Frankenfood

[Odesio]

Now more then ever I'm convinced that genetically altering food is a great idea. Crops will be more resistant to weeds and insects making pesicides and herbicides less frequently used. This makes it cheaper for the farmer to grow his crops and less pollution in the form of harsh chemicals.

We've already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide. Genetically altered crops are here and they're only going to get more popular. Yay science.





Marc

[Kimstu]

The OP is a typical vague and unsubstantiated rehashing of the typical corporate-PR soundbites in favor of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. On the bright side, however, some of his points are perfectly reasonable. On the downside, they barely scratch the surface of these extremely complex issues about biotechnology, global agriculture, and the environment. In case anybody wants to start a serious debate on the subject, here are some links to opinions exchanged in the Nation:

- GM Food: Another View (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010416&s=kohl). A pro-GMO (although not rabidly so) discussion by Danny Kohl.

- Letters. (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010716&s=letter) Various objections to and expansions of Kohl's thesis (some thoughtful, some less so), and a response from Kohl.

Have fun!

[Ike Witt]

Originally posted by MGibson
We've already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide.

Forgive me for saying huh?

[Giraffe]

I thought one of the problems of making herbicide- and pesticide-resistant crops is the fact that farmers then use more herbicide and pesticide without hurting yield, thereby increasing the amount absorbed by the plants and consumed by us.

Which is bad. (For us as produce-consumers. Great if you're trying to make money farming.)

[Kimstu]

ay: "We've already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide."

Forgive me for saying huh?

E.g., Roundup Ready (http://www.biotech-info.net/felsot1.html) crops, which are modified to be able to tolerant glyphosate herbicides which ordinarily kill anything and everything they hit. With Roundup Ready crops, farmers can spray Roundup (one such herbicide) and kill the weeds without killing the crop.

(Another potential problem, Giraffe, is said to be "escape" of the RR genes into wild species to create Roundup Ready "superweeds" which are also resistant to herbicides. But as with practically every other GMO issue, it seems to be still very unclear exactly how this will work or to what extent it's actually happened.)

[Odesio]

Originally posted by adam yax
Originally posted by MGibson
We've already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide.

Forgive me for saying huh?

There are fields of cotton which are very difficult to kill with Roundup. So you can spray Roundup on the field and not be worried about harming your cash crop but at the same time kill the weeds.

Marc

[David B]

I've got some weeds in my yard that seem Roundup resistant already! :)

But seriously, a really good book if you're interested in this discussion is Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods, by Alan McHughen. I wrote a review of it, which can be found by clicking right here (http://www.nonfictionreviews.com/article1021.html).

The author works in the field and tackles the pros and cons with rational objectivity.

[Jackmannii]

One major concern with "designer crops" with built-in herbicide resistance or pesticide production (i.e. transgenic crops incorporating BT toxins) is that you risk the same problem we have with massive antibiotic use - ever more rapid development of resistance. A remedy that's effective for many years with restrained patterns of application could become useless much more quickly if genetically engineered for use on a massive monoculture scale.

The warning signs are there (http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Horseweed-RR-Resistant.htm) for Roundup-Ready crops, and also for genetic engineering of BT toxin-producing crops (http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/1998/980107.htm).

Thanks to Kimstu for posting those links. I'll look into them more when I can read about epistasis and pleiotropy without my eyes crossing. ;)

[mangeorge]

I have no specific objection to GM crops. It's just that the whole idea makes me queasy.
Another of those 'slippery slope' issues. Next thing you know, the "non-chicken' chicken UL will become reality.
And why are GM foods so label resistant?
Peace,
mangeorge

[Sultan Kinkari]

I can't wait until were all paddling around in pea pod canoes and living in pumpkin houses.

[mangeorge]

Originally posted by wishbone
I can't wait until were all paddling around in pea pod canoes and living in pumpkin houses.
Or running from killer tomatoes.
Oh wait, that's been done. ;)
Peace,
mangeorge

[tracer]

So! How 'bout that Golden Rice, eh?

[David B]

mangeorge asked:
why are GM foods so label resistant? Because of public misunderstanding.

If everybody knew and completely understood the pros and cons of GM foods, then it wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. You have hysterical people saying ridiculous things. For example, in the book I mentioned above (http://www.nonfictionreviews.com/article1021.html), the author relates a story of how an activist in Belgium got into an argument at a summit about genetically modified plants, and stormed out yelling, "You'll never convince me to eat DNA!"

People have also heard things and believe them, whether or not they're true. For example, genes from Brazil nuts have been put into soybeans. Has this caused widespread allergic reaction by people who have nut allergies? Despite some fear caused by media stories, the answer is no, and the author, whose own daughter has such an allergy, explains why.

So, would these fearful and uninformed people buy something that had a label on it? No. Even if there is absolutely nothing potentially harmful in it, they would not. That is why manufacturers don't want to put specific labels on their products.

[mangeorge]

Oh, I understand that, David B. But even misinformed people have a right to know what they're eating. A GM apple is not simply an apple, and we should know that. Same with BHT milk.
I don't think that producers have a right to alter food, which they do to increase profits, and then try to fool us into thinking that everything's as it was.
There's a lot more to yellow rice than the commercials tell us, and some scientists are concerned about the ultimate effect of this 'miracle' product.
These guys, for example;
http://www.i-sis.org/rice.shtml
We cannot simply accept, with blind devotion, everything these companies hand us. That's all.
Peace,
mangeorge

[SuaSponte]

Time for a gedankenexperiment. Mosanto wants to create and market cotton that is resistant to Round-up. It does not go the GM route, but instead uses traditional horticultural methods. Over a five-year period, it grows crops of cotton, hits them with Round-up, and breeds (is that the right word in a plant context?) the survivors until it has created a new strain of cotton that is not affected by Round-up. It then markets the seeds.

You people opposed to GMO - would you be opposed to this as well? It's the exact method that, over the centuries, created beefsteak tomatoes, silver queen corn, and MacIntosh apples. Is your beef the method or the results?

Sua

[ephedra]

I think genetic engineering holds great promise for humanity if used wisely. But so far, it just seems to be being used to increase profit margins. I have no reason to think that Monsanto (for example) is thinking about the long range effects of genetic engineering.
For now, at the very least, we should label our food. I think people's gut reaction to GMO's should be telling us something.
Why aren't these people proud to label their food as genetically modified?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by ephedra
I think genetic engineering holds great promise for humanity if used wisely. But so far, it just seems to be being used to increase profit margins. I have no reason to think that Monsanto (for example) is thinking about the long range effects of genetic engineering.


Well let's see. If you're a farmer then you are very seriously concerned about the profit margin of your crops. They're not farming out of the goodness of their hearts they are farming to make a living. So of course the first thing they're trying to do is make it more profitable.

As to thinking that Monsanto isn't looking towards the future that just isn't true. Mosanto isn't going to produce anything they think is bad for the farmers or bad for the consumers. They want to be in business for a long time to come.


For now, at the very least, we should label our food. I think people's gut reaction to GMO's should be telling us something.
Why aren't these people proud to label their food as genetically modified?

There is some problem with food labeling. Aside from the fact that some people have been scared into believing it will harm them. A lot of food that is processed, such as bread, chips, or refried beans, get their raw materials from a variety of farmers from different parts of the country. So farmer A and B might be using GM seeds while farmer C isn't. But they all sell their stuff to Frito-Lay, as an example, and it all ends up going to the same place.

Personally I'd still buy it if it were labeled. I think most people would as well. Unless they wanted to shell out the bucks for organic food. I honestly think GM crops will only increase in popularity.

Marc

[bramble7278]

On the one hand, labels don't mean anything to the general public. Look at cigarettes, which have been labeled for thirty-plus years now and people still smoke despite the label. Nutritional labeling has been required for a while now and are people now healthier? No, they are in fact fatter and less healthy than ever. Labels do not impact what a person does or does not do.

On the other hand, a label on a GMO product would somehow mark it as "different" and therefore not as good as the non-GMO product. Corporations are loathe to admit anything they make can even possibly be harmful, especially food. Corporations are not known for their candor regarding the potential risks of their products. Look at the tobacco industry - it has still not admitted there is even a risk of cancer or anything else from smoking. Why should we expect another corporation to admit there is risk from one of its' products?

I've run out of hands.

[mangeorge]

From bramble7278;
Labels do not impact what a person does or does not do.
Yeah, right. Tell that to a diabetic.
Ok, that's not fair. But a lot of people do use the information on food labels.
I still haven't been able to find any info on the actual, per-unit, cost of labeling. I even googled. ;) I need to know how much it costs the vinter to warn me about the sulfides in my bottle of wine!
Peace,
mangeorge

[ephedra]

Originally posted by MGibson
Well let's see. If you're a farmer then you are very seriously concerned about the profit margin of your crops. They're not farming out of the goodness of their hearts they are farming to make a living. So of course the first thing they're trying to do is make it more profitable.

As to thinking that Monsanto isn't looking towards the future that just isn't true. Mosanto isn't going to produce anything they think is bad for the farmers or bad for the consumers. They want to be in business for a long time to come.
...

Personally I'd still buy it if it were labeled. I think most people would as well. Unless they wanted to shell out the bucks for organic food. I honestly think GM crops will only increase in popularity.

Marc

What a quaint picture you paint of the "farmer". For the most part farmers are having a hard time competing with big business which has been taking over much of the farming industry. Many "farmers" are actually corporations farming for profits not "a living". I'm under the impression that genetically modified farming is actually encouraging the dissapearance of the family farm. But I digress...

In relation to Monsanto,just what is you definition of a "long time to come"? If that means producing something that won't lead to lawsuits you're probably right. But I doubt they are asking questions like, "What are the long term effects of genetically modified pollen crossbreeding with local flora?". We don't know the answer to that and now the world is our test tube.

If most people don't understand genetic engineering, how can they be expected to make a decision on it? We're not ready as a society to deal with the implications. And really, I don't think anyone is arguing that we really need genetic modification. So why not live without it?

[Odesio]

Originally posted by ephedra


What a quaint picture you paint of the "farmer". For the most part farmers are having a hard time competing with big business which has been taking over much of the farming industry. Many "farmers" are actually corporations farming for profits not "a living". I'm under the impression that genetically modified farming is actually encouraging the dissapearance of the family farm. But I digress...


Quaint? I'm not under illusions that farming is done the same way it was 100 years ago. Most farms cannot generate enough income to make a profit on a yearly basis. And those big boys are taking a hit when it comes to cotton in some areas. The price is so low that even they hardly make a profit during some years. I'm not really all that concerned with GM foods furthering the disappearance of family farms. How many people who dealt with horses were run out of business by the tractor?


In relation to Monsanto,just what is you definition of a "long time to come"? If that means producing something that won't lead to lawsuits you're probably right. But I doubt they are asking questions like, "What are the long term effects of genetically modified pollen crossbreeding with local flora?". We don't know the answer to that and now the world is our test tube.


You're right, they're probably less concerned with the environment then they are with anything else.



If most people don't understand genetic engineering, how can they be expected to make a decision on it? We're not ready as a society to deal with the implications. And really, I don't think anyone is arguing that we really need genetic modification. So why not live without it?


I think we're ready to deal with it. We've been dealing with it for years now. We've been manipulating nature to serve our purposes since we first started planting seeds. The cotton we grow today is not the same cotton that grew in the wild 15,000 years ago. Without meddling with nature we wouldn't have the same corn, broccoli, or even potatos.

I don't know if we have to have GM food now. Something like 45% of all soybeans have been modified in some way. (Sorry, no cite immediately available, I apologize.) But I think if GM foods can make our crops more nutritious and require less herbicide and pesticide then I think we should go for it.

But I consider myself to be a reasonable person. Let's go ahead and test these things out in a few fields across the nation. Oh wait, I mean more so then they're already doing now.

Marc

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by MGibson
...Crops will be more resistant to weeds and insects making pesicides and herbicides less frequently used. This makes it cheaper for the farmer to grow his crops and less pollution in the form of harsh chemicals.andWe've already got designer crops that were created to be resistant to a specific brand of herbicide.

Um...

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here? - if we have crops that are resistant to herbicides, we can throw caution to the wind and drench them.


Let's not pretend for one moment that GM is being researched 'for the good of mankind', sure, there are some token projects to try to put a respectable face on the whole thing, and GM undeniably could benefit mankind greatly, but by and large, what's going on at the moment is just the big chemical companies trying to line their pockets by making us totally dependent on their products.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Mangetout


Um...

Am I the only one that sees the contradiction here? - if we have crops that are resistant to herbicides, we can throw caution to the wind and drench them.


There's not really a contradiction here. Well I suppose it really depends on the crop. Let's take soybeans for example. With the Roundup resistant soy you actually end up spraying less then you do with regular soy.


And let's not go thinking that farmers actually like to spray with wild abandon. Chemicals add to the cost of doing business in a market that already has a low profit margin. Even if a farmer didn't give a rat's ass about the environment he'd certainly care about his bottom line.

My biggest concern is that some weeds might become Roundup resistant.



Let's not pretend for one moment that GM is being researched 'for the good of mankind', sure, there are some token projects to try to put a respectable face on the whole thing, and GM undeniably could benefit mankind greatly,


I don't really care if companies aren't motivated out of the goodness of their hearts. When John Deere first made his polished steel plow was he doing it for the good of all mankind? No, but it ended up being a pretty good thing for a lot of farmers and in turn the rest of us.




but by and large, what's going on at the moment is just the big chemical companies trying to line their pockets by making us totally dependent on their products.

You mean like we're dependent on a few big companies to provide us with the farm equipment we can't live without? And believe me that we couldn't live without them. Not without mass starvation anyway.

Marc

[mangeorge]

Taken, out of context, from MGibson's reply;
I think we're ready to deal with it. We've been dealing with it for years now. We've been manipulating nature to serve our purposes since we first started planting seeds. The cotton we grow today is not the same cotton that grew in the wild 15,000 years ago. Without meddling with nature we wouldn't have the same corn, broccoli, or even potatos.
I'm pretty sure that it has been shown that cross-breeding plants is quite different than gene splicing, sometimes with non-plant genetic material.
Great caution, not prohibition, is all that most people are asking for. That, and information.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by MGibson
You mean like we're dependent on a few big companies to provide us with the farm equipment we can't live without? And believe me that we couldn't live without them. Not without mass starvation anyway.
Marc

Buy a piece of farm equipment and you (in most cases, at least) get to use it over and over again, maybe even sell it when you're done or trade it in part exchange for a new one.

Buy Terminator (http://www.bio.indiana.edu/people/terminator.html) seed for your crop and there's no point in saving part of the harvest to start next year's crop, they won't germinate, by design.


{quote][/b]I don't really care if companies aren't motivated out of the goodness of their hearts. When John Deere first made his polished steel plow was he doing it for the good of all mankind? No, but it ended up being a pretty good thing for a lot of farmers and in turn the rest of us. [/b][/quote]

There's a bit more than simple invention going on here, the chemical companies are looking to patent crop genomes, making it illegal to grow specific staples except under license.

[Ben]

Could someone explain to me what the problem is with Terminator seeds? I don't complain that the video rental place won't let me keep the videos, after all. I also don't complain that the tractor factory won't replace my old tractor for free when it wears out, nor do I complain that they don't provide me with free fuel.

Also, do you anti-GM folks have problems with canola oil? Wild-type canola plants produce oil which contains substances which make them unsuitable for consumption- so agribusiness irradiated the canola plants until they lost the genes that produce the bad substances. In the end, canola oil is edible, but who knows what other genetic changes took place? Why is there no public outcry over such a brutish method of modifying plants? Why are there no calls for banning canola oil until we make sure that they won't spread their genes into other plants? And isn't it better to surgically remove the genes and know what the result is, rather than blindly smashing away at a plant genome until we get something acceptably similar to what we were hoping for?

-Ben

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Mangetout

Buy a piece of farm equipment and you (in most cases, at least) get to use it over and over again, maybe even sell it when you're done or trade it in part exchange for a new one.


Eventually you can't repair it any more and you'll need to buy a tractor. You'll have to buy a tractor from one of the few who manufacture them or you'll have to buy it used. Either way you are dependent on a tractor for your economic survival.


Buy Terminator (http://www.bio.indiana.edu/people/terminator.html) seed for your crop and there's no point in saving part of the harvest to start next year's crop, they won't germinate, by design.



If they don't like that then they don't have to buy that kind of seed. What's the problem?



There's a bit more than simple invention going on here, the chemical companies are looking to patent crop genomes, making it illegal to grow specific staples except under license.


If a company spends money to develop a specific crop why shouldn't they reap the benefits of what they sow? Perhaps something similiar to how patents work with medicines would be reasonable.

Marc

[mangeorge]

I'll take a shot at the first of your questions, Ben.
The makers of terminator seeds could push other seeds out of the market, making their own seeds the only game in town. Produce from those seeds could be the only ones able to make a profit.
Video rental can't do that.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Odesio]

Originally posted by mangeorge
I'll take a shot at the first of your questions, Ben.
The makers of terminator seeds could push other seeds out of the market, making their own seeds the only game in town. Produce from those seeds could be the only ones able to make a profit.
Video rental can't do that.
Peace,
mangeorge

Let's use corn as an example. If farmers think that one brand of corn will be the only profitable one in the following year why would they ever use another? Look at it from his point of view. "Hmm....with seed A I lose .32 cents per acre. With seed B I gain .50 cents per acre." I know which I would use.

But then I doubt we'll see one seed company overtake all of agriculture. Odds are you'll see a few large ones that are responsible for the majority of seed. But I suspect organic farming will always have a niche to fill. The trouble is most farmers can't make a living the organic way.

Marc

[dasmoocher]

I'll start by saying I'm for genetically modified food, I work in a molecular biology lab in an agriculture college, after all. And all our food has been genetically modified over the course of human agriculture anyway.

But what freaks people out, whether they're really concious of it, and makes GMOs different from traditional selection and cross breeding, is now we can insert a gene from any organism into another via biotechnology.

In my view, this can be a great thing. If you're a diabetic, would you rather inject human insulin produced by modified bacteria to treat yourself , or insulin isolated from a horse that may not work as well and cost a lot more?

Sure, there are groups and people against GMOs with legimate concerns, skepticism is a healthly thing.

But the zealous groups that protest the loudest, seem to view this as a crime against nature, not a matter of science (in addition to giving themselves a cause to feel good about themselves). I don't even think they have the same moral ground as anti-abortionists.

Which would bring up the next battleground--stem cell research. But that's another thread.

I find it curious that it appears that most protesters against GMOs are well- (or over-fed) Americans or Europeans.

How many protesters come from starving Third World countries? Does anyone think a starving african is going to give a shit that his GM yam that feeds his family puts some money in Monsanto's pocket when the alternative is going hungry? I'm sure he wouldn't mind having a John Deere plow either (if he could afford it).

[mangeorge]

Exactly, Marc.
Not only you, but every other non-organic farmer would choose profit over loss. If they didn't, those who did would soon own the farms of the non-users. Or developers would own the properties, because there's already too much farmland in this country. Increased yield would only worsen this situation.
Anyway, once the seed competition fades away the farmers profit will shrink because seed suppliers will raise prices. That's their job, to maximize profits and the return on the stockholders investments. The directors can get into trouble for not doing so.
Eventually the monopoly busters might step in. Not to force the sale of natural seeds, but to end the monopoly of the terminator technology.
We'd end up with terminator seeds and just a cottage industry in natural seeds. Much like what we now have in the computer OS market.
I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.
Peace,
mangeorge

[tracer]

Mangetout wrote:

There's a bit more than simple invention going on here, the chemical companies are looking to patent crop genomes, making it illegal to grow specific staples except under license.
Patents expire after 17 years, y'know.

[tracer]

647 wrote:

If you're a diabetic, would you rather inject human insulin produced by modified bacteria to treat yourself , or insulin isolated from a horse that may not work as well and cost a lot more?
Neither. I want a one-time treatment where I swallow a test tube full of nano-robots that will live in my blood stream and manufacture insulin for me for the rest of my life.

Or, heck, I'd settle for genetically-engineered symbiotic insulin-producing bacteria. I wouldn't be picky.

[mangeorge]

I want the docs to clone me a brand new pancreas. Fresh beta cells...Yum!
Peace,
mangeorge

[dasmoocher]

tracer and mangeorge--let's get the FDA and all invovled in a more evident manner. The drug companies are already international and don't need supervision (cough, cough). (and with Phen/Fen or is it Fen/Phen, how could it go wrong?)

Sorry, but my sarcasism meter is on the fritz. But...

I would like insulin treatments by nanoprobes if I could get Seven of Nine to do it. Probe me, please...

[Odesio]

Originally posted by mangeorge
Exactly, Marc.
Not only you, but every other non-organic farmer would choose profit over loss.


Are organic farmers the knights in shining armor of the agriculture community? If a lot of them couldn't make a profit farming like they do they'd probably farm in a more conventional manner. Either that or they'd go find other jobs.


If they didn't, those who did would soon own the farms of the non-users. Or developers would own the properties, because there's already too much farmland in this country.


I wasn't aware that there was to much farmland in this country. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard someone say that.


Anyway, once the seed competition fades away the farmers profit will shrink because seed suppliers will raise prices.


Why will competition fade? I'm not seeing any reason to believe that one big company will take everything over.



We'd end up with terminator seeds and just a cottage industry in natural seeds. Much like what we now have in the computer OS market.
I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.
Peace,
mangeorge


What's wrong with a cottage industry in natural seeds? I admit I don't see much wrong in the current OS market either. Windows and MAC are both pretty good O/S systems for the average Joe or Jane.

Marc

[robinh]

originally posted by MGibson:
With the Roundup resistant soy you actually end up spraying less then you do with regular soy.

Mabye not.

This study (http://www.biotech-info.net/WSSA_abstracts.html) from the UK suggests that the use of herbicide resistant varieties leads to increased use of herbicides, as does this one (http://www.biotech-info.net/more_herbicide.html), though Monsanto, as one might expect, disagrees. Here (http://www.biotech-info.net/ENS.html) is another article on the second study. I think this is a telling statement:

On behalf of the soybean farmers, Anderson agrees that the developing resistance of weeds to herbicide is a problem, but it is a problem that could be solved more quickly if critics had not derailed the approval process for new products.

In other words, "Sure, weed resistance is an issue, but as long as we keep coming up with new herbicides, we'll be fine"?

This study (http://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup.html) looks at the effect on increased use of RoundUp on soil microbiology and the increase of fusarium (a root fungus.) I really don't think this technology is going to prove to be the lifesaver that people want it to be. In fact, I think it will have some very negative effects.

[mangeorge]

Are organic farmers the knights in shining armor of the agriculture community? If a lot of them couldn't make a profit farming like they do they'd probably farm in a more conventional manner. Either that or they'd go find other jobs.

Knights in shining armor? If they start using the seeds, they’ll no longer be organic farmers. Right?

I wasn't aware that there was to much farmland in this country. In fact this is the first time I've ever heard someone say that.

An assumption, based on what I’ve heard about subsidies, over production, low farmland prices and the like.

Why will competition fade? I'm not seeing any reason to believe that one big company will take everything over.[/quote

Monsanto own’s the patent. See Microsoft.

[quote]What's wrong with a cottage industry in natural seeds? I admit I don't see much wrong in the current OS market either. Windows and MAC are both pretty good O/S systems for the average Joe or Jane.

Cottage industries are cool!
Mac and Windows are pretty good from Joe and Jane’s POV. But quite a different matter for poor ol’ Pete, who’s trying to market a new OS which he’s put a lot of work into developing.

I'm no scientist or farmer, MGibson. What you're seeing here is an average Joe Schmoe's take on this issue. ;)
Peace,
mangeorge

[Kimstu]

647: I find it curious that it appears that most protesters against GMOs are well- (or over-fed) Americans or Europeans.

How many protesters come from starving Third World countries?

Quite a few, actually. Check out this Sierra Magazine profile (http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200107/profile.asp) of Ethiopian plant ecologist Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, who represents in international negotiations the so-called "Like-Minded Group", made up of many developing nations plus China, and helped draft the international Biosafety Protocol. In this interview, he sets out some pretty cogent reasons why many Africans and others from "starving Third World countries" are concerned about GMOs, particularly the ways in which they're being developed and marketed.

For another excellent perspective on the whole issue, check out Richard Lewontin's review, "Genes in the Food!" in the June 21 New York Review of Books, of several recently published works on GM technology. An online version can be found via a search at the NYRB site (http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/).

Again, the chief point is that this is a very biologically, ecologically, economically, and politically complex issue. Pro-GMO cheerleaders like 647 who assume that anti-GMO sentiment is nothing but ignorant hysteria on the part of fat Western food fusses are being just as shortsighted and silly as the uninformed technophobes who reject GMOs because they "don't want to eat anything with DNA in it."

[Kimstu]

On rereading the whole thread more carefully, I noticed that 647 actually presented a more balanced overall perspective on the GMO debate in the post from which I snipped the above remarks. I'd like to withdraw my hasty characterization of him/her as a "pro-GMO cheerleader", if I may.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by MGibson
If they don't like that then they don't have to buy that kind of seed. What's the problem?


The problem is that although the crop being grown in one farmer's field is a terminator variety, the crop growing in the next farmer's field may not be, just because the terminator variety itself doesn't produce viable seed doesn't mean that it must not produce viable pollen, polluting the ordinary crop with terminator genes, and ruining the non-GM farmer's plans to save his own seed.
(I don't know if this is the case with the terminator varieties that are currently in development, but it's not inconcievable is it?, in fact I can imagine GM developers exploiting this sort of effect to surreptitiously drive non-GM strains to extinction and thus

What I'm saying is that as long as we have the choice, fine, but maybe that's not what will happen ultimately.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
There's a bit more than simple invention going on here, the chemical companies are looking to patent crop genomes, making it illegal to grow specific staples except under license.

Cite, please? This sounds no more reasonable than Bill Gates patenting ones and zeroes.

-Ben

[Cervaise]

I'm definitely on the fence on this issue, so I'm not going to offer any grand insights; I'll continue reading for others' views.

I will, however, point out one logical breach that nobody else has addressed:(MGibson) As to thinking that Monsanto isn't looking towards the future that just isn't true. Mosanto isn't going to produce anything they think is bad for the farmers or bad for the consumers. They want to be in business for a long time to come.So that's why Firestone did what they did! They had planned to deliberately terminate their viability as a corporation within a few short years!

It's disingenuous to say that corporations put safety above other concerns. They ride the razor's edge of compromise between safety (which is expensive) and profitability. Many screw up the compromise and sacrifice safety (Bhopal, anyone?). There's no reason to think that Monsanto might be midjudging their priorities and putting out something dangerous, but there's no reason to dismiss this as a concern, either.

Oh, and one other thing, about the difference between Mendelian crossbreeding as a means of genetic push, and deliberate engineering: Yes, it's true that a lot of loony activists oppose the latter because of some half-baked notion that the former is "more natural." But it's also true that an organism's genetic makeup is quite complex, with lots of little things that relate to other little things, interacting in a complicated fashion. Crossbreeding (a) takes a long time, and (b) is limited in its effects. Genetic engineering is (a) very quick, and (b) unpredictable in its effects. Dolly the sheep was cloned, and seemed to be fine. Then it seemed like she was aging too quickly. Then that concern faded, and something else happened. The point is, we don't know exactly what the effects will be until we've had the time to study them. The bioengineering companies, in the opinion of the most restrained activists, are rushing their products to market without sufficient time to study possible long-term effects. They're also concerned (legitimately, in my opinion) about engineered seeds contaminating the crops of nonbuyers; I'm horrified by that lawsuit in which corn from one field inadvertently pollinated a neighboring field through no fault of the second farmer, who then got in trouble over it.

But other than that, like I said, I'm on the fence. Please, continue.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by MGibson
If a company spends money to develop a specific crop why shouldn't they reap the benefits of what they sow? Perhaps something similiar to how patents work with medicines would be reasonable.

Marc


I was thinking more about the sort of thing that I thought had happened with attempted patents on the Neem genome, which wasn't invented, but discovered, however, my more recent research has revealed that I didn't have the full picture on that story.

I've got nothing against patents on innovation BTW

[Ben]

Originally posted by mangeorge
I'll take a shot at the first of your questions, Ben.
The makers of terminator seeds could push other seeds out of the market, making their own seeds the only game in town. Produce from those seeds could be the only ones able to make a profit.
Video rental can't do that.

Sure they can- that's why people oftentimes don't like Blockbuster moving into their town. Agribusiness can already try to push competitors out of the market, just like any other business can. (In fact, the scenarios I've seen described in this thread are no different from the way Standard Oil created a monopoly.) So why this emphasis on terminator technology, as if it somehow changed the rules of the game?

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
The problem is that although the crop being grown in one farmer's field is a terminator variety, the crop growing in the next farmer's field may not be, just because the terminator variety itself doesn't produce viable seed doesn't mean that it must not produce viable pollen, polluting the ordinary crop with terminator genes, and ruining the non-GM farmer's plans to save his own seed.

Whoa, now. Are you saying that if you have a field full of non-GM corn, instead of that corn being fertilized by plants in the same field, 100% of it will be fertilized by terminator corn from the next farm, and so all the seed will produce sterile offspring?

As for terminator crops producing pollen, the fact is that if you're worried about GM pollen contaminating other crops, then why not make GM crops that don't produce pollen? I guess I just feel like the anti-GM folks have said that no one can have GM crops because they will get loose in the wild, but then when companies make GM crops that can't reproduce on their own, that's somehow viewed as being even more evil.

-Ben

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
Whoa, now. Are you saying that if you have a field full of non-GM corn, instead of that corn being fertilized by plants in the same field, 100% of it will be fertilized by terminator corn from the next farm, and so all the seed will produce sterile offspring?


No, I'm not saying that it would be 100% at all, but suppose a farmer saves seed that is, for the sake of argument, 10% contaminated; that means that potentially all of the seed he saves will germinate next year, but 10% of it will be a terminator variety, this means that he now has terminator corn mixed in evenly with all of his crop - in theory, this means that 10% of this years crop will also be pollinated by a terminator strain, not only that, but 10% of the seed he saves this time won't germinate when he sows it (I know there would be natural a failure rate anyway).


As for terminator crops producing pollen, the fact is that if you're worried about GM pollen contaminating other crops, then why not make GM crops that don't produce pollen? I guess I just feel like the anti-GM folks have said that no one can have GM crops because they will get loose in the wild, but then when companies make GM crops that can't reproduce on their own, that's somehow viewed as being even more evil.

Gaahhh! well, yes, that would be nice idea, except that if you create corn that doesn't produce pollen, it won't get pollinated and it can't form cobs, can it?

Besides, unless there's a pressiing commercial reason for the biotech companies to do something like that, they simply won't bother.
And as regards it being evil, I never said anything about that, I don't think a runaway truck is 'evil' when it crashes through a bus queue, just out of control, I feel the same way about the biotech companies.

I have absolutely no objection to GM as long as we don't have to rush blindly into it, I don't believe we can trust the biotech firms themselves to give us the full truth, anymore than we could trust the tobacco industry twenty years ago to tell us about the dangers of smoking, they have a vested interest in concealing any negative information.

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by mangeorge
But even misinformed people have a right to know what they're eating. A GM apple is not simply an apple, and we should know that.

Do you know what's in an apple? Can people who have a gut reaction opposition to GMOs comprehend the difference between a regular, cross-bred over millenia apple and one that's been modified in a lab?

I'm thinking the answer is no. When enough people understand what constitutes an apple on a cellular level, and can actually comprehend what genetic modification does, then they have the right to an opinion.

Until then, please take your objections to the library or a classroom and learn about what you're already sticking into your body.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Barbarian
Originally posted by mangeorge
But even misinformed people have a right to know what they're eating. A GM apple is not simply an apple, and we should know that.

Do you know what's in an apple? Can people who have a gut reaction opposition to GMOs comprehend the difference between a regular, cross-bred over millenia apple and one that's been modified in a lab?

I'm thinking the answer is no. When enough people understand what constitutes an apple on a cellular level, and can actually comprehend what genetic modification does, then they have the right to an opinion.

Until then, please take your objections to the library or a classroom and learn about what you're already sticking into your body.

Bad argument

For example

Do you know exactly how an automatic handgun works?
Until then you have no right to an opinion, you should just do as you're told and stick the muzzle in your mouth then pull the trigger.

See

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?

[puk]

Ok, I have to ask.

What is the difference between breeding crops and genetically modifying them?

I understand the process of cross-breeding and genetic modification (well not exactly for GM). What I want to know is how is the end result different?

Also, several one of the posts mentioned weeds and GM grain (or whatever) cross polinating. How is this supposed to happen?

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Bad argument

For example

Do you know exactly how an automatic handgun works?
Until then you have no right to an opinion, you should just do as you're told and stick the muzzle in your mouth then pull the trigger.

See

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?
Bad argument.
For example
If you're already on the habit of sucking on lead bullets, then what's the difference in sucking on Genetically modified bullets?
See.
Ever heard of erring on the side of intelligent debate?

Here is an apple. Here is a genetically modified apple.
Please learn enough about modern farming techniques so you can contribute something to the debate. Or ignore the debate, and go live on your commune where you grow everything yourself.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by puk
Ok, I have to ask.

What is the difference between breeding crops and genetically modifying them?

I understand the process of cross-breeding and genetic modification (well not exactly for GM). What I want to know is how is the end result different?


I think Cervaise answered this one already.

It boils down to the idea that selective breeding relies on random mutations or introduction of new genes from adifferent, but very closely related organism) which may be selected for a beneficial effect, whereas GM involves dissecting out a chunk of genome and replacing it with a different chunk (often from a very different organism), resulting in a genetic pattern that would be most unlikely (I'd better not say impossible) to occur either in nature or by artificial selection.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Barbarian
Originally posted by Mangetout
Bad argument

For example

Do you know exactly how an automatic handgun works?
Until then you have no right to an opinion, you should just do as you're told and stick the muzzle in your mouth then pull the trigger.

See

Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?
Bad argument.
For example
If you're already on the habit of sucking on lead bullets, then what's the difference in sucking on Genetically modified bullets?
See.
Ever heard of erring on the side of intelligent debate?

Here is an apple. Here is a genetically modified apple.
Please learn enough about modern farming techniques so you can contribute something to the debate. Or ignore the debate, and go live on your commune where you grow everything yourself.

I can see where you're coming from, but I feel quite strongly that one shouldn't have to learn about something in minute detail in order to demand that safety and caution is exercised in respect of that thing, but I don't expect you'll agree and I am tired, so you win.

[puk]

Originally posted by Mangetout

I think Cervaise answered this one already.

It boils down to the idea that selective breeding relies on random mutations or introduction of new genes from adifferent, but very closely related organism) which may be selected for a beneficial effect, whereas GM involves dissecting out a chunk of genome and replacing it with a different chunk (often from a very different organism), resulting in a genetic pattern that would be most unlikely (I'd better not say impossible) to occur either in nature or by artificial selection.

nah, that was the part I understood. What I want to know is how our 'GM apple' is different from a 'cross-bred apple'. Right now the discussion is boiling down to

{pro}GM is good because it saves money

{con}GM is bad because we're opening a Pandorra's box.

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by Mangetout
I can see where you're coming from, but I feel quite strongly that one shouldn't have to learn about something in minute detail in order to demand that safety and caution is exercised in respect of that thing, but I don't expect you'll agree and I am tired, so you win.

I have no problems with people wanting things to be 'safe'. I just expect the people making demands to exert some sort of rationality in their demands.

Too many people object to GMOs because of a gut-reaction feeling. So many people are frightened by the word "nuclear" that hospitals had to rename equipment "MRI" machines.

Go ahead and demand safety. But if you want to set the parameters for what is safe, you had better be educated enough in the subject to be able to determine what is safe. Otherwise, you're just posturing, interfering, and being a nuisance.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Barbarian



Ever heard of erring on the side of caution?
Bad argument.
For example
If you're already on the habit of sucking on lead bullets, then what's the difference in sucking on Genetically modified bullets?
See.
Ever heard of erring on the side of intelligent debate?
[/quote][/b]

There's no need to be rude to Mangetout like that.

Marc

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Barbarian
I have no problems with people wanting things to be 'safe'. I just expect the people making demands to exert some sort of rationality in their demands.

Too many people object to GMOs because of a gut-reaction feeling. So many people are frightened by the word "nuclear" that hospitals had to rename equipment "MRI" machines.

Go ahead and demand safety. But if you want to set the parameters for what is safe, you had better be educated enough in the subject to be able to determine what is safe. Otherwise, you're just posturing, interfering, and being a nuisance.
**Sigh**

I'll let you have the last word in a moment, don't worry, but I'd just like to say that to tell people what amounts to "Shut up and go away, you know nothing and your stupid fears are based on your own ignorance", even if it's a true statememnt, is part of what inspires more fears and it's why 'science' has such a bad public reputation; trust is based on integrity and the patience to demostrate it, why should the the onus be upon the 'public' to make the effort to trust the 'scientist'?

[tracer]

Ben wrote:

Originally posted by Mangetout
There's a bit more than simple invention going on here, the chemical companies are looking to patent crop genomes, making it illegal to grow specific staples except under license.

Cite, please? This sounds no more reasonable than Bill Gates patenting ones and zeroes.
MICROSOFT PATENTS ONES, ZEROES (http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html)

[mangeorge]

Wow, Barbarian. You're really sensitive about your GM apples, aren't you?
Actually, I never expressed any overt opposition to such apples. I only asked that I be informed that these modifications have been made. I don't think it unreasonable to be able to decide for myself whether or not I want to eat an apple with a horse (or whatever) gene lurking inside. After all, it is my freakin' apple.
Is it not?
BTW; I'll continue to hold, and express, opinions as I see fit.

[David B]

The question becomes one of where to draw the line. You want to be told when your apple is genetically modified. How much? Just to tweak a little gene? Or to, as you said, put a horse gene inside? What about people who want a label for anything that had pesticide sprayed on it. Or who want one that says it was made in Florida. Or whatever?

No, I don't think we should make such things mandatory. As long as they are deemed safe, there should be no reason for warning labels.

Now, on the other hand, if somebody wants to promote their produce as being non-GMO, that's another issue. I see no reason they could not do so (provided they are telling the truth, obviously). Yes, it's still playing on people's fears, but it's not mandatory -- it's their choice.

[mangeorge]

David B
No, I don't think we should make such things mandatory. As long as they are deemed safe, there should be no reason for warning labels.
Sure, no problem. Once they are deemed safe to the satisfaction of the general public (consumers). Until then, though, I don't see why the producers can't just be honest. It wouldn't be all that hard. In the case of produce, a simple sign next to the pile of apples would be enough. Sounds to me like a lot of the folks here would prefer GM foods, and would buy them because of the label.
Modern pesticides, properly applied, can easily be washed off. Most people understand that. But most people also know that a gene cannot be washed away. And they're unsure what those genes might do to them as consumers.
I don't think it's right for a producer to hide a fact from the public that they know is of concern to that public. They are, after all, accepting those peoples' money.
Peace,
mangeorge (Has eaten a GM tomato)

[CalMeacham]

1. GM food is fundamentally different from food produced by cross-breeding. The The types of changes that can be wrought are very different (otherwise why bother doing it?)and the changes can be made much more rapidly, as has been noted above. So when a strain of corn is bred that is poisonous to corn pests it seems a good thing -- until it tarts killing off other beneficial insects as an unexpected side benefit. (This actually happened.) This kind of change is less likely with cross-breeding, and the rapidity of the effect due to poorly thought-out changes could e catastrophic. This is the kind of thing people are concerned about.

2. The question of "How much GM has to be done before you label the food product as GM?" has an easy answer -- ANY modification using genetic manipulaion other than straight cross-breeding.

3. The characterization of those opposed to unlmted and unlabeled GM food as hysterical and uninformed is a subtle and common ploy that is vastly insulting and is itself a gross distortion. It has been used before on many occasions to put an unflattering spin on opponents of unfettered technology. One example is the nuclear power industry, which originally portrayed its opponents as uninformed and technologically naive people who could not tell an atomic bomb from a nuclear reactor, thus brushing aside all those who had legitimate questions and concerns about the safety of those reactors. People opposed to gamma irradiation of their food were portrayed as backward peasants who didn't realize that such irradiation would not cause their food to become radioactive, and brushed aside all concern about how such irradiation also causes chemical changes in the food and production of unexpected chemicals. (And the industry has been fighting against labeling gamma irradiated food the same way it's fighting labeling of GM food. With the very ame argumnts.)The vast majority of those opposed to GM fods are not, I am sure, people who are afraid of "eating DNA", or spooked by the idea of "genes" in their food. They have legitimate concerns about the safety of unrestricted dabbling and the possible short sightedness of those producing and marketing such foods. It will not do to say that the people doig this will be professionals who will do every thing necessary to avoid problems, and will have coningency plans in case of roblems. The odds were supposed to be vastly against oil spills in Alaskan waters before th Exxon Valdez disaster. In fact, the odds were so much against it that there was no contingency plan. And the Chernobyl plant had safety systems to prevent a meltdown.

The bottom line is that people have a right to be cautious, and it s not hysterical to be so. If GM foods are as good and as safe as they are made out to be, then there should not be any problem with labeling them as such.

[dasmoocher]

Kimstu--Thanks for the reread of what I posted.

I don't consider myself a 'cheerleader' for GMOs, in fact I think we need more debate. But, the debate I look for is from objective resources--meaning people or sources who are knowledgeable and don't have a particular agenda. Your link to Sierra Club is an interesting read, but I think they have a agenda they want to get across, which makes me skeptical of their conclusions. They might have a point, but I'm going to have to research and decide for myself. I'm not going to take any side presented by a group with an agenda at face value. And this includes Monsanto press releases. I don't buy all their shit either.

After all, DDT was promoted as a wonder chemical 40 years ago by the companies that made it.

The Ethiopian guy, for all I know, is one guy against GMOs. How many Ethiopian scientists are for GMOs? I can't tell without my own search.

As Homer Simpson said:[to paraphase] "Statistics...50% of the people know you can make them say whatever you want". The key is to know how the stats are calculated. Knowing stats allows you to smell BS.

What I was trying to get at with regard to 'zealous groups' is that, as I see them, all they care about is 'crimes' against their own morale view of nature. And they scream the loudest; the squeaky wheel gets the grease (media coverage).

These people obviously hold strong convictions. I, personally, think they are misguided. But, if you disagree with GMOs, present your beef [pun] in a way that people can digest without thinking you're a wacko.

You don't see legitimate scienctists dressed up as cows or whatever outside Monsanto because that's not the way objective debate occurs. {legitimate being subjective, because you can always find degreed supporters of whatever cause. Timothy Leary liked Acid}

This topic is being debated among concerned scientists; you just don't see it on the news. The average Joe should also have some say as to whether he wants to eat GMOs (and he can demonstrate that at the market).

And even with debate, this is a question that might not have a right answer.

[David B]

mangeorge said:
Sure, no problem. Once they are deemed safe to the satisfaction of the general public (consumers). No, because then it will never happen. We already have ways of determining if our food is safe, why should this be special?
Until then, though, I don't see why the producers can't just be honest.I pretty much answered that with my first post in response -- because they know people will resond with fear and avoid their products, even if they are exactly as safe as anything else on the shelf. Considering the huge amount of ignorance out there (after all, fighting it is taking longer than we thought), I can't blame them.
Sounds to me like a lot of the folks here would prefer GM foods, and would buy them because of the label. The folks here are not an accurate representation of the public at large.
But most people also know that a gene cannot be washed away.I'd be surprised if "most people" could accurately tell us what a gene actually is...
I don't think it's right for a producer to hide a fact from the public that they know is of concern to that public. They are, after all, accepting those peoples' money. I'm not suggesting they hide it. If somebody is interested enough to inquire, that information should, of course, be available. But that doesn't mean they need to put labels on everything to announce it.

[tracer]

I wonder if there isn't some two-bit mom-and-pop food products company out there who would turn this whole thing around and market products with a really big, in-your-face label screaming "Made with 100% GENETICALLY-MODIFIED CORN!!"

I mean, it worked for Death Cigarettes....

[Barbarian]

Originally posted by mangeorge
I don't think it unreasonable to be able to decide for myself whether or not I want to eat an apple with a horse (or whatever) gene lurking inside. After all, it is my freakin' apple.

I think it is unreasonable to decide if you don't know what a gene is, how GMOs are made, and so on. I'm advocating a general improvement in the scientific literacy of the public so that people are actually knowledgeable enough to understand the issue.

At the moment, the public debate comes down to :
"Ooh, ick, get that GMO away from me. "
"But it uses less pesticide when we grow it."
"Doesn't matter, it's got fish genes in it."
"But you eat fish.
"I don't care, it's just wrong. "

And I really don't think that goes anywhere.

[puk]

Originally posted by Barbarian

I think it is unreasonable to decide if you don't know what a gene is, how GMOs are made, and so on. I'm advocating a general improvement in the scientific literacy of the public so that people are actually knowledgeable enough to understand the issue.

At the moment, the public debate comes down to :
"Ooh, ick, get that GMO away from me. "
"But it uses less pesticide when we grow it."
"Doesn't matter, it's got fish genes in it."
"But you eat fish.
"I don't care, it's just wrong. "

And I really don't think that goes anywhere.

What, now you want people to be rational about what they buy?
Great, we can inform the industry to stop advertising.

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
Also, do you anti-GM folks have problems with canola oil? Wild-type canola plants produce oil which contains substances which make them unsuitable for consumption- so agribusiness irradiated the canola plants until they lost the genes that produce the bad substances. In the end, canola oil is edible, but who knows what other genetic changes took place? Why is there no public outcry over such a brutish method of modifying plants? Why are there no calls for banning canola oil until we make sure that they won't spread their genes into other plants? And isn't it better to surgically remove the genes and know what the result is, rather than blindly smashing away at a plant genome until we get something acceptably similar to what we were hoping for?-Ben

Somebody correct me here, because I was under the impression that gene transfer was carried out using viruses (virii?) and that this was a similarly hit-and-miss process, resulting in a number of strains from which the one where the gene has been inserted by chance in the right place must be selected.
Although I do understand that GM is not about 'blindly smashing', I thought it could be described as 'blindly inserting', but maybe I'm wrong, if so, perhaps someone could educate me rather than berate my puny mind?

[David B]

The U.N. is (today) issuing a report that encourages the use of GMO food (http://www.msnbc.com/news/598057.asp) in developing nations, despite complaints from those of us in wealthier nations (and with fuller stomachs).

[tracer]

Ben wrote:

Could someone explain to me what the problem is with Terminator seeds? I don't complain that the video rental place won't let me keep the videos, after all. I also don't complain that the tractor factory won't replace my old tractor for free when it wears out, nor do I complain that they don't provide me with free fuel.
Then again, your tractor isn't pre-programmed to stop working after 2 weeks.

Also, do you anti-GM folks have problems with canola oil? Wild-type canola plants produce oil which contains substances which make them unsuitable for consumption- so agribusiness irradiated the canola plants until they lost the genes that produce the bad substances. In the end, canola oil is edible, but who knows what other genetic changes took place? Why is there no public outcry over such a brutish method of modifying plants? Why are there no calls for banning canola oil until we make sure that they won't spread their genes into other plants?
By gosh, you're right! Those wild canola plants probably produced those unsuitable-for-consumption substances for a reason. Perhaps to defend themselves against being eaten. If the seeds from the human-altered, non-substance-producing plants get out in the wild, they might breed the substance-producing plants out of existence and then the remaining poor, unprotected canola plants will all get eaten and they'll go extinct! I think its high time Greenpeace blew up a canola storage silo to make their point.

[mangeorge]

Let’s try an analogy;
Say you go out and buy yourself a nice shiny new 2002 BMW. 20-30k miles later you learn that BMW had decided that new drive trains were too expensive, and installed a drive train from a totaled 1997 car they found in a junkyard. This car only had a few dozen miles on it, and was almost certainly just as good as a new one.
Do you feel cheated, even though you didn’t take the effort to check the numbers on all the parts of the car? Or even ask if the car was entirely new? And your ‘new’ car is substantially the same as any other.
Now I dislike analogies in general, because they usually don’t hold. Just as this one doesn’t. But I’m at a loss how else to get across my objection to producers selling a product that isn’t exactly what the customer expects it to be.
And this analogy doesn’t even address the fact that your drive train isn’t very likely to affect those of future, unrelated cars.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by mangeorge
But I’m at a loss how else to get across my objection to producers selling a product that isn’t exactly what the customer expects it to be.


I agree; I simply don't have the time or resources to learn all about GM so that I can KNOW it's safe, therefore I must decide either to accept it on trust or avoid it. Personally, I don't feel that the Biochemical companies are fully trustworthy, which is why I'm in favour of labelling.

Now it could be (and has been) argued that when I buy an ordinary apple, I'm equally ignorant as to exactly what it is I'm buying, and it's a good argument, I suppose, but for me it doesn't seem to quite line up.

[mangeorge]

I changed my mind, Barbarian et al.
Now I do like analogies.
:D
Peace,
mangeorge

[Odesio]

Originally posted by CalMeacham

It has been used before on many occasions to put an unflattering spin on opponents of unfettered technology. One example is the nuclear power industry, which originally portrayed its opponents as uninformed and technologically naive people who could not tell an atomic bomb from a nuclear reactor, thus brushing aside all those who had legitimate questions and concerns about the safety of those reactors.


Yes, and thanks to those idiots we can no longer use a viable form of energy that would go a long way towards eliminating our reliance of fossil fuels. Granted they did have legitimate questions about the safety of nuclear power but what they ended up doing was scaring the hell out of everyone.


In fact, the odds were so much against it that there was no contingency plan. And the Chernobyl plant had safety systems to prevent a meltdown.


Chernobyl may have been a pretty good nuclear plant when it opened. By the time of the meltdown is was underfunded and understaffed and is a poor example of nuclear power at work.


The bottom line is that people have a right to be cautious, and it s not hysterical to be so. If GM foods are as good and as safe as they are made out to be, then there should not be any problem with labeling them as such.

I suppose. But can the GM people sue those who speak out against it?

Marc

[Collounsbury]

Given my professional situation I’m going to refrain from participation in these threads since I’ve decided there’s too much potential for me to say things I shouldn’t.

However, I thought I would note for the record, as discussed in a Pit rant a few months back which I think that I started, original industry strategy was pro-labeling. Very different from the strategy which emerged in the mid to late-1990s to which I was and am opposed to. However, some loud voices overtook reason, to my eternal regret.

Otherwise, my thanks to David B for the link to the review. I had missed this work bopping around as I am. I can’t resist adding that folks such as the cited Belgian “activist” annoy me to no end, above all in re some of recent ill-considered attacks on the rice principals. A number of them are my friends, as well as colleagues, and I can say I’d rather hoist a beer with Ingo than any of those idiots.

By the way Marc, nothing, repeat, NOTHING would be stupider nor more counter productive than suing GM opponents. It's that kind of idiotic bullshit which has gotten us into trouble before. The industry lost the confidence battle. Now its time to win it back through careful, non-litigatious means.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
No, I'm not saying that it would be 100% at all,

But what you actually said was:

"The problem is that although the crop being grown in one farmer's field is a terminator variety, the crop growing in the next farmer's field may not be, just because the terminator variety itself doesn't produce viable seed doesn't mean that it must not produce viable pollen, polluting the ordinary crop with terminator genes, and ruining the non-GM farmer's plans to save his own seed.

(I don't know if this is the case with the terminator varieties that are currently in development, but it's not inconcievable is it?, in fact I can imagine GM developers exploiting this sort of effect to surreptitiously drive non-GM strains to extinction and thus "

So first you talk about strains being driven to extinction- but then you're not talking about 100% contamination "at all"?


but suppose a farmer saves seed that is, for the sake of argument, 10% contaminated; that means that potentially all of the seed he saves will germinate next year, but 10% of it will be a terminator variety,

You're assuming that the terminator gene is a dominant negative mutation. Cite?


this means that he now has terminator corn mixed in evenly with all of his crop - in theory, this means that 10% of this years crop will also be pollinated by a terminator strain, not only that, but 10% of the seed he saves this time won't germinate when he sows it (I know there would be natural a failure rate anyway).

I'll deal with this argument more when I address tracer's post.


Gaahhh! well, yes, that would be nice idea, except that if you create corn that doesn't produce pollen, it won't get pollinated and it can't form cobs, can it?

Before terminator technology was developed, there were probably people who said it was a logical impossibility to create and sell crop that didn't have viable seeds.

Besides, unless there's a pressiing commercial reason for the biotech companies to do something like that, they simply won't bother.

Then why bother discussing this? Unless there is (for example) no pressing commercial reason to give up their entire livelihood, they won't do that either.

And as regards it being evil, I never said anything about that, I don't think a runaway truck is 'evil' when it crashes through a bus queue, just out of control, I feel the same way about the biotech companies.

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's just that I get the feeling that your position is that you (among other people) have a vague opposition to genetically modified food, and if anyone tries to get specific about how to resolve specific problems, you keep finding ways to make the solutions into an even worse problem. If nothing else, you fall back on "the biotech companies are driven purely by profit and will never implement any of your solutions." But the fact is that they'll implement pollen-free corn a lot faster than they will toss out the terminator technology.


I have absolutely no objection to GM as long as we don't have to rush blindly into it, I don't believe we can trust the biotech firms themselves to give us the full truth, anymore than we could trust the tobacco industry twenty years ago to tell us about the dangers of smoking, they have a vested interest in concealing any negative information.

I completely agree- I don't think we can trust any corporation to give us the full truth, and we shouldn't rush blindly into anything. But it seems to me that you almost feel that the untrustworthiness of biotech companies is not an obstacle to be navigated so much as an issue in and of itself, for its own sake. And thus if I present ways that we can protect ourselves from corporate greed, you reject my solutions out of hand, even if doing so contradicts your own opinions.

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
Somebody correct me here, because I was under the impression that gene transfer was carried out using viruses (virii?) and that this was a similarly hit-and-miss process, resulting in a number of strains from which the one where the gene has been inserted by chance in the right place must be selected.

In some techniques viruses are used, but I was under the impression that "gene gun" technology is what's typically used for GM plants these days. It involves smearing the DNA on a glass plate and shooting a .22 bullet through it, so that the DNA is literally shot into the cells. The DNA used for the experiment contains the foreign gene to be inserted, along with other genes which are involved in carrying out the insertion. However, I haven't specifically studied industrial gene-splicing technologies, so don't take my word as gospel.

Let me also state that work is currently underway to make very directed gene splicing which can be precisely targeted to specific locations in the genome. There's talk of using this as a therapy for AIDS, since AIDS rewrites the human genome of cells in the immune system. If you had a gene vector which recognized foreign AIDS genes within human cells and deactivated the AIDS genes, you could potentially have a very nice AIDS therapy.


Although I do understand that GM is not about 'blindly smashing', I thought it could be described as 'blindly inserting', but maybe I'm wrong, if so, perhaps someone could educate me rather than berate my puny mind?


If I might make a correction, I stated earlier that canola lost the bad genes. However, canola was treated with radiation, which causes point mutations. Therefore, the genes are most likely still there, but the regulatory sequences which turn them on have been damaged.

What you have to remember is that if you want, for example, for corn to express BT toxin (a bacterial toxin which kills insects, but does not, SFAIK, harm humans) as a pesticide, you insert the BT gene to a more or less random location in the genome, and typically you end up with what you want- a plant that exudes small quantities of BT toxin. So far as I know, the concern is less with the randomness of the actual genetic result so much as it is with the interaction of the new gene with other genes in the plant, or with the environment as a whole. So, for example, there's a very slim chance that BT toxin inserted into, say, soybeans could give the soybeans a surprising and undesirable new ability, just as any sort of genetic change can lead to evolution. I'm more concerned with unexpected interactions between the new gene and the environment. If we're spraying BT on plants and find that it kills butterflies, then we can just quit spraying BT. If BT genes escape into wild plants, and start killing butterflies... then we can do little more than rue the fact that we didn't make pollen-free GM crops. (Incidentally, the claim that GM BT corn pollen kills monarch butterflies is, so far as I know, extremely controversial.)

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by tracer
Then again, your tractor isn't pre-programmed to stop working after 2 weeks.

Then again, plenty of commercial software is sold on a limited license basis, so that it can only be used for a year. Why not rent seeds just like everything else is rented?

By gosh, you're right! Those wild canola plants probably produced those unsuitable-for-consumption substances for a reason. Perhaps to defend themselves against being eaten. If the seeds from the human-altered, non-substance-producing plants get out in the wild, they might breed the substance-producing plants out of existence and then the remaining poor, unprotected canola plants will all get eaten and they'll go extinct! I think its high time Greenpeace blew up a canola storage silo to make their point.

Feeling a bit testy?

I'm afraid you seem to have missed my point. By bombarding the canola plants with radiation, lots of genetic changes have been introduced, and no one knows what, exactly, those changes are, beyond that a few of them got rid of the particular undesirable substances that agribusiness wanted to get rid of. If GM genes can spread into the wild, then so, too, can the unknown mutant genes in canola.

FWIW, I try to avoid canola as much as possible, because it's known to be a carcinogen. However, that is, in all likelihood, unrelated to the irradiation.

On the other hand, why not apply your logic to Mangetout's fear that terminator technology will breed normal crops to extinction? I mean, if the entire point of terminator technology is that the plants can't reproduce, why worry about those plants outbreeding non-GM crops?

-Ben

[Collounsbury]

(a) The terminator trait research has been abandoned, officially speaking. Bad publicity killed commercialization. I can't speak to possible continued research on an unofficial basis but there are not commercialized terminator traits to the best of my knowledge.

(b) gene guns do not involved actual bullets although they do involve projecting impregnated (with target dna) micro materials with great force, rather like a gun. The idea is to penetrate the cell achieve transformation. Obviously lots of cell deaths involved before we get a bingo. Detials vary between guns and are confidential. Besides, haven't kept up with the technical aspects.

(c) BT toxin works by bidning the gut of certain types of insectal larval forms, like many catapillers. It simply doesn't work on other things. Utterly harmless which is why the organic farmers love(d) it. It also breaks down rapidly so it has little to no persistance in the environment. Expression in plant materials throws this last bit for a loop, and is presently subject to research.

(d) In lab conditions BT toxin expressed in pollen can reach lethal levels for Monarch catipillars if the amounts of pollen ingested are very high. However, per recent research those levels are not realisticaly found 'in the wild.' It remains to be seen how this will work out, as it appears in natural conditions the concentrations necessary to effect Monarch catapillars do not obtain.

(e) as for insertion, although the process of insertion is relatively random (that depends on a number of factors and on specifics in the method used etc, all kinds of stuff which is not discussable by me), post-insertion you can be bloody well sure that we do figure where in the genome we have expression. Quite important insofar as different types of expression lead to different levels of BT expression, issues which are presently subject to dispute in many different fora.

(f) other forms of insertion are as Ben mentioned being developed but are not commercial yet.

[Kimstu]

647: The Ethiopian guy, for all I know, is one guy against GMOs. How many Ethiopian scientists are for GMOs? I can't tell without my own search.

Well, if you search for information on the "Like-Minded Group", you should find a number of sources, with many different political perspectives, that indicate that indeed, these concerns are important to many Third World scientists and have a lot of political importance in many Third World nations. I think it's a great idea for you to prefer to do your own research on these issues; I hope that you actually will do it, instead of just using the irrationality and illogic of some of the most vocal GMO opponents as an excuse to ignore all other GMO opponents.

What I was trying to get at with regard to 'zealous groups' is that, as I see them, all they care about is 'crimes' against their own morale view of nature. And they scream the loudest; the squeaky wheel gets the grease (media coverage).

This is true, which is why I tried to provide you with information about GMO opponents who are not just "zealous groups" with hysterical and unrealistic fears about "crimes against nature".

These people obviously hold strong convictions. I, personally, think they are misguided. But, if you disagree with GMOs, present your beef [pun] in a way that people can digest without thinking you're a wacko.

Fair enough. So what, exactly, do you object to as "wacko" about the statements of Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher in the article I linked to or the positions of the Like-Minded Group?

[Ben]

Originally posted by Collounsbury
(a) The terminator trait research has been abandoned, officially speaking. Bad publicity killed commercialization. I can't speak to possible continued research on an unofficial basis but there are not commercialized terminator traits to the best of my knowledge.

Can you direct me to some details on how the terminator gene worked?


(b) gene guns do not involved actual bullets although they do involve projecting impregnated (with target dna) micro materials with great force, rather like a gun.

Back when the gene gun was invented, around 1990, the guns shot a .22 bullet through a glass panel, so that the shards of DNA vector-coated glass would shoot the dna into cells.




(e) as for insertion, although the process of insertion is relatively random (that depends on a number of factors and on specifics in the method used etc, all kinds of stuff which is not discussable by me), post-insertion you can be bloody well sure that we do figure where in the genome we have expression.

I'm not sure I understand you. You don't have "expression" in the genome; genes are expressed in the proteome. And do companies actually locate the gene in the plant genome? In what sense do they "locate" it in a genome which hasn't been sequenced yet?



Quite important insofar as different types of expression lead to different levels of BT expression, issues which are presently subject to dispute in many different fora.


So far as I know, the inserted gene would be inserted with its own promoter. Is this not the case?

-Ben

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
So first you talk about strains being driven to extinction- but then you're not talking about 100% contamination "at all"?If the biotech companies were to deliberately but surreptitiously wage war against non-GM varieties (fanciful notion I suppose, but not impossible), their goal would be extinction, but this wouldn't necessarily have to involve 100% contamination in a single generation.



You're assuming that the terminator gene is a dominant negative mutation. Cite?You've got me there, I'm no geneticist, it was an assumption which I will have to admit may be unsound.



Before terminator technology was developed, there were probably people who said it was a logical impossibility to create and sell crop that didn't have viable seeds.Ummmm, OK, I suppose they could fiddle with it a bit more and obviate the need for fertilisation, heck why not?


Besides, unless there's a pressiing commercial reason for the biotech companies to do something like that, they simply won't bother.

Then why bother discussing this? Unless there is (for example) no pressing commercial reason to give up their entire livelihood, they won't do that either. I'm only trying to point out that their motivation may be short-term profit at the expense of proper restraint; if it comes down to a decision between something that's profitable and risky (though not financially risky) or something that's less profitable and much safer, I wonder which one prevails.



I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. It's just that I get the feeling that your position is that you (among other people) have a vague opposition to genetically modified food, and if anyone tries to get specific about how to resolve specific problems, you keep finding ways to make the solutions into an even worse problem. If nothing else, you fall back on "the biotech companies are driven purely by profit and will never implement any of your solutions." But the fact is that they'll implement pollen-free corn a lot faster than they will toss out the terminator technology.Hmmmm, don't misjudge me, but do understand that I'm human, I have fears which can't simply be dismissed with a wave of the hand, or by reassuring me that I'm merely ignorant and should pipe down(not you, but you know what I mean). In any case, there are a number of GM projects that I think have yielded wonderful results, one of these was to engineer bananas to include a vaccine that was too volatile to be transported to remote regions by normal means, but was quite stable in the fruit; in this case, any risks are outweighed by the potential good, but when it comes to producing strains of plants that are dependant on one company's trigger chemicals simply to complete their life cycles, and this is to exert (what I feel to be) excessive commercial pressure on growers, I'm less sympathetic.




I have absolutely no objection to GM as long as we don't have to rush blindly into it, I don't believe we can trust the biotech firms themselves to give us the full truth, anymore than we could trust the tobacco industry twenty years ago to tell us about the dangers of smoking, they have a vested interest in concealing any negative information.

I completely agree- I don't think we can trust any corporation to give us the full truth, and we shouldn't rush blindly into anything. But it seems to me that you almost feel that the untrustworthiness of biotech companies is not an obstacle to be navigated so much as an issue in and of itself, for its own sake. And thus if I present ways that we can protect ourselves from corporate greed, you reject my solutions out of hand, even if doing so contradicts your own opinions.[/b][/quote]Do I? try me.

[CalMeacham]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In fact, the odds were so much against it that there was no contingency plan. And the Chernobyl plant had safety systems to prevent a meltdown.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Chernobyl may have been a pretty good nuclear plant when it opened. By the time of the meltdown is was underfunded and understaffed and is a poor example of nuclear power at work.



But that, of course, is precisely my point, my friend. I'm not so wrried about the vanguard f GM folks, the cautious new ones advancing the technology although they can screw up, too). It's the ones who come later, running GM companis that can't afford the costs of impact statements, or who dont care. Most of the world is run by second-stringers.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
If the biotech companies were to deliberately but surreptitiously wage war against non-GM varieties (fanciful notion I suppose, but not impossible), their goal would be extinction, but this wouldn't necessarily have to involve 100% contamination in a single generation.

Please address my argument. How is 10% contamination in one generation going to cause the terminator strain to supplant non-terminator crops when the terminator crops cannot reproduce themselves?


You've got me there, I'm no geneticist, it was an assumption which I will have to admit may be unsound.

It seems to me that you're making a lot of assumptions about the terminator gene. Can you direct me to any information at all about how it works? The idea that crops which cannot reproduce themselves could outbreed normal crops to the point of extinction is, as I pointed out earlier, ludicrous on the face of it. If there's something hidden in the works which would make it possible after all, I'd like to hear about it.


I'm only trying to point out that their motivation may be short-term profit at the expense of proper restraint; if it comes down to a decision between something that's profitable and risky (though not financially risky) or something that's less profitable and much safer, I wonder which one prevails.

Please address my argument. We both suggest restraints on GM crops, but my suggestions are the only ones that you reject on the grounds that the companies will choose profit over safety. Why?


and this is to exert (what I feel to be) excessive commercial pressure on growers, I'm less sympathetic.

Do you feel that software companies should not offer one-year licenses? Should they instead demand that all their customers pay, up front, many times the one-year rate for a permanent license?



And thus if I present ways that we can protect ourselves from corporate greed, you reject my solutions out of hand, even if doing so contradicts your own opinions.[/b]Do I? try me. [/B]

Given that twice in this post I've had to tell you to actually address my argument, then yes, I do think I have reason to feel that you reject my solutions out of hand.

-Ben

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
Given that twice in this post I've had to tell you to actually address my argument, then yes, I do think I have reason to feel that you reject my solutions out of hand.

-Ben OK, you win.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Mangetout
OK, you win.

So if I complain that you're dismissing my arguments out of hand, not only do you dismiss my complaint, but you do so with the implication that I'm just out to score points.

How, exactly, have I won?

-Ben

[Mangetout]

Originally posted by Ben
Originally posted by Mangetout
OK, you win.

So if I complain that you're dismissing my arguments out of hand, not only do you dismiss my complaint, but you do so with the implication that I'm just out to score points.

How, exactly, have I won?

-Ben
You've demonstrated that I will need to do some proper research before entering into an argument like this one.