[Kosh]

Do some kinds of GM crops require less fertilizer? I did a search on google about this, but I wasn't able to find anything. I would prefer a link to something since I'm having a debate about this with someone.

[Ghostavo]

http://www.google.pt/search?hl=pt-PT&q=gm+crops+less+fertilizer&btnG=Pesquisar&meta=

It seems yes, some require less fertilizer.

[MP-Ryan]

Do some kinds of GM crops require less fertilizer? I did a search on google about this, but I wasn't able to find anything. I would prefer a link to something since I'm having a debate about this with someone.

Possible, but it's likely more coincidental than by design.

Most GM crops are modified either to produce higher yields or to be resistant to certain pesticides (thus allowing a more generic pesticide to be sprayed across the crops to kill undesirable weeds), such as Roundup-Ready Canola.

The most common genetic modification by far is simply to increase the ploidy of the plant.  Plants are unusual in that they are rarely diploid, like most chordates (two sets of chromosome copies).  Many are tetra-, hexa-, or even octaploid.  In most plants, ploidy directly correlates with the overall size of the plant.  Unlike most animal species, higher numbers of chromosome sets don't tend to cause serious consequences for plants due to gene expression balance either.  Thus, with a simple drug that disrupts cytoskeleton formation we can cause plants to duplicate their chromosome sets as if they're undergoing mitosis without actually splitting the cell.  These lines can be grown into fully grown plants that produce identical seeds.

Some other tentative modifications have been proposed and are in the works.  A common suggestion is to locate the gene(s) in fish that provide resistance to freezing and transfer them into tomatoes;  however, to my knowledge this hasn't actually been done yet.

I know David Suzuki takes some issue with GM organisms in the food supply not being marked, and I partially agree with him, but on the whole the majority of GM foods are not the subjects of gene transfer but rather duplication of chromosome sets which just makes plants bigger and doesn't change their overall properties.  When you start dealing with livestock then there are more serious health concerns that should be tested and documented.  At present, GM livestock doesn't really exist; the current problem with livestock is the hormone injections.  Frankly, I'd rather see GM livestock expressing more GFs than the current livestock injection scheme, but that's just me.

[Aardwolf]

GM organisms in the food supply not being marked

[rant]

This is stupid. It's equivalent to forcing everybody who is left-handed to wear a big sign over their head to that effect. Basically, it alerts people to something being different, and people, being stupid, will assume that they are being alerted of this because there is something wrong with the thing.

Many of the people who are against GMOs being in the food supply are against it just because of heresay--they haven't done research, they haven't looked up the research that's been done. But they won't eat it, because it hasn't been proven safe. (Bull****)

Then there's the religious fanatics who think it's somehow "unholy" to do anything that modifies the DNA of a living thing (or to do cloning, for that matter). They go around buying lobbyists to get politicians to enact laws which force more tests to be done. And they go around buying scientists to make up bull**** about it being unsafe. Etc.

[/rant]

[karajorma]

It's all very well giving the consumer choice but that often means we give them the choice to be idiots.

[MP-Ryan]

GM organisms in the food supply not being marked

[rant]

This is stupid. It's equivalent to forcing everybody who is left-handed to wear a big sign over their head to that effect. Basically, it alerts people to something being different, and people, being stupid, will assume that they are being alerted of this because there is something wrong with the thing.

Many of the people who are against GMOs being in the food supply are against it just because of heresay--they haven't done research, they haven't looked up the research that's been done. But they won't eat it, because it hasn't been proven safe. (Bull****)

Then there's the religious fanatics who think it's somehow "unholy" to do anything that modifies the DNA of a living thing (or to do cloning, for that matter). They go around buying lobbyists to get politicians to enact laws which force more tests to be done. And they go around buying scientists to make up bull**** about it being unsafe. Etc.

[/rant]

Actually, marking foods produced from genetically modified plants or livestock isn't a bad idea.  Aside from the usual stupidity and nonsense from the less-educated and poorly-informed rabble, there are several good reasons for such indications.

1.  Genetically modified organisms are unregulated.  That is to say, if someone did introduce fish genes into tomatoes to prevent freezing, you still have tomatoes as the end result.  You aren't applying a pesticide, which would be regulated, or even a growth hormone, which is partially regulated.  In terms of testing and long-term consequences, GMOs are the Wild West.  What happens if those genes, benign in fish, produce a toxic anti-freeze-like compound when expressed in plants after several generations?

2.  Traceable food supply.  You can quickly track down where a problem (such as tainted meat, Salmonella outbreak, etc) comes from if the food supply chain is under closer scrutiny.

3.  Personal choice.  As some with an education in genetics I have no problem eating foods that are modified at that level - but some people do.  While I may not respect the reasoning they use to make that choice, I certainly do respect their right to have a choice.  Frankly, I'd like to see a labelling requirement for foods produced from livestock given hormone injections too.

Suzuki's wrong about the fear-mongering, but he's right about the fact that we simply don't know if there are going to be any side-effects which manifest over long periods of time (as there have been with hormone injections).  The main point is that regulation needs to begin while GMOs in the food supply are restricted to benign modifications done to plants, rather than the potentially more dangerous ones done with livestock.

[Kosh]

Interesting, thanks. One other thing. Recently they brought up this , which was allegedly a study stating that the BT toxins found in BT corn are toxic to mammals. Is there anything to refute this?