Genetically engineered foods (GEF) have flooded the market. The US does not require them to be labeled, as in Europe. The British Medical Association has called for a ban on GEF because they contain antibiotic resistant marker genes.
I’ve never read of any deleterious effects caused by GEF. I’ve always thought that was a good idea. I also believe in radiated food. Am I wrong (again)?
No, you’re not wrong.
I just finished reading a good book for anybody interested in learning more about this subject: Pandora’s Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Food, by Alan McHughen.
The author’s main goal is to make sure people actually know enough about the topic to have an informed debate – something that has been mostly lacking to date.
You’re actually exhibiting some perception, a rarity in this day and age.
Genetically engineered food would (by definition) include any meat produced any kind of breeding program and any vegitation grown from commercial seed or shoots from a mature plant. “Pure” agriculture would mean letting all the livestock breed willy-nilly and sorta hoping the fields were fruitful this year. The last time we were doing this, we were picking lice off each other and hoping the mammoth hunt was successful.
Being afraid of irradiated food is just too silly to discuss. Call Louis Pastuer.
Sorry to be so adament about this, some things really get my dander up.
[shameless self-promotion]
There’s some good information in this thread. I’m too tired to repost my views on this right now.
[/shamelss self-promotion]
barbitu8
This short article from Organic Gardening magazine gives a basic explanation of some of the possible negative effects of genetic modification: Genetic Engineering: answers and actions
Thanks to all who replied. I certainly got a lot of info, and I’m still not sure. I think that GEF should be, at least, labeled, so the consumer can make up his mind, but is that sufficient in view of all the possible negative consequences? Does the good outweigh the bad?
Bassguy sez;
“Being afraid of irradiated food is just too silly to discuss. Call Louis Pastuer.”
Well, pastuerized foods are labeled, aren’t they? And the process does destroy some of the nutritional value of the food.
I don’t understand the big objection to labeling. If it’s because the makers are afraid of the reaction of customers, then they are trying to pull the wool over someone’s eyes. Reminds me of the case where the chemical company sued a dairy for labeling their products as not containing BHT. Crazy.
I’m not so worried about it myself, but I do believe that we have a right to know what’s been changed about the foods we buy. I would like to know if an apple is actually a pig-apple. 
And genetic engineering isn’t the same as cross-breeding.
BTW; Genetic engineering and irradiation are as alike as apples and oranges.
Peace,
mangeorge
Mangeorge: The reason organic dairies can’t label their milk “does not contain BGH” is that all milk contains bovine growth hormone, since it is produced naturally by all cows. They could say that their milk comes from cows that have not been treated with BGH, that would be fine, and many do that. See, labels have to tell the truth, otherwise it’s fraud.
Lemur866, it’s a little more complicated than that. Yes, BGH is present in all milk. It is generally agreed (though not by all) that this hormone has no effect on humans.
The beef (pun intended) some people have is with the use of rGBH, the genetically engineered version of this growth hormone that is given to cows to increase milk production. This increased production is bought at the cost of the animal’s health. The following is from a Canadian news article explaining why the use of rBGH has been banned in that country.
*Dr. Ian Dohoo, Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies at the Atlantic Veterinary College of the University of Prince Edward Island, was Chair of the panel organized by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association looking at implications of rbST on animal health. Dr. Dohoo is a veterinarian and epidemiologist with 20 years experience in teaching, clinical service, research and development, and administration in the area of health and productivity of livestock.
The veterinary experts cited an increased risk of mastitis of up to 25%, of infertility by 18%, and of lameness by up to 50%. These increased risks and overall reduced body condition lead to a 20-25% increased risk of culling from the herd.
“The findings of the animal safety committee, when combined with our own assessment, made it quite clear that Health Canada had to reject the request for approval to use rbST in Canada, as it presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows,” said Weiner. “The safety of both human and animal health are critical considerations when assessing a new veterinary drug,” he explained.*
When companies who do not use rBGH wanted to say so on their labels they had to go to court to win the right to do so. The dairy companies rightly assumed that if consumers saw the phrase “no RBGH” they might question its use so they tried to forbid such labelling. Fortunately, they lost.
mangeorge wrote:
Labelling is required where there are valid health concerns. Putting a label on GMO food would imply that there is some valid concern, and as far as we know there is none.
No, the process is not the same. But the end products are indistinguishable. In other words, if I gave you an ear of corn and asked you to determine whether it was developed by gene-splicing or by conventional genetic modification (cross-breeding, etc), there would be no way to tell how it was done.
CurtC wrote: Labelling is required where there are valid health concerns. Putting a label on GMO food would imply that there is some valid concern, and as far as we know there is none.
Consider the following:
The Iowa-based biotech seed company Pioneer Hi-Bred International tried to change the protein content of soybeans by adding a gene from the Brazil nut. When researchers tested the modified soybean on people with sensitivity to Brazil nuts (but no sensitivity to soybeans), they found it triggered an allergic reaction. (Based on those findings, the company shelved development of the soybean.)
It may not be a health concern for you but for someone with potentially fatal allergies it is certainly valid.
Another health concern involves the expected herbicide resistance in weeds due to cross-pollination with GE plants and pesticide resistance in harmful insects due to the constant exposure from plants that have pesticides added to their genetic material.
Plants engineered to survive herbicides, such as canola (oilseed rape), are cross-pollinating with wild cousins, which could create herbicide-resistant weeds. Which will defeat the purpose of engineering the plants and may coax farmers intousing more powerful poisons to kill weeds.
With Bt constantly present in millions of acres of crops, Bt-resistant insect strains will evolve—in as little as 3 to 5 years, the biotech industry’s own scientists acknowledge.
CurtC also claimed: No, the process is not the same. But the end products are indistinguishable.
The following article explains in scientific terms the differences between normal cross-pollination/hybridization and genetic engineering:
An excerpt:
*Genetic engineering clearly differs from conventional
breeding in several ways. Conventional breeding relies primarily on
selection, using natural processes of sexual and asexual reproduction.
Genetic engineering utilizes a process of insertion of genetic material, via
a gene gun or other direct gene introduction methods, or by a specially
designed bacterial truck, which does not occur in nature. Genetic
engineering can insert genetic material from any life form into any other;
conventional breeding generally can only work within a species, or at most,
within closely related genera, as when they do wide crosses. Conventional
breeding relies on mixing characteristics from different populations within
a species and then selecting from a plants natural complement of genetic
elements. However genetic engineering relies on inserting genetic elements,
and they end up in random locations, which can disrupt complex gene
interactions. Many of the products exhibit unexpected effects.
Genetically engineered plants almost always contain a viral
promoter gene, the "on"switch for the gene inserted; genetic material from
Agrobacterium, which facilitates transfer of the genetic construct into a
plant’s genome; and in most cases a bacterial antibiotic marker gene. These
are never deliberately introduced in products of conventional breeding.*
** In other words, if I gave you an ear of corn and asked you to determine whether it was developed by gene-splicing or by conventional genetic modification (cross-breeding, etc), there would be no way to tell how it was done.**
Again, from the article:
There are thus key identifiable scientifically documentable
differences between genetic engineering and conventional breeding, both in
the process, and in the genetic makeup of the product. Indeed, in any
situation in which DNA is recoverable, the presence of engineered DNA can be
identified in the product.
Wait, robinh, I think adding BGH is a bad idea too, because it increases infections in cows which requires antibiotic treatments. If I had my way I would ban all antibiotics for animals. We are destroying the value of these precious drugs by routine addition to livestock feed. We are breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria for the sake of a few extra pounds of meat or milk. The tradeoff is not worth it.
We don’t need rBGH, it is unneccesary. But I am against it not because it is genetically engineered, but because it has harmful effects. Your example of potentially toxic soybeans is another example. It is perfectly possible to introduce a strain that will cause allergies in people through artificial selection. The problem isn’t genetic engineering.
Let’s see, a company tried to genetically engineer a soybean. During the testing phase, they found out it caused an allergic reaction in people allergic to Brazil nuts.
Isn’t that what the testing phase is for? Sounds like the system works.
We buy from a dairy that does not accept milk from cows treated with rGBH, and it says so on the label.
What I find interesting is that, also on the label, there is a fairly longish blurb about “it is believed that no difference can be shown in milk from treated cows and non-treated cows…”
I always wondered about that. Why go out of your way to guarantee no rGBH and then undercut it like that? It seems rather insulting to customers who care, for one thing.
I think, cher3, that the disclaimer was part of a settlement to allow labeling on rBGH free dairy products. Here’a an article about Ben and Jerry’s lawsuit.
http://www.gene.ch/gentech/1997/Jul-Aug/msg00540.html
I tried to find more, but this has quite a bit of info.
I guess that if I were to produce a food that had no rat turds in it, and labeled it as such, I’d be sued.
Go figger.
Peace,
mangeorge
OK, robinh, you got me. I said that there was no difference in the end product, and you correctly pointed out that there are a couple of leftover tools in the genes, which can be identified. Since I haven’t heard anyone voice concerns about the marker genes themselves, let me rephrase:
The end products of gene-spliced and conventionally modified genes are not different in any important way.
Allergies, toxins, etc. can and have been created in more old-fashioned breeding techniques. The only difference now is that it’s faster and more precise.
CurtC wrote:
No, that’s the point I’m trying to make. Genetic engineering allows us to do things we would never be able to do with conventional methods.
…the technique permits genetic material to
be inserted from unprecedented sources. It is now possible to insert
genetic material from species, families and even kingdoms which could not
previously be sources of genetic material for a particular species, and even
to insert custom-designed genes that do not exist in nature. As a result we
can create what can be regarded as synthetic life forms, something which
could not be done by conventional breeding.
And it’s not necessarily more precise.
In terms of the location of genetic material in traditional
breeding, since it occurs between organisms that share a recent evolutionary
background, it involves the shuffling around of different versions (called
alleles) of the same gene. Furthermore, these genes are usually fixed in
their location on the chromosome by evolution. With GE, the genetic
insertion happens in unpredictable places which can lead to unpredictable
effects. Thus in this key regard, genetic engineering is more random than
conventional breeding.
The article goes on the describe an experiment that induced herbicide tolerance in a mustard plant with both conventional mutation and GE methods. After creating one variety by conventional methods and 2 by GE, that planted a field of all 3 varieties with wild types and collected seeds from the wild types to gauge the rate of outcrossing. (I.e., how many of the wild types now had herbicide tolerance?) This plant is normally self-pollinating with very low incidence of cross-pollination.
The results were quite surprising. The per-plant
outcrossing rate was 0.30% for mutant fathers (i.e. containing the HT gene
from mutation breeding) and 5.98% for transgenic fathers (i.e. containing
the HT gene from GE). Thus, transgenic A. thaliana were 20-fold more
likely, on average, to outcross than ordinary mutants (i.e. those derived
from mutation breeding). Further genetic investigation found that the
outcrossing rates in the two GE lines were very different, 1.2% and 10.8%.
Thus, the two GE lines of A. thaliana demonstrated 4-fold and 36-fold higher
rates of outcrossing compared to traditional breeding. Since the HT gene
was the same, the differences between GE and mutation breeding appear to be
associated with the overall process of genetic engineering. The differences
between the two GE lines appears to be due to the difference in location as
to where the insertions happened, as the entire genetic construct was the
same. This experiment clearly shows that a difference exists between
conventional (including mutation) breeding and genetic engineering. In
essence, in the one GE line, the act of genetic engineering had transformed
a species that was normally an inbreeder to an out-crosser.
I’m not saying that genetic engineering, in and of itself, is evil. IMHO, no technology is inherently bad. We humans have remarkable brains that allow us to alter our world in ways no other animal ever will. It is in our nature to constantly test, experiment, and learn. However, I also believe that we can be incredibly short-sighted.
If I can make a comparison to the rBGH debate: Someone had a cool idea to create extra hormones that would increase milk production in cows. Increasing production, no matter what your business, is generally a good thing. It turns out, though, that the increase in production causes increased health problems in those cows. In fact, looking at the numbers, it seems to me that the overall effect is, at best, nil. If you have to keep your cows on antibiotics, if they become lame sooner and have to be culled, have you really gained anything in the long run? Even if we discount the cruelty to the animals (which I don’t) I wonder if the net gain in actual dollars is significant? The Canadians and Europeans decided the negative effects outweighed the benefits and banned its use. It seems to me that we Americans, however, look only at short term benefits and have a hard time factoring in the long term effects.
I will also admit here that I am not a biologist or a geneticist. I don’t fully understand all of what I read on the subject. Most of the articles I find are either highly simplistic or highly scientific. But I continue to search, because even though I am a proponent of organic growing methods, I don’t take everything the editors at Organic Gardening tell me at face value any more than I do the press releases from Monsanto.
The article I have been quoting from (there is a link above) is really worth reading. It is long and, for nonscientist types like myself, a somewhat difficult read, but the author does a good job explaining the terms used.
As far as I can understand, there are several potential problems with GE. First, there is the inability to control precisely where in the host plant’s genetic makeup one is inserting the new material. (This article is from Jan, 2000. If anyone has new information on this, I would appreciate a link.) This leads to greater unpredictability in how the host plant will be affected.
Secondly, since GE is inserting material from incompatible plants, the method requires that the new material be attached to a)something that breaks through the host’s natural barriers and )b a “promotor” gene that forces the host to express the new material. New studies have indicated that there is actually more cross-species movement than was formerly thought, but that there is a natural “gene-silencing” which is the plant’s natural defense against foreign DNA.
The potential of CaMV to turn genes “on” is of particular
concern because of what we are learning about how plants normally turn many
genes “off,” through a phenomenon known as gene silencing. Gene silencing
appears to be a key defense against intrusion of foreign DNA, particularly
from disease-causing organisms, and also regulates normal gene expression.
In the last 5-10 years, scientists have come to realize that genetic
material can in fact move between organisms that are incapable of mating
with each other. Such lateral movement of genetic material is called
horizontal gene flow (vertical gene flow is the movement of genes from
parent to offspring), and occurs in nature more frequently than has been
assumed. Such horizontal gene flow is know to occur in microorganisms;
indeed, it is one of the main ways that antibiotic resistance or
pathogenicity is passed around among bacteria. Furthermore, numerous
viruses can insert themselves into host genomes.
Have we fully explored the possibility that these methods will lead to increased and unwanted horizontal gene flow?
And, finally:
Another significant differences between conventional breeding and GE
is the virtually ubiquitous use of marker genes that code for antibiotic
resistance. Such marker genes are needed to facilitate identification of
the fairly rare cases where genetic transformation has been successful. The
widespread use of genes that code for resistance to antibiotics raise the
potential question as to whether such genes be horizontally transferred to
bacteria rendering them resistant to the antibiotic in question.
I hope I have not bored everyone to death at this point. I don’t have the understanding or the vocabulary to make my points succinctly. This discussion has prompted me to attempt to increase my understanding of the details, but it remains a difficult issue.
Can anyone give me an example of CURRENT genetic engineering that does not have a natural analog?
Cross-breeding between varied plant species - happens in the wild.
Viruses transferring DNA between various species of plants and animals - happens very commonly in the wild.
Until we start writing our own code, instead of copying bits of natural code, I will be no more nervous about genetic engineering then I would be about introducing a new plant species to a particular geographic location. Granted, this can have side effects of crowding out native species, and loss of diversity, but these sort of things happen in the wild anyway, we have agencies capable of examining these sort of situations already on a case by case basis, and are hardly grounds for the levels of alarm I see every time GE food is mentioned.
That’s what I’d like to emphasize. We are not doing anything unique here! Promiscuous swapping of code is a part of nature, our tree of life not only merges back in from time to time, completely seperate tips can connect.
This whole GE thing is as silly as people getting all excited over human cloning, which, while it is now under human control, has results no different then the birth of identical twins. Ok, using an adult as a clone has resulted in speculation of potential problems of teleomere length (currently unconfirmed at this point, I think), but clones would not be identical in thoughts, would not have lessened human rights, and would not be inhuman, subhuman, or soulless.
As I understand it, this is a recent understanding, that horizontal gene flow can occur between incompatible organisms. But isn’t that what the “gene silencing” phenomenon is, a defense against foreign DNA? Maybe that defense is there for a darn good reason.
Disrupting the balance of an ecosystem is nothing to be taken lightly. But we’re not even talking about specific locations, we’re talking about sending genetically modified seed all over the world without knowing what effects it might have. We already know that herbicide resistance can be passed on to nearby weeds. What do we do then? Find even more toxic herbicides? What if the antibiotic resistant marker genes can pass on that resistance to bacteria?
At this site I found the following excerpts from Alive, Canadian Journal of Health and Nutrition:
*Genes from genetically modified crops can spread from biotech plants into other forms of wildlife, new research shows. Researchers in Germany studied honey bees
fed pollen from GE canola. When they looked at bacteria and fungi from the gut of the bees, the researchers found that the biotech genes had jumped from the
canola to these microorganisms.
“Stink Bugs” are infesting Bt cotton fields in North Carolina and Georgia, devouring the cotton crop. The “insect resistant” cotton is genetically engineered to contain
Bt toxin to kill insect pests. However, the Bt cotton is failing miserably at repelling the Stink Bugs. In fact, the insects seem to love the mutant plants.
Farmers are being advised by industry to spray the Stink Bugs with toxic pesticides, including methyl parathion, one of the deadliest chemicals used in American
agriculture. So much for the claims by biotech promoters that Bt crops are more environmentally friendly and will get farmers off the toxic treadmill.
Recent research released by Monsanto shows that its genetically engineered Roundup Ready soybeans contain unexpected, foreign fragments of DNA, whose
effects on human health and the environment are unknown. Since it took almost a decade to map the biotech soy and locate the “rogue” fragments, scientists and
environmentalists are concerned that other biotech crops could also harbor unknown fragments of DNA, whose effects are also unknown.
“These results demonstrate that genetic modification is a clumsy process, not precise as is often claimed,” said Dr. Sue Mayer, director of Genewatch, an
independent research group. “There is no control over how many genes, in what order, or where they are inserted.”*
And while this can happen to GE genes, it happens just as easily to natural ones. And yes, we spread natural crops and animals all over the world as well.
All I’m saying we already have controls to examine how much a crop affects the environment. They may not be perfect, and GE foods can still have unpredictable effects, but I see no reason for treating this like the boogeyman many anti-GE fanatics are creating.
New genes will be spread about, the environment will adapt. This has been happening since the beginning of life on this planet. Just because the environment will be different, doesn’t mean that the GE crops will bring about a disaster.