Genetically Modified [GM] foods have been making a lot of news lately with the EU temper tantrums over them. There are some articles out there discussing other GM plants. This one is from The Economist.
I'm a bit nervous about GM plants. I worry that they may cause permanent and irreversible variations in the base genetic codes of many plant types. I don't understand how they can guarantee that the pollen from GM plants don't fertilize non-altered plants. Corn, cotton, and many types of trees are being engineered.
Benefits could include lesser needs of insecticides to protect and ensure crops success and alterations of various plants to perform acts that they don't normally do. These may include hazardous chemical remediation, higher uptake of greenhouse gases, etc. There is also the benefit of higher output per acre and the ability to grow in less hospitable conditions.
There is also mention of a more sinister side. Monsanto is genetically modifying plants to be resistant to herbicides. Something that they sell a lot of. If you want to reduce the amount of pesticides used, you should include herbicides in that list.
There is also the pharmaceuticals engineered into plants. Some plants could be used to provide vaccines to animals directly and would then have a lower handling rate and thus lower costs. You could also stitch the vaccines of many deadly diseases directly into food products and ensure people stop dying from these diseases world wide.
Bio-fuels are the big one right now. Ethanol and Bio-diesel. Alternative to oil. My question is, how much would need to be produced to make a dent in oil dependency, and is there a true cost/benefit ratio there that can be beneficial?
I guess I have a lot more to look at.
Here's an interesting article on Super Trees.
This is an article that characterizes the anti-GM groups as alarmists. Though I find Dr. Henry Miller a bit to confident and far to much of a generalist.
I'm a bit nervous about GM plants. I worry that they may cause permanent and irreversible variations in the base genetic codes of many plant types. I don't understand how they can guarantee that the pollen from GM plants don't fertilize non-altered plants. Corn, cotton, and many types of trees are being engineered.
Benefits could include lesser needs of insecticides to protect and ensure crops success and alterations of various plants to perform acts that they don't normally do. These may include hazardous chemical remediation, higher uptake of greenhouse gases, etc. There is also the benefit of higher output per acre and the ability to grow in less hospitable conditions.
There is also mention of a more sinister side. Monsanto is genetically modifying plants to be resistant to herbicides. Something that they sell a lot of. If you want to reduce the amount of pesticides used, you should include herbicides in that list.
There is also the pharmaceuticals engineered into plants. Some plants could be used to provide vaccines to animals directly and would then have a lower handling rate and thus lower costs. You could also stitch the vaccines of many deadly diseases directly into food products and ensure people stop dying from these diseases world wide.
Bio-fuels are the big one right now. Ethanol and Bio-diesel. Alternative to oil. My question is, how much would need to be produced to make a dent in oil dependency, and is there a true cost/benefit ratio there that can be beneficial?
I guess I have a lot more to look at.
Here's an interesting article on Super Trees.
This is an article that characterizes the anti-GM groups as alarmists. Though I find Dr. Henry Miller a bit to confident and far to much of a generalist.
No comments:
Post a Comment