Genetically modified potatoes 'resist late blight

[Bill HH]

I too would like to hear scientific arguments, in the mean time I will stick with fearful hunches, they have served me well over time. The thing is once these genetic modifications are released into the world there is no going back they are forever entered into the biodiversity.

[Bigmallly]

Before I would embrace GM I would want to see some very long term studies that investigate all the likely pit falls.

How long is very long Bill?...........I think they have been doing studies on this for 3 years now.

[Bill HH]

How long is very long Bill?...........I think they have been doing studies on this for 3 years now.

First of all who is they? if it is the creators of these modifications i wouldnt believe a word they say. Any trials need to be independant. But why the rush? if it takes 10 years to make sure there are no long term implications I wont worry.

[Bigmallly]

First of all who is they? if it is the creators of these modifications i wouldnt believe a word they say. Any trials need to be independant.

"Scientists at the John Innes Centre and the Sainsbury Laboratory began a trial with blight-resistant potatoes in 2010."
I really don't see the problem if they are taking genes from a relative of the potato used in the studies. I can only seeing it benefiting farmers & will save on all of the spraying.

[veggiechicken]

Quite a few of us have been growing Blue OSU tomatoes (now marketed as Indigo Rose).
"Researchers at Oregon State University have produced blue tomatoes using conventional breeding techniques, cross-pollinating domestic tomatoes with wild varieties that exhibit the "Anthocyanin fruit" (Aft) gene." Blue tomato - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OSU researchers add potential health benefits to tomatoes | Extension and Agricultural Research News

Is this genetic modification?
Is this the same as has happened with this "GM" potato?

As has already been said, we're not talking potato x mouse but potato x potato, or tomato x tomato.

I say all this as I'm basically anti-GM but I've grown BlueOSU not even thinking that it was genetically modified

[Bigmallly]

I wonder if the seed tattie in question had been put on the shelves as a blight resistant main crop variety, would there have been questions/concerns. Are these people shooting themselves in the foot with their upfront info.

[veggiechicken]

Don't know the answer to that^^^ but I'm chuckling about

"The researchers added a gene to Desiree potatoes, from a wild South American relative, that helps the plant turn on its natural defences to fight off blight."

Sounds like one of my cousins

[Bill HH]

"Scientists at the John Innes Centre and the Sainsbury Laboratory began a trial with blight-resistant potatoes in 2010."
I really don't see the problem if they are taking genes from a relative of the potato used in the studies. I can only seeing it benefiting farmers & will save on all of the spraying.

That may well be the case, although neither of those organisations are independant. Blight resistant potatoes may well prove to be as safe as houses and a boon to the world. But Gm is much more than that, the development of strains of wheat that are immune to weed killers to enable farmers to blitz the crop with poison but leave the wheat untouched (though doused in poison) These things worry me. it is not as if you can go back once these things are released, they cross with other strains and work their way into all of our food. Incidentaly the scientists and laboritories that you put such faith in also test to see if the potatoes that are sprayed 20 times are safe to eat and they say yes. Yet i deduce you dont really trust them on that assurance.

[simon12]

The way I see it (with my limited knowledge) is we can farm 1 of 3 ways.
1 Organically and have lower yields and smaller veg. with more imperfections. but have nature in balance.
2 Spray everything with chemicals for perfect looking veg and a known impact on the environment.
3 Grow GM for perfect looking veg with unknown impact on the environment.
I think we have a major problem in the UK where consumers want the perfect looking veg and don't want anything that looks like its been in the ground. In any other country I have been to the produce looks like it should naturally but here in the UK it all looks polished.

[AllInContainers]

Supplemental to my earlier comments, I have no problem with cross pollination and selection techniques - nature has put it's seal of approval on those methods. Yes, they may still have unknown health effects, and/or be the first generation of what becomes raging triffids trying to take over the world, but this has happened via "natural" means. I'm also perfectly comfortable for one plant to be grafted on the roots of another. It's gene splicing that I'm not happy/comfortable with. If nature has decided that it doesn't want certain aspects of a related plant in it's DNA, there's a reason for that and I think we ought to heed nature's warning. I think that on the whole, we (as a species) do quite well at growing potatoes and a lot of other crops, without having to create a genetically mutilated Franken-spud in some secret laboratory.

[Barking Postlethwaite]

I'm also perfectly comfortable for one plant to be grafted on the roots of another.

Given all you've said about "nature" how can you possibly be comfortable with this? It's most certainly not "natural".

[AllInContainers]

Given all you've said about "nature" how can you possibly be comfortable with this? It's most certainly not "natural".

For sure, it doesn't happen accidentally in nature too frequently (but plants can meld together) It is however a technique that has been around a very very long time, and it's pretty reasonable to say that it's been proven pretty safe by now. So far as I'm aware, it also relies on a natural compatability of the two plants.

As for grafting on a genetic level - we still don't really know what we're doing IMHO, other than someone in a white coat shouting "ooh look, I made it go purple", and his gaffer shouting "quick, sell it at double the price". Not a sound basis for me to go buy one If scientists want to go and play genetic Lego, that's fine - but they should be keeping it well out of the way of agriculture and the food chain. Synthesising pharmeceuticals from plant properties is one thing, but a box of paracetamol or inspirational new cancer cure isn't going to cross breed with your tomatoes and lead to unnatural mutations of crops industry wide.

Being a "new" and profit led industry, it will only become "safe" once something goes horribly wrong and "lessons are learned", and even then it's only as safe as the honesty and integrity of the profit chasing entrepaneurs, or until something else goes horribly wrong so more lessons can be learned. I'd just rather trust a plant's decision on these matters than a businessman's. Sad but true

I'm not trying to win an arguement here by the way, I don't give a monkeys what anyone else thinks Just personal opinion

[Barking Postlethwaite]

I'm not trying to win an argument either (although it would be good if I could!); I am genuinely mystified by why people instantly latch onto the profit motive (everything that we gardeners are provided with comes about because of that) and automatically assume that all GM will be producing cucumbers crossed with elephants and the devil incarnate. The example we are talking about here is a hybridisation of three different types of potato; the only difference to conventional varieties is that these will initially be produced in a laboratory rather than a glasshouse.

If gardeners had always been this resistant to innovation we'd still be growing "traditional", "natural" weedy purple carrots.

My final words on the matter, you'll all be pleased to learn.

[AllInContainers]

I'm not trying to win an argument either (although it would be good if I could!); I am genuinely mystified by why people instantly latch onto the profit motive (everything that we gardeners are provided with comes about because of that) and automatically assume that all GM will be producing cucumbers crossed with elephants and the devil incarnate.

I wholeheartedly welcome the opinions of the Pro and Neutral camps on the GM topic so long as it doesn't become a competition. I've expressed my current standpoint from my sceptical perspective, but that could easily change in time. Like you, I have a genuine interest in how others form their opinions and conclusions.

For me there's a level where progress heads off in the wrong direction ... actually that's not fair ... heads off in a direction I'm not comfortable with. Be it fracking for shale gas, the parasitic nature of Google and Facebook (I remember when communications were the commodoties, but now it's us), ebay (UK) not selling humble pocket knives or kitchen knives, and royal mail refusing to deliver them from other sellers due to fears of them being considered weapons. The first of those is part energy security part profit, the second is all profit, and the third is purely fear derived from media hype and ... litigious profiteering. Profit guides progress more than anything else. Many people will disagree with me on all that too, and that's perfectly fine. I just don't consider all progress to be good necessarily.

But I digress ...

I personally have no doubt the scientists have good intentions, it's the people that's employing them I have my reservations about Even if they did genuinely desire to produce an agricultural and culinary panacea, how many other products have they got to pump out in the meantime to keep the cash flowing to sustain the research ... they have to sell something, right? And I'm certain they won't let something like waiting 10 years of independent research slow down their cash flow or let them miss that niche in the market.

In all honesty, the bottom line is that I wouldn't have the foggiest clue about whether their produce is actually effective/safe/viable because it's way outside my sphere of knowledge. I make these comments on my observations of my fellow man, because that's something I do know a little about, and my observations have taught me that scepticism is healthy. I just want to have confidence that the GM stuff will be suitably seggregated from the non-GM, and appropriately labelled so that we can all make our own decisions and freely choose whether to consume GM crops or not. Unfortunately, I don't have that confidence right now.

Again, Im not a pessimist - just an experienced optimist

[Bill HH]

My father bred Rhode island red poultry, he started in 1920 when the average egg production was 200 pr anum at best. By 1970 his birds were averaging 280 with many achieving 300 eggs pr anum. From 1920 on every single bird had its own record card, every egg they laid had the birds number written on it and each bird had a health record. Each egg had quality assesment and this was from a free range set up of 10,000 birds. I remember him sitting into the small hours filling them in and selecting birds to breed from. The selection process was not just about egg numbers but a host of individual characteristics. Over 50 years he had weeded out the lame sick and lazy. He won many prizes and exported stock world wide. His work was also subject to independant laying trials run by the Ministry of agriculture as were the stock of all poultry breeders. Now they think they can do this in a test tube. Nearly all our vegetables have been improved by such dedicated people who were concerned with the overall quality and health of the produce and took time to reveal the consquences of their work. With GM they think they can short circuit this process, the instant fix. Maybe they can maybe they can't but the result of failure could easily cause wide spread and unstoppable genetic problems. Is it worth the risk?
I can understand these companies not wanting to spend 50 years developing these new strains, thats why it should be the job of governments to sponsor such work.