|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Feb 8, 2020 13:43:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wheelgarden on Feb 8, 2020 21:44:40 GMT -5
That goes for everything you can manage to, anymore.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Feb 9, 2020 2:27:19 GMT -5
Basically, they moved a gene from one potato to another. This is because potatoes don't often produce seed, so you can't just cross two potato plants to get the blight resistant gene from one to the other by selective breeding. It's not like they put a catfish or cockroach gene into a vegetable. I wouldn't worry about this one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mumsey on Feb 9, 2020 6:00:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lilolpeapicker on Feb 9, 2020 9:53:15 GMT -5
Well, the article states they are GMO, so i am assuming(?) it means in a lab and the article states that genes from an argentine variety though it does not specifically state in a lab setting. They are supposed to reduce late blight, bruising and black spots with better storage capacity.
In the field we do (those who wish to), cross plants to get better results. What is happening in a lab is conjecture.
|
|
|
|
Post by Latitude33 on Feb 9, 2020 10:44:22 GMT -5
Thank you for sharing. Plan to highlight this at Earth Walk as another reason to grow your own and/or buy local organic.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Feb 9, 2020 12:31:43 GMT -5
It is GMO, but genetic modification is a technique. Like anything else, you have to see what is being done in each case and what it is that you are objecting to. I don't think one should take antibiotics for every infection that the body can deal with on its own, but if the infection is overwhelming my body's immune system, I will take them. Not going to die because "antibiotics are evil". Science technology is a tool, and tools can be used in positive and negative ways. Potatoes are difficult to breed, which is why we plant tubers, rather than seed. To me, moving a potato gene from one potato to another in a lab is not somehow morally worse than cross pollinating two potato plants. I am sure if that would work, it would be much cheaper to do than to technologically produce them and that's what would be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by davidjp on Feb 9, 2020 13:48:13 GMT -5
Its going to be interesting how we deal with gene editing (Crispr) techniques in the future. Soon GMO will move beyond adding whole new genes to just tweaking existing genes, or adding disease resistant variants of existing genes. It'll be interesting how this is all handled.
|
|
|
|
Post by gardendmpls on Feb 9, 2020 14:00:41 GMT -5
That is basically what they did with the potato. added a resistant variant of an existing potato gene. Genes are basically codes for proteins that perform different functions in the cell. In this case, they added a gene that produces a protein made by another variety of edible potato into a more favored variety.
They are now introducing modified genes into children who have fatal errors in their genes which cause suffering and early death. This enables them to live normal lives. I am sure there are some GMO opposers who would say it is better to let them suffer and die. Wonder if they would sing the same song if it was their child. Like I said before, technology is just a tool. Instead of vilifying all use of it, we should make sure to have the oversight in place to make the best choices.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wheelgarden on Feb 9, 2020 19:04:30 GMT -5
As I modestly understand, CRISPR technology seems to hold the promise of quick genetic modification within a species or variety --- without genetic input from other unrelated organisms (therein would seem to be dragons, messin' with things that may have more unpredictable results).
But ... "I'm just a simple caveman. Your modern world scares and confuses me."
|
|
