Talk:Genetically modified plant

Merge transgenic plant with genetically modified plant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

18 days and only one reply. I will be bold and go ahead with the merger AIRcorn (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

---

The transgenic plant article presently is split into two topics. One deals with horizontal gene transfer (HGT), which does not create transgenic plants. The other deals with genetically modified plants so would fit into this article. The HGT information, if acceptable, could be used in the HGT article. The article should be named Genetically modified plant as this is the most common name, will cover all transgenic plants as well as the few cisgenic and would be consistent with Genetically modified mammals, fish, bacteria and viruses. AIRcorn (talk) 12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Support the articles are essentially covering the same topic and GMP is the sensible place to merge them to. Smartse (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The merge

Merged most of the information over. Still needs some work to wikify and I will continue to work on this. I altered a few things in the merge. AIRcorn (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Removed the NPOV template from the Natural Gene Flow section as I turned this into history and it is now in better context.
2. Removed the list of Transgenic resistance traits in bread wheat varieties as there is no commercially availible genetically modified wheat yet and the list was not very useful to your average reader
3. Removed some of the sentances with citation needed or other tags, found citations for others and left some. Will work on the remaining when I get time.
4. Have not brought any of the external links over. Some could be uselful though, they can be found on the pre merge page
5. Trimmed the see also of anything that was in the template. It still needs further trimming however
6. Did not transfer the expert needed template.

Reference to broken DOI

A reference was recently added to this article using the Cite DOI template. The citation bot tried to expand the citation, but could not access the specified DOI. Please check that the DOI doi:10.3733/ca.v054n04p6 has been correctly entered. If the DOI is correct, it is possible that it has not yet been entered into the CrossRef database. Please complete the reference by hand here. The script that left this message was unable to track down the user who added the citation; it may be prudent to alert them to this message. Thanks, Citation bot 2 (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done AIRcorn (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

EU ban on GM crops

In the section 'History' the text says that the EU had a formal ban on GM crops, until it was overturned in 2006. But GMO Compass states that Spain has been growing GM crops since 1998. Does anybody know how to reconcile these? Did Spain flout the rules or perhaps was the EU ban not so universal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SylviaStanley (talk • contribs) 11:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The de facto moratorium (1999-2003) concerned only new approvals. 1996-1998 saw the approval of 14 GM varieties (and more after the moratorium ended), but these were mostly approvals for import and use as food/feed, not for cultivation (GMO compass has a nice overview on approvals for cultivation/feed/food/import/processing). Bt maize (only the variety MON810, and only for feed) is the only GM crop that has been grown in the EU so far. France imposed a ban on MON810 in 2008, Germany did the same in 2009 (politically motivated, not scientifically justified). Several other EU countries also grow some Bt maize. The first EU-approval of a GM variety for commercial cultivation after 1998 was Amflora in March 2010. Austria and Luxembourg almost immediately imposed national bans. Amflora has been planted on 15 ha in Germany; the planting were soon after attacked by activists. Amflora is grown on 80 ha in Sweden, and some in the Czech Republic. --Katach (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Environmental and socioeconomic impacts still missing

The environmental (pesticide & fuel use), health (pesticide poisonings) and agronomic/economic impacts (yields, costs, net incomes) need to be added to the section "Agricultural impact of transgenic plants". There are several good reviews to be found in the scientific literature, which I referred to when writing the German entry on GM crops. Janet Carpenter's review of all peer-reviewed studies (2010) that were published until August 2009 is a good starting point. Brookes et al. (2010) document the environmental impacts. Matin Qaim's review (2009) gives a good overview on the economics of GM crops. The report by the National Research Council (2010) has some useful information, too. Hopefully someone will add the evidence compiled in these reviews to the article. --Katach (talk) 07:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Biosafety/ecological risks

I noticed that the section on Biosafety is completely unsourced. Sanvido et al. (2007) provide a comprehensive, 44p review on the scientific evidence concerning ecological impacts/risks. I found it extremely helpful when working on the German entry. --Katach (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Types: added text

changed text to:

Transgenic maize containing a gene from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis

Transgenic plants have genes inserted into them that are derived from another species. The inserted genes can come from species within the same kingdom (plant to plant) or between kingdoms (bacteria to plant). In many cases the inserted DNA has to be modified slightly in order to correctly and efficiently express in the host organism. Transgenic plants are used to express proteins like the cry toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis, herbicide resistant genes and antigens for vaccinations Some transgenic plants have been modified to increase their photosynthesis (currently about 2% at most plants to the theoretic potential of 9-10%. This is possible by changing the robisco enzyme (ie changing C3 plants into C4 plants), by placing the robisco in a carboxysome, by adding CO² pumps in the cell wall, by changing the leaf form/size. Still other transgenic plants have been modified to fixate ambient nitrogen in the plant

References

merged this with genetically modified crops article

Hi all. I came to this topic through the Monsanto article, which led me to discussions of GM agriculture in general. Somehow the links never led me to this article, but did lead me to the GM food article. That article had boatloads of content that was not about food, but was rather about agriculture. Again, no link there to this page! In any case I performed a split of content from the GM food article to a new article on GM crops. Only when I was done did I discover that this article existed and there was just a ton of overlap. So I did a merge to pull them together. Now the GM crops article deals with ag, the GM food article deals with description of food, and the GM Food controversies article deals with controversies regarding both. I thought really hard about trying to split controversies between ones directed to ag (gene flow, whether more or less pesicides are used now, industrial ag in general... but in the controversies over GM food it is all smashed together, so it seemed best to have all controversy dealt with in one place. there it is! Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Please include content about CRISPR gene editing of plants and glowing plants

Currently the page makes no mention of CRISPR gene editing for plants. Could you please add some information on it?

For example, information on these two studies may be worth considering to include (summaries from 2020 in science):

Scientists report to have genetically engineered plants to glow much brighter than previously possible by inserting genes of the bioluminescent mushroom Neonothopanus nambi. The glow is self-sustained, works by converting plants' caffeic acid into luciferin and, unlike for bacterial bioluminescence genes used earlier, has a high light output that is visible to the naked eye.

Scientists show that CRISPR-Cas12b is a third promising CRISPR editing tool, next to Cas9 and Cas12a, for plant genome engineering.

I think the latter study might only be relevant insofar as scientists have shown multiple CRISPR tools to be potential useful for plant-gene-editing.

Furthermore, shouldn't there be a link to Genome editing#Targeted gene modification in plants?

If you see a problem with the item's content at or notability for 2020 in science please edit it.

Thank you.

--Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References