Transgenic "pollution" of corn

.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy,
visit the Junk Science Home Page.

What is Junk Science?

Special rules for this forum.

Debunkers

Biotechnology

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Transgenic "pollution" of corn
SPQR Moderator	posted 11-17-2004 02:46 AM Link to this Tech Central Station piece by Ron Bailey. IP: Logged
annef Moderator	posted 12-17-2004 07:07 PM I'm sorry this particular post didn't draw responses. Since I know diddlysquat about this topic, my comments may seem odd. My concern is one of language... transgenes deemed 'evil' by activists skilled in propaganda, esp in a devout, Catholic country. We in the U.S. of A. tend to look down upon the folx in Mexico. This is foolish. Our population is depressingly influenced by propaganda (emotional drivel). People who farm and ranch are stunningly well educated, esp via experience, in their specialties. In a nutshell, if your tomatoes thrive and mine shrivel, you can bet I'll be drying and planting seeds from your crop next year. If your cows yield more milk, I'll be looking for some stock from your herd. IAAN, (new acronym, figure it out), humans speed up the process of natural selection/evolution. Does this limit biodiversity? Probably. Is that bad? Dunno. Sure like sweet corn. Anne, who may be promoting transgenic pollution. IP: Logged
El Buggo Member	posted 12-21-2004 03:16 PM To be honest with you, I'd thought that transgenic crops were a moot point in North America by this point. Wheat being the exception, mostly because of exports to Luddite land (= Europe). Media make much more of issues than there ever really is. I think Anne's point about people's observation skills is particularly salient - if it works, they'll adopt it. It's the fear mongering (i.e. "evil") that distracts the process. As far as the "biodiversity" issue goes, well, corn is a grass. Let your grass grow long in the summer and look at the seed stalks. Original corn is like that, perhaps a little larger. Is that good eatin'? Methinks not, but people are entitled to their own opinions. I think preservation of biodiversity is a noble goal, but as with issues like climate, we tend to think in terms of human life spans, rather than an evolutionary time scale. Equilibriums come and go and I don't think they are ever the same or stable. The driving forces, good or bad, are just different. IP: Logged
LaneH Member	posted 12-21-2004 03:59 PM quote: Equilibriums come and go and I don't think they are ever the same or stable. I really dislike the use of the word equilibium here. Nature is not, and will never be, in equilibrium. When it is, the universe has reached a constant temperature, everywhere. ------------------ lane h. can be reached at laneman@erols.com "Never let your mind remain so open that your brain falls out." IP: Logged
El Buggo Member	posted 12-21-2004 04:56 PM I can accept that. Equilibrium is probably not appropriate. I'll try to explain what I mean. Ecosystems are comprised of a set of species at any given time. In terms of human time scale, they appear static (which I think is what I meant by my use of equilibrium) and species are "set" for that time frame. Ecosystems/Nature are, of course, never static, but that is how humans perceive them (save the forests, I like tall trees - never understanding successional principles/realities). Currently, we want to preserve the Mexican corn "species" exactly as they are, rather than have them evolve, most especially with human induced traits. That is, as you point out, not a realistic expectation as there is no equilibrium. Happier now? IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | The Debunkers

Personal Safety Notice: The discussions on this site may address activities which are inherently dangerous and other activities which could be dangerous if done improperly. Many opinions may be expressed. All or none may be valid. The management of this board has no way of assuring that any of the opinions expressed are consistent with safe practices. If you choose to follow any of the "guidance" expressed on this site and, as a result, blow three of your fingers off, please let us know about it so we can laugh at your stupidity.

Copyright Restrictions: You should know the drill by now. If you post it here, then you promise that you have the right to do so and pledge to defend and hold harmless this board and the staff which manages daily operations. The staff reserves the right to edit or delete material you submit if, in its judgment, your claim is not reasonable.

For your daily dose of debunking, from Steve Milloy, visit the Junk Science Home Page.	What is Junk Science?
	Special rules for this forum.