The perfect genetically-bred orange

[addy]

http://io9.com/#!5791035/mutation-breedi...ect-orange

It won't be available in the market for another five years as it is still in beta stage, but its creators from the University of California are pleased with the results... incredibly sweet, practically seedless, very thin and peelable skin, and can grow in a desert. It was created through "mutation breeding", a concept which freaks me out. Basically they bombard the plants with X-rays, gamma rays, or mutagenic chemicals, in order to create a desirable mutated strain that they have now patented.

What do you guys think? Would you eat such an orange?

[srijantje]

they probably got a lobbygroup in washington which will make sure a law is passed forcing you to grow and eat these things,monsanto style

[billy]

i'd def eat it, personally i think more work should be done in crops that are needed to sustain third world and that can grow
in salt water etc. imagine a wheat that could grow in slat water? imagine any edible crop that could do that.
i think the mutated crop is probably safer to eat that the genetically modified crop.

[srijantje]

yes,i agree,it's the patent part i don't like,it's like with corn,you have to use our seed,you can't stock up,you have to buy new from us every year

[billy]

yeah in parts of mid west, usa farmers go out of business because they've been sued for using a patented or copyrighted crop source.
they're not even allowed to keep seed from crops they've grown on their own land.

i do think in the future we'll have to mutate plants and genetically engineer them in order to feed the world.

[addy]

Oh yes, I've heard of that. The lands of some farmers get contaminated with the patented crop gene (wind blowing pollen and seeds, or some other unavoidable circumstance) and they get sued for it! What a crock.

I'm interested why you think mutated crops are better than genetically modified ones? Genuinely curious.

[billy]

I'm interested why you think mutated crops are better than genetically modified ones? Genuinely curious.

i hate you !

mainly the cost of research and development, think how how much you'd need to hire a group of geneticist and all the facilities and equipment they need, and how much it cost to just iradiate something with xray in order to mutate it. the latter is well within the hands of third world countries, all they need is to be shown how.

i think it's safer to eat because once the fruit has mutated the progeny can (i think) be deemed safe.

both rearrange genes, so you'd think they'd be the same, i'm not a believer of that fact, i think genetically modified foodstuffs could have down the line consequences. the mutated genes seems a more natural way to go jmo and i have no source to show

[addy]

Yeah, you're right about irradiation R&D being much cheaper, though I don't know what their success rate is. And again, that's an interesting point of comparison between genetically modified versus mutated: there's a huge difference betweening just strengthening a strain via environmental stress versus designing every aspect of its DNA. The latter seems a more dangerous route, though really I wouldn't be completely sure how ecologically safe either product is.

[billy]

i personally think both could help, though on national and international levels. i don't believe any crop should be able to hold a copyright.
exotic hybrids maybe but not food and seed. instead of people doing research on crop/seeds for personal wealth, govs should do it through university grants and in-house R&D programs. i say all food copyrights on food crops/seeds should be withdrawn immediately.

[srijantje]

i agree with you totally,such things should be in government hands anyway,not in big companys hands,although i wonder if there still is a difference

[mrmod]

See I don't agree about them having no seeds. This will mean the reproductive genes will be patented and farmers are going to get ripped off.

It happens today with the Monsanto seeds if I'm not wrong. Look it up (or watch Food Inc.)

[billy]

See I don't agree about them having no seeds. This will mean the reproductive genes will be patented and farmers are going to get ripped off.

It happens today with the Monsanto seeds if I'm not wrong. Look it up (or watch Food Inc.)

in certain cases yes but not all. seedless grapes and melons for instance can be grown by anyone by cross pollination of non copyrighted crops. but yeah thats not what you're on about.

the farmer already are getting ripped off, many going out of business after being sued under copyright laws. many seeds are already under copyright.
i don't think food, any crop food seed or tuber, should be held under copyright law, it seems an inhuman thing to do.

[srijantje]

i watched food inc and there is worse to come,no seeds in oranges doesn't mean too much,you can't really grow fruit trees from seeds,you have to graft which will probably also be patented and made illegal

[billy]

but you can grow seedless fruit from most plants,
all you do is cross pollinate with a fruit from a different plant,

so you pollinate one type of orange with another type of orange, no grafting involved.
cross pollination can also give other results such as sweet fruits, bigger or smaller fruits.
the gene manipulation just makes it that the plant will grow it's fruit a certain way with it's own pollen it's similar to grafting but i would presume a hell of a lot quicker in getting results.