warning about people interested in cornstarch seed propagation

[Ozpaph]

Anecdotes are not science.
However, observation and epidemiology do provide insights into unexpected occurences.

 

[bullsie]

Science when right is good. When it is wrong it is ugly.

 

[cnycharles]

I have an idea Bullsie; maybe someone can take a sample of the expected bad corn and take it to someone who has a mass spectrometer and see what is different in it. When working for the soybean prof we could put samples into the 'burner' and see what likely compounds were in it based on what it gave off when burning. This was mostly for beans I think that were destined for human consumption rather than animal feed
This may not show some particular things but should show chemical compounds


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray]

The GMO debate in the recent Washington state labeling made a distinction and this is what I tend to hear more often. GMO is more akin to placing genetic material specifically in the gene sequence that you can't get from hybridizing. Recombinant DNA techniques such as artificially splicing DNA into the genes made from scratch..using plasmid vectors or whatever they do now (I have been out of Biotech for 20 years so my tech language may be old school). I think the school of thought is that with hybridizing, the plants use their natural abilities to create new genetic material..whereas with GMO, there is a sense that the new DNA is forced, thus creating 'Frankensteins"

That makes sense, Ed.

So let me ask this: What makes all "Frankensteins" bad?

 

[maitaman]

This was not supposed to be about GMO, which has possibilities for good things, but not so long as big greedy "to hell with side-effects" corporations are involved.
I really appreciate that "diatribe against..." remark. Do you know the meaning of the word?
The book is Orchids From Seed for Pennies: Cornstarch method. It's om B&N, Kobo, Apple, etc.
I put that here and other sites because I don't want people to try the method and it fails.
I discovered what was happening, as i use the method to raise seeds from crosses of natural species here in Panamá. Everything from phrags to epis to spathy to brs. I never had a problem until a little over a year ago, when the method stopped working. The cornstarch would sour and liquify. Things that germinated would soon die off. I just got the information about the GMO corn a few days ago. Both brands available here are made from GMO corn, so I have to find a new source of cornstarch or have it made for me by my Indio friends - who absolutely refuse to use any GMO seed for anything.
Yahaira says the seeds smell poisonous.
I do think that this shows that there are dangers, possibly to people's health, from a product that poisons seeds. I know I will never use those two brands in cooking in my house again.
YES, such things should be labelled. Period. The consumer should have the choice of what he/she and their children EAT, for crying out loud!

 

[gonewild]

So let me ask this: What makes all "Frankensteins" bad?

All are not bad. But one bad Frankenstein could be enough to have a major negative impact on the entire world.

Laboratory GMO is not the same as plant hybridization.
Hybridize two corn varieties and you get something that is 100% corn
Splice a gene (GMO) from a fungi into a corn cell and you have a Frankenstein.
Will the frankenstein corn increase food supply by being resistant to rust or will it destroy all corn on Earth? No one can be sure of the answer and no company or scientist or government should have the right to artificially create life or life changing organisms based on an educated guess.

I'm 100% against GMO. Will I eat food that is labeled GMO? Yes I will.
I don't think there is likely a health issue caused by the direct consumption of the modified plant. The risk I see by releasing GMOs into the environment is that they reproduce and pollinate other plants. There is a possibility that the artificial life forms could completely alter the related natural life forms in a negative way. No one should have the right to decide that is safe for us.

 

[bullsie]

The risk I see by releasing GMOs into the environment is that they reproduce and pollinate other plants. There is a possibility that the artificial life forms could completely alter the related natural life forms in a negative way. No one has the right to decide that is safe for us.

In South America, the farmers are being taught how to distinguish GMO corn from their native natural varieties. They have a huge fear of it destroying what their ancestors have kept pure for centuries and their population - and probably the world (research the potato blight that affected Ireland) - rely upon.

 

[bullsie]

One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.

 

[gonewild]

In South America, the farmers are being taught how to distinguish GMO corn from their native natural varieties. They have a huge fear of it destroying what their ancestors have kept pure for centuries and their population - and probably the world (research the potato blight that affected Ireland) - rely upon.

Peru has a constitutional law banning GMOs of any kind.
BUT the big money is paying off congress to open the door.
They use excuses like GMOs can help prevent climate change.

 

[gonewild]

One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.

It's not a popular position to take when you argue science is wrong when that science supports the big money corporations and is the only source of research funding.

 

[Linus_Cello]

Could we move the discussion about GMOs generally to another thread, and limit this one just to use of GMO cornstarch for germination? (and while we're at it, the thread could also discuss politics, religion and k-lite )

 

[bullsie]

I'm good with that! Although, the reason for the cornstarch/germination difficulties is present here and there.

 

[PaphMadMan]

I really appreciate that "diatribe against..." remark. Do you know the meaning of the word?

Why yes, I do know the meaning of the word. I should have been more specific and said "ad hominem diatribe" since that makes my intent far clearer. Thanks for the opportunity to elaborate.

 

[Stone]

All are not bad. But one bad Frankenstein could be enough to have a major negative impact on the entire world.

Laboratory GMO is not the same as plant hybridization.
Hybridize two corn varieties and you get something that is 100% corn
Splice a gene (GMO) from a fungi into a corn cell and you have a Frankenstein.
Will the frankenstein corn increase food supply by being resistant to rust or will it destroy all corn on Earth? No one can be sure of the answer and no company or scientist or government should have the right to artificially create life or life changing organisms based on an educated guess.

I'm 100% against GMO. Will I eat food that is labeled GMO? Yes I will.
I don't think there is likely a health issue caused by the direct consumption of the modified plant. The risk I see by releasing GMOs into the environment is that they reproduce and pollinate other plants. There is a possibility that the artificial life forms could completely alter the related natural life forms in a negative way. No one should have the right to decide that is safe for us.

Believe it or not I completely agree with this Lance!
No doubt well intentioned scientists initially came up with the idea of adding exotic genes to an organism to see if they could solve a problem. But after big money ''took over'' the potential for pandora's box being opened is now here.
After hearing outrageous stories like Monsanto suing a canola farmer for using seed which had been pollinated by his neighbour's GM canola, I now consider these companies as having absolutely no regard for human health but profit only.

Getting a bit off topic (but related), the argument about ''feeding the world's people'' with GM crops fails to address the elephant in the room. IMO there are too many people on this planet as is. Almost all modern economic and environmental problems can be quickly traced back to too high a world population. As I see it there simply cannot exist a popultion of any species (including Homo Sapien) without food to sustain it. It is impossible. By sustain I don't mean thrive, I mean survive long enough to breed.

So looking at it in that light, the short sighted policy of increasing the world food production will not lead to solution but only to more human misery in the end. Not once have I ever heard any politician anywhere in the world even dare to mention this issue. Growth is their answer to everything. What we need is stability not constant growth! Yet there must come a time where this problem must be faced. When will it happen??

 

[Ozpaph]

Believe it or not I completely agree with this Lance!
No doubt well intentioned scientists initially came up with the idea of adding exotic genes to an organism to see if they could solve a problem. But after big money ''took over'' the potential for pandora's box being opened is now here.
After hearing outrageous stories like Monsanto suing a canola farmer for using seed which had been pollinated by his neighbour's GM canola, I now consider these companies as having absolutely no regard for human health but profit only.

Getting a bit off topic (but related), the argument about ''feeding the world's people'' with GM crops fails to address the elephant in the room. IMO there are too many people on this planet as is. Almost all modern economic and environmental problems can be quickly traced back to too high a world population. As I see it there simply cannot exist a popultion of any species (including Homo Sapien) without food to sustain it. It is impossible. By sustain I don't mean thrive, I mean survive long enough to breed.

So looking at it in that light, the short sighted policy of increasing the world food production will not lead to solution but only to more human misery in the end. Not once have I ever heard any politician anywhere in the world even dare to mention this issue. Growth is their answer to everything. What we need is stability not constant growth! Yet there must come a time where this problem must be faced. When will it happen??

Well, except China with a one child policy.................

 

[Secundino]

I discovered what was happening, as i use the method to raise seeds from crosses of natural species here in Panamá. Everything from phrags to epis to spathy to brs. I never had a problem until a little over a year ago, when the method stopped working. The cornstarch would sour and liquify.

That explains a lot! I thought that would always happen with starch-based media. Now I've learned a new thing! Thank you!

I hope I can get that book over here too.

Best wishes and "cuídate" !

 

[TyroneGenade]

One has to remember too, many studies conducted and submitted for approval are done by the companies who make or engineer them. For some reason today, independent studies are not as important or necessary to gain a products approval for use. Sort of like having the fox maintain the chicken house.

I don't see a problem with this. It is in there interest of the company to do accurate research and avoid liability. Look at the Tobacco industry who were caught hiding data concerning the threat of smoking to health. How many millions have they paid out in liability claims? How much as Pfizer, Merck etc.. paid out for poorly researched products that damaged people? It is in the financial interest of GMO producers to check their products and do proper research. When people start dying off from GMO, that is hard to hide...

My concern is that the companies assume that their product is safe and don't do the experiments. While necessity is the mother of invention, assumption is the the mother of all screw ups.

The case against glyphosate is building mass. In that case the glyphosate resistance gene isn't the problem--i.e. it isn't a GMO issue---so much as a failure of the entire concept. On the other hand, golden rice go from strength to strength: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice .

Labeling will force companies to do the toxicology work to prove their case that the GMOs are safe. And they will probably have to get independent labs to do the experiments to win the trust of the rational portion of the populace.

 

[paphioboy]

Getting a bit off topic (but related), the argument about ''feeding the world's people'' with GM crops fails to address the elephant in the room. IMO there are too many people on this planet as is.

Too many people is one factor, but IMHO, the inability to feed the world's people is not just due to inability to produce enough food. My personal perception is one of the major factors is increase in food wastage, especially in more developed countries.

 

[cnycharles]

There is a lot of food wastage, and a lot happens from 'food pests' and improper storage. One very large problem is that at times when certain areas have a food and water shortage, those few who have power are a different group than others in that region, so food going to 'the least' gets stolen or never distributed to those most in need on purpose or simply kept for just the leading clan. In other situations I've heard where food brokers and other related ilk getting very upset with people donating food to people in famine regions. Because the donating 'cuts down on the brokers profits'. In both cases the ones who 'have' don't care if the have nots starve; it's their friends first or their wallet that matters only. ..... But wastage is a huge problem but it's not all from gluttony but much from pests and decay



Sent using Tapatalk