn't hafta worry about biting into a potato, or someone allergic to fish can rest assured they aren't gonna have a reaction from eating a tomato. more to the point, a farmer in canada isn't gonna be sued because because his canola crop was pollinated partly by his neighbors monsanto patented canola. this would not be a problem with MAS crops, right? assuming they aren't all corrupted by the fucking GM shit that's already out there that there's never been adequate testing done on, that no one knows just exactly what the long term ramifications of consuming that over a lifetime might be, especially with the dubious added*benefit* of more pesticides being put on them, because that is the primary purpose of the GM crops in commercial use right now. which all adds up to more greenhouse gasses, because all that shit is petrochemicals that are produced in some of the most polluting plants around and then transported for miles and miles and miles so it can be applied to poison th soil and water and air by farm equipment that doesn't hafta come anywhere near meeting the exhaust requirements of road vehicles. didja know the average meal in america travels 1500 miles to get on the plate? that's a lot of greenhouse gasses. but local, organic produced food makes one helluva dent in that figure, as well as keeping family farmers and ranchers in business and keeping money in a local economy. even if your food isn't organic, think of the difference you can make by getting your food local. and then you and others can start persuading the growers to move to a more sustainable method of farming. believe me, if i'm ignorant on the subject, it's not deliberate. but 3 brain tumors and 2 brain surgeries have taken their toll, not to mention the copious quantities of drink and drug back in the day, so forgive a dude a lapse or three woncha?:* thanks!

[soothsayer]

13. Death to Monsatan! and all their ilk!

[rman]

14. Can/will corporations monopolize this technology

as they do with GM food? You know, making it so that the seeds are infurtile and/or by creating regulations that do not allow locals to save seeds for the next season?

[michael_1166]

15. "Life science companies"

- if that's not an euphemism, I don't know what is. Monsanto is one of the most evil corporations in the world.

[misternormal]

16. SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE !!!! n/t

[tomreedtoon]

17. Soylent Green is Democratic VOLUNTEERS!

They want to be eaten, like Al Capp's memorable creatures the Shmoos. If a Republican looks at them hungrily, they flop over into a frying pan and die of happiness. Forget winning elections, they just want to be on Bush's dinner platter!



"We're proud to be food for Our Great Leader Dubya."