Tim Eck
Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:39:44 PST
I'm not certain I understand any of what you wrote:
None of the transgenic pesticides target microfauna and certainly not in
soil (that I know of).
Prior to RoundUp, we were losing billions of tons of topsoil a year to
erosion caused by tillage.  It has no effect in soils and is destroyed by
native soil bacteria.
And yes, nearly all commercial and home garden crops are aliens which
necessarily displace natives.  The trend started about 15,000 years ago and
led to civilization.
Why would anybody make a pollen sterile crop that would have no yield?  It
sort of defeats the purpose of a crop.

-----Original Message-----
From: pbs [] On Behalf Of T O
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:38 AM
Subject: Re: [pbs] GMOs

The problem with GMOs is absolutely the plants themselves, when they have
pesticides built into their genes which have the unwanted effects of killing
the micro fauna in the soil. "Round-up ready" is no better, facilitating the
use of much herbicide.  Monocrops in general displace enormous plots of land
which was once home to thousands of species, including geophytes.  Bottom
line is the crops destroy biodiversity all around them.

 If a company can cross genes so unrelated, why couldn't they have made them
pollen sterile? That would solve two problems. One to prevent contamination
of organic growers crops and two to prevent seed formation, which they don't
allow anyway due to the utility patents.  Organic seed growers are required
to have their crops tested yearly for the presence of GMOs, out of pocket.
See for some highly
interesting essays on utility patents, GMO sugar beets, and common sense.

That being said, there are only a few ornamental GMOs that I'm aware of
(glow in the dark houseplants, blue rose attempts) and I'm sure they are
grown with tissue culture, so I doubt their affect on the environment is as


More information about the pbs mailing list