Canola plants, which have been genetically engineered to better withstand pesticides against weeds and other pests, have escaped into the wild in the US
Between the war between the champion of the Luf and the champion of the onion, and other stories of Israeli politics, in recent days an important story has slipped through the fingers of the media. This is not a scientific breakthrough, the kind I like to report on, but an event that many predicted and predicted would happen, and now has finally emerged into the reality of our lives. Genetically modified organisms have escaped into nature, and are thriving and growing successfully in the United States.
Already decades ago, black visionaries began to predict a future in which genetically modified animals and plants manage to escape from the laboratories and the breeding fields reserved for them. Among the particularly nightmarish versions of such a plot can be found science fiction books predicting that giant carnivorous plants will grow legs and begin to carry out their plot on humans as well. If you are scared, you can relax. The genetically modified plants, recently discovered in North Dakota in the United States, were not programmed to harm living creatures. exactly the opposite. These are canola plants, which have been genetically modified so that they can better withstand pesticides against weeds and other pests.
On the face of it, this is a rather innocent discovery. After all, what happened? A few seeds from fields of genetically engineered canola drifted with the wind, finding soil and water in the vastness of nature and the wild. However, the finding raises serious concerns regarding the future use of genetically modified plants. Until now we believed that it was possible to isolate these plants from nature, and limit their cultivation to the fields only. It turns out not so.
What is the greatest danger? These plants can disrupt the entire ecological balance in the environment they invade. There are, for example, genetically modified plants to produce toxins against insects. If these spread in the bar, they may lead to a drastic decrease in the proportion of insects capable of pollinating edible plants in that area. It is likely that the insect population will undergo a rapid evolution, and that future generations will be able to deal with the toxins, but such a change may take several years, during which the fruit trees and other plants that rely on insects for their pollination will suffer.
Another concern is that the genetically engineered plants will be able to reproduce with the wild population, and transfer to it the genes they received in the laboratories. This concern is on the rise these days, because plants in North Dakota have been found to contain two different defenses against herbicides. The original transgenic plants include only one protection. The clear conclusion is that the plants were able to become lovers (by long distance transmission) with each other in nature, and the product of the hybridization was a plant that contained transgenic genes that came from both of its parents. This plant is protected from two different types of herbicides. Not bad. But the threat scenario, as mentioned, is the one in which the plants are endowed with a feature that could harm humans or the ecological chain - and now they are also able to pass it on to all their other relatives in the area.
The scientific community only managed to discover the escaped plants last month, but there is evidence that these leafy creatures have been thriving in the wild for several generations, and they grow on the sides of roads and near gas stations, far from any agricultural field. The genie, it turns out, is already out of the bottle. Now one only has to wonder what other demons are hiding inside the tank.
At this point I have to wonder: is it really worth using genetically modified plants, considering the dangers that accompany their use? And the answer, unfortunately, is positive. In order to feed a growing human population in developing and developed countries, more efficient and more robust plants are needed. The phenomenon of desertification is spreading, and global warming will bring about radical changes in the climate that will especially affect plants. The lack of water has already been defined as one of the biggest dangers we will have to face in the coming decades. We desperately need genetically modified plants that can grow and thrive in harsh growing environments, under minimal irrigation. Plants of this type have already been produced at the Technion and other academic institutions around the world, and these studies are beginning to bear fruit, in the full sense of the word. Will they escape into the wild? Yes, for sure. But they may also be the key that will carry the human race into the next century. The return, in this case at least, is greater than the risk.
That is, of course, until we hear the pleas under the window of the house - "feed me, feed me!"
More of the topic in Hayadan:
19 תגובות
How is the conclusion related to the body of the article?
There is no need to genetically engineer plants, there is enough food on earth for the entire population, the problem is how the resources are distributed and the purposes for which they are exploited.
The western world is drowning in calories and food while in Africa they are starving. Trillions of dollars are poured into weapons and wars. Even if we produce twice as much food with the same inputs, who guarantees that the food will reach Africa? Who guaranteed that the resources that were freed up would not reach a weapons manufacturer?
The main problem in the western world is missing calories, but food empty of vitamins and minerals, this problem does not stand before the eyes of the companies that engineer the plants, on the contrary, I fear that the engineered plants will be even poorer in vitamins and minerals. Genetic engineering is not used to improve the plant or increase the yield, it is Used to obtain a business advantage - the example given in the article - a plant that is resistant to a certain insecticide is produced, then the seeds of the resistant plant and the appropriate insecticide are sold to the farmer, this is how new insecticides can be introduced. This is also how other manufacturers of insecticides such as Makhteshim Agan, which did not invest in genetic engineering, are being thrown away. Does anyone have any idea what the resistance gene does to the human body? How many years have you studied it?
Not after everything that "health" organizations decide, you have to say Amen.
The solution to the need to feed populations is not to increase the amount of food, but to reduce populations. The earth was not designed to support a population of billions of humans who destroy the habitats of other creatures (of all types and species). The reason is a crazy birth rate in many countries such as Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia, Arab countries and Islamic countries in general, India, Bangladesh and also in many places in Africa.
This wild birth rate is a result of the feeling of humans that the earth belongs to them alone and since human nature is to try to raise their standard of living (in any way of consumption - food consumption, transportation, clothing and so on) it is clear that more people - more destruction of the environment ( Even if everyone fulfills all the instructions of the Tokyo Convention, the Cancun Convention and any other convention that they do not invent). You can write an equation - C=P*L where C is an increase in resource consumption (including food), P is an increase in the population and L is an increase in the standard of living. If L and P are positive then C is positive - maybe small, but in a hundred or two hundred years and the resources will run out.
Since L will always be positive (because on average no person is willing to lower their standard of living - for example, eat less!) in order to save humanity from itself, the birth rate must be drastically reduced, even stopped for several years.
Of course, preventive medicine also "improved" the situation - in all countries whose population is growing wildly, there are good people who take care of low infant mortality. This is how humanity has become a monster of 6-7 billion, which will destroy every other living species and also the plant in the end, with or without genetics experiments.
Let's see who will be able to refute these claims!!!
The main problem is not a lack of food but a misuse of resources so that there is a shortage in some places and an excess in others. The strange subsidy of the US government in American agriculture as it is today affects the global food balance, as well as the patents issued by huge companies on different types of food.
So genetic engineering is not the solution, but only a small band-aid on a huge wound, whose source is mainly economic/social, and no genetic engineering will solve it.
I assume you mean maybe what will happen to future generations if there is no genetic engineering in plants. They will starve, but it is easier for someone who has no responsibility to produce a film and distribute it on YouTube.
http://www.thefutureoffood.com/index.html
Dr. Joseph Mercola: "Have you seen THE FUTURE OF FOOD? Without a doubt
this is one of the best documentaries I have ever watched. It will
help you understand the very real threat that ALL future generations face
face as a result of genetic engineering. Please schedule 90 minutes and
watch this film with your family!”
The problem is that there are more and more reports from the field that genetically modified plants are recognized as a foreign, invading factor, and provoke a response from the body's immune system. Not only in animals but also in humans.
For example: farmers in the Philippines in recent years report that as soon as they planted fields of transgenic corn, a phenomenon of allergic reactions in the skin and respiratory tract began during the flowering of the corn.
For general knowledge, the pollination of the corn is done by the wind, and these pollens are inhaled by the farmers and create these diseases.
Link to article:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Bt-Corn-Human-Disease24feb04.htm
I would just like to add to the list of dangerous-things-that-happen-and-nobody-is-excited, antibiotic-resistant bacteria hanging out in hospitals like kids in a candy store.
When was the last time someone was upset that in hospitals the staff don't wash their hands properly? It's easier to worry about something distant and mysterious...
Michael and R.H.
I have no problem with the news.
The problem is with the surprise that it happened and I hope there are contingency plans for such cases. Not to be remembered in the 90th minute.
Genetically modified plants are copyright holders in the USA, if you grow them in your yard you must not use them in any way, you must report and pay royalties. Too bad it's not open source
Messing with genetic engineering is messing with all of evolution.
In nature, every animal has its natural enemies, which keeps the balance.
And as soon as there is an invasion of an unknown species into a new area, it can end badly.
Like the poisonous toads that were imported to Australia to fight the beetle that damaged the sugar cane crops, the idea was "biological warfare" without chemicals.
All those who came up with the brilliant idea did not understand at all the meaning of introducing a new species into an environment that is not its own, and that it is impossible to control the results.
As soon as one species changes, it affects the whole environment, the whole environment changes, like the butterfly effect, changing the environment increases the percentage of species extinction.
We are currently in the midst of one of the largest species extinctions in the history of the planet, and it is all man-made.
Accidents happen, there is no such thing as 0% accidents.
Playing with genetics is like playing with fire.
The changes are much sharper and more extreme than the reaction time of nature.
And when the genetic technology matures, it will be much faster and dangerous for the environment.
But by and large it cannot be prevented.
Gil Dotan,
Regarding Jurassic Park, what is the fundamental difference between a normal zoo containing lions, tigers and venomous snakes and Jurassic Park? What nonsense is this that in Jurassic Park they are dealing with forces beyond our understanding. In my opinion, assuming that it was possible to create dinosaurs, their park would not differ in essence from the safari in Ramat Gan.
Venomous Insect Park is much more dangerous than Jurassic Park.
In the 70s, with the beginning of molecular biology and the cloning of genes for resistance in bacteria, the question "what would happen if such a bacterium escaped and spread the resistance to pathogenic bacteria" also arose. In the beginning, many laws were enacted to prevent such a situation. However, over time it became clear that the situation was not so serious. All these genes for resistance in bacteria and as in the case below in plants originate from organisms from nature. These genes "turn around" and undergo lateral transfer even without the help of humans, and when there is strong selection, those who hold them remain. It is assumed that any cloning or engineering we produce has already happened at some time or place in a "natural" way (aren't we part of nature?)
Widespread use of herbicides will result, whether we like it or not, in the rise and flourishing of resistant strains, similar to what also happens in microorganisms, even if we do not produce our own resistant strains.
So the panic and hysteria in the style of "oh my" resistant plants "escaped", as if a serial killer escaped from Alcatraz is a bit exaggerated.
Can you please link to the source of the news?
There are other ways to protect against the "escape" of plant species into the wild, for example using hybrids after creating a plant containing the desired traits through genetic engineering. The hybridization process is carried out in a controlled environment (small, isolated greenhouses) and the resulting seeds are delivered to farmers for planting in large, uncontrolled fields. The result is plants with the desired traits, but sterile (if the hybridization was done correctly, of course), which cannot reproduce. This is like a cross between a horse and a donkey. The result - the mule, he is barren who cannot breed with either a donkey, a horse or a mule, lives his life, pulls the cart, and dies without leaving behind offspring.
Warnings against uncontrolled distribution in nature of alien species to the natural environment are very common, and we are not very alarmed by it despite the possible damages. Ports of fire that penetrated the country and spread from south to north and the most striking example is the spread of tropical organisms through the Suez Canal to the closed Mediterranean Sea. The filamentous jellyfish pass through the Suez Canal seasonally and there is no guessing what could ever develop from such a passage, which species will take over from another and consume an existing population. See the case of the algae that escaped from the Maritime Museum in Cannes and are killing and destroying the coasts of Italy and France.
Friends:
It should be understood that there is no fundamental difference between genetic engineering and evolution, and both can create useful things as they can create harmful things.
It is true that in genetic engineering it is possible to do things that the chance of occurring in normal evolution is close to zero, but this is not a problem. The "natural" has no principled advantage over the "artificial" (the quotation marks are intentional because there are no unnatural things in the world and genetic engineering is a natural thing for man to engage in).
As Roy pointed out - the promise of genetic engineering is great and there is no need to expand on it.
I would like, in this response, to emphasize the danger, not to exaggerate its severity (I agree with Roy that the expected profit exceeds the expected loss) but so that we understand what we are talking about.
The danger in genetic engineering is in the rate of creation of the new species and not in their creation.
New species are created, as mentioned, also naturally, and the chances of a new species to harm or benefit are the same - whether it was created by genetic engineering or whether it was created naturally.
People who hate risk behave conservatively - that is - they try to avoid revolutions.
why?
Because those who try something new take a risk.
That is why there is a certain danger in consuming a new type of food - whether created naturally or created artificially.
When we consume "natural" food we are less at risk because the chance of it being mutant is smaller.
We know that the "natural" species suits us because we have already paid the evolutionary price for it - those for whom it was toxic are no longer with us, usually (only usually, because it is a never-ending process - is the evolution of the pole a "good" thing? It depends on Who is asking - there are populations to which it is harmful) and the existing ecology, which includes it, is stable.
The point is that without risk there is no chance either.
If we do not develop genetically modified varieties, there will be a severe food shortage and people will die of starvation.
The way to reduce the risk is, of course, as comprehensive tests as possible before release.
Thanks to these tests - a new species created in a laboratory is less dangerous than a new species created in nature (because the latter does not undergo special tests before use). The danger that does exist stems from the proliferation of new species and incidents such as those described in the article.
like in jurassic park
If things can happen they will.
Why do "scientists" think they are immune to Murphy's Law?
Ra'anan, domestication works by the means of evolution as such - the natural selection (performed by humans) and not by technological means that include genetically engineered changes of the genes. There is a huge difference between the two ways: while domestication uses what comes its way (natural mutations are useful in the extreme case), genetic engineering actually changes genes. A bit like the difference between democratic elections and a military revolution... or maybe the difference between hope (which came out of Pandora's box after the gods were comforted for their abuse of humans) and everything that came out of the box before that...
Even organic and non-GMO carrots and cabbage are actually a type of GMO because man domesticated them from a wild plant that hardly resembles modern carrots and cabbage. Domestication is genetic engineering for all intents and purposes, only through slow, non-technological means, and so it is with many other plants.