http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/science_and_ ... 254905.stm

This is based on nothing more than gut instinct, but I've a feeling there's something about GM food we're missing or not being told... Fcuk, I dunno, but it just seems like it's been too easy or something

I have a couple of issues. One is that it means that farmers are forever beholden to the seed companies as they are not allowed to save seeds for future use. They can also be held liable if they have never bought GM seeds and their crops are polluted with GM genes meaning that they can be forced to hand over funds for something they never bought in the first place. Then there is issue over gene leakage to other plants and weeds.

Is that one of the Bubble Bobble characters?

Works better than Cloverfield did anyway

Yes Cloverfield was bit of a let down. I had no empathy for any of the characters and was waiting for them all to die one way or another. In that respect it fulfilled.

Sounds similar to the Blair Witch Project.

Yes but Blair Witch was made for peanuts. Cloverfield had a bug budget and it showed in bits but not enough to wow.

Surely that's like complaining that bestiality might lead to a dangerous new man-goat hybrid?

No what it means is that weeds are more likely to get resistance to weedkiller if that is what the plants have been given.

We'll have to wait and see. They may be altering one part of the genome for resistance, but can they be sure they are not affecting the reproductive side of things as well?

I'm guessing Amnesia wasn't actually suggesting that plants in the wild might cross pollinate other species (biologically unlikely I assume), and was instead suggesting that other plant would achieve similar resistance genes via evolution. But I like the idea of man-goat-men so I took the conversation down to my level.

Actually that is what I was suggesting. It is unlikely it requires many factors to do so, but plant viruses might be one such vector. Geneticists use plant viruses to get the new genes in so why cant they do the same in the wild naturally? It will be unlikely but then you will have billions more plants spreading pollen. So the odds increase. I am not expecting man goat hybrids but more likely weed killer resistance transfer or improved drought resistance. All which make the job hard in future.

Would I be right in guessing that these are genetically engineered viruses, created by man for the purpose of transporting a specific gene? I don't think that gene transportation is a relevant survival factor in the wild, and it therefore seems astoundingly unlikely that natural selection would create such a creature. A designer might, but that makes this a religious question.

It seems to me that the phrase "So the odds increase" disguises the fact that the odds of the proposed mishap occurring 'increase' from being impossible to being so amazingly improbable that it still defies reason to take it into account, as any number of similarly improbable scenarios can be cooked up to negate it. I have decided that there is for instance an equally significant chance that this breed of potato will one day provide a cure for cancer.

Some plant viruses have been genetically alter but that is only so that they can carry specific genes IIRC. They can use plant viruses without modification, which means that wild ones can in all likelihood do the same. They have already detected some transfer from unrelated plant species in the wild. This was before GM trials. Certain traits are problematic. If weeds develop resistance to specific weedkillers it will mean that they will be far less effective. One benefit of weedkiller resistance is that it can be used in lower doses so costing less. Then there is the pollination route and that can cross pollinate related species many miles away. Already organic farmers are finding their crops are being contaminated by GM pollen over a number of miles. That would not be such a problem but for the heavy handed attitudes of Monsanto and others. If an organic farmer has his crops contaminated by GM pollen then Monsanto have been know to demand royalty payments for Intellectual property theft, even though they are innocent. It is causing serious problems in the US already. If it pollutes a seed suppliers stock then they can be forced out of business. Reducing supplies of seeds for farmers leaving them no choice but to use GM seed.

I would have throught the onus would be on Monsanto to prevent the spread, and I'm surprised that any occurrence goes in their favour with respect to royalties. Not a subject I'm familiar with but only in America I guess (hope).