electric said:
Not anymore so then many native genes in the plant.
Somewhat more at least - if only because more widely distributed in active form, not under all of the plant's own evolved higher order regulation, and no longer under its original genome's organization and sequestration either. That's if the transfer protocols and arrangements created no other loopholes and possibilities (such as duplications and other inherently more easily mobilized units, more effective and less easily regulated insertion mechanisms, etc).
electric said:
Ok well you argue its could be inserted on a plasmid based insert so it could transfer into bacteria, true but so are many native plant genes.
So instead of a few - not that many - familiar and long-established plant plasmid genes available for occasional transfer into insects, fungi, bacteria, mycoplasmas, nematodes, earthworms, viruses, and so forth,
we have this stretch of modified, effective, more easily incorporated genetic material, of a kind and from a source not previously available to these beings, set up for horizontal transfer and broadcast into the world's landscapes in billions of copies by the square kilometer.
They can test for the problems with that, you claim.
And this is merely one of the many factors brand new to this planet as of twenty years ago, just one notable aspect among many, of a situation you claim is familiar and understood and routinely regulated by government agency.
electric said:
And if you want its transferance to be reduced GM can easily do that by creating strains that can't breed with other plants and whose inserts were not plasmid based.
That might help, yes. It's not actually that simple to do, but it is an obvious possibility and should be attempted.
But we notice that genetic engineers, as a group, will not behave responsibly like that on their own. They are busy collecting big paychecks from DuPont (Borlaug turned DuPont down) and lending their credentials to support lies about safety and familiarity by Monsanto's marketing and public relations department.
They are lending their political voice to the establishment of legal norms and economic realities that have nothing to contribute, intentionally, to any of the potential community benefits of GM technology - quite the opposite.
electric said:
If you want traditional agriculture you can go to Africa and starve to death, our agriculture is far from tradition even without GMOs.
Good point. Africa was not starving like this under its former, traditional, agricultural arrangements. Africa, like Haiti, was once prosperous and well fed. We are already in the middle of adjustments to some very new and not well understood innovations in agriculture, and have seen some unexpected side effects - such as plantation slavery, or transcontinental crop disease, or famine from currency fluctuations, or destruction of ocean fisheries from river watershed tillage practices - pop up and prove somewhat difficult to handle. We are still approaching the shoe drop on petroleum dependent fertilization and transport, and we have prepared by destroying local food security for some billion or more people (Let's call Haiti's situation a canary).
electric said:
Well I would say more in augmentation of traditional breeding, I not say all rather in and when improvements can be gained.
So you, like the rest of the sane world, want to avoid reckless endangerment of the ecological, economical, and agricultural systems of major human civilizations for the short term profits and power of a few multinational companies.
And you recognize that this GMO stuff is not equivalent to traditional crop breeding or similar better understood innovations.
And that would be
net improvements, right? Something you would need a generation or two, minimum, of real world experience to even begin to evaluate? Something with much wider and more general considerations involved than Monsanto's bottom line?