no one knows the long term affects of drinking DR. Pepper (cherry coke) either but does that stop people?
The FDA’s argument against labelling, BTW, is that a mandatory label would imply a safety concern - that’s what warning labels are for - and there is none.
But there is a safety concern. If I am allergic to wheat, I can read the ingredient label on a packaged food I am considering buying to find out if it contains wheat. But no one is willing to tell me if the product I am considering buying contains ingredients that have been modified with genetic material from a wheat plant. Since we know that the allergic properties can be transferred (it has been demonstrated with nuts) people with severe food allergies have every right to be concerned.
I would like to point out that ALL modern foods are genetically modified. Except we used to call it “animal husbandry” and “plant hybridization.”
Not quite. Genetic modification allows us to cross the species barrier and force genetic material into plants that would never otherwise get in.
The argument that the bio scientists make is that their art is not different in kind than what we’ve done before - it’s just now more effiecient and precise.
This is a fairly common misconception. We have this idea that, because it is being performed “scientifically” in a laboratory, it must necessarily be more precise. Actually, the reverse is true. They have almost no control over where the genetic material is inserted. There is a great deal of trial and error, much more so than with traditional hybridization methods.
Thank you, Robin. [overwhelming sense of relief that at least one person in this thread “gets it”]
You can come play at MY house any time you want. And we will bake cookies.
With genetically UNmodified ingredients.
Sounds good to me, Duck Duck Goose.
I think there is, in this country, a desire to make everything as sterile, scientific, ordered and controlled as we can, because it makes us feel safer. The arguments over genetic modification remind me of the surge in use of artificial breastmilk in the early part of the last century. Perfectly healthy women, with fully functioning breasts, were advised by their doctors to replace their breastmilk with formula. They truly believed that it was better. It was scientifically formulated, the women were given a schedule of feedings to follow, everything was carefully sterilized-I’m sure it felt very modern. Of course, we know now that formula is only a second-best choice (though certainly better than nothing in the face of true need) that will never equal the quality of the milk that is produced by a mother for her baby. We’ve only recently learned that when a breastfed baby becomes ill the act of nursing cues his mother’s body to produce antibodies for that particular illness which are transferred to the baby along with his milk. I’m sure there is more we will learn in the future.
My point in making this comparison is that I see our desire to control all aspects of our world as misguided and potentially dangerous. I think it behooves us to remind ourselves how much we don’t know about the way things work-and why they work that way-and to be cautious.
Copme on now, ou know I do in facct get it, within reason.
Otherwise re insertion. Well I have to differ with robinh to a degree. True our gene guns (you know our early models really did look like guns, rather amusing) are not exately… precision intstruments, but your description I don’t think is fully accurate. True a lot of trail and error is involved in achieving insertion and expression, however before one gets to marketable products, we’ve gone through quite a lot to id where our little trait is expressing, to what extant and what sort of interactions might be occuring. At least from my experience --of course I do insert the note I am biased and that I have decent but not encyclopedic knowledge of what general practice is-- no one is bringing products to market w/o a clue.
However, that being said, as I noted in the GD thread, I understand legit concerns about unanticipated side effects. My colleagues are good people, but it is good to have outside review to help plug the holes.
That being said, I seee few human consumption reasons to fear GM products. The real issues are in traits jumping and in the case of resistant/“cidal” plants, resistance management concerns.
Must not post while undertaking Bacardi treatments.
Must not post while undertaking Bacardi treatments.
I feel funny now, I think I will go away.
What I would like to know is, if these products are so harmless, why will the industry not label them?
(a) Control:
No, I don’t see the relevance. There is demand and there is response to the demand. We need gen egineering to address specific needs, e.g. plants better able to handle saline soils or any number of extreme conditions. Pop pressures, declining soil efficiencies etc. make this work necessary. My work, if the bosses don’t pull the plug… well in any case my work is directly relevant to these issues.
(b) Labeling
Matt, please see the GD link and the article. The whole non-labelling thing was a collosal error driven by Monsanto egos (disclaimer, I have worked for competitor of Monsanto since 97 or so… take that for what its worth) – morons forgot about exactely your response.
I think the GD thread covered most of this ground and I’m afraid I’m going to descend into incoherence as my wonderful meds take effect.
Okay, C-bury, here is an excellent example of why this otherwise rational adult refuses to have anything to do with GM foods.
On August 21 we hear this.
Then, a month later, on September 21, we hear this.
Okay, this sort of thing makes me wanna jump up and down and scream. Which is it, people? Does bT corn kill butterflies, or not? You can’t have it both ways, it’s like being a “little bit pregnant”. GM corn is “better for the butterflies”? Even though “pollen from biotech corn can kill Monarch butterflies”? I’m, like, huh?
And I’ve had my government lie to me before. Just because the gummint makes reassuring noises somehow doesn’t reassure me.
[um–“Bacardi treatment?” Or should I just not ask? 
]
I don’t follow really, if one follows the articles it explains fairly clearly the issue. It’s about actuall expressed concentrations of pollen.
(a) In some forms of Bt corn the Bt toxin (which binds the guts of certain classes of insects) expresses in all plant material, up to and including the pollen.
(b) One researcher established that it was possible for pollen, if concentrate enough and consumed at a high enough rate by monarch catapillers (which feed off of milkweed, but may eat the pollen on the plant), to kill them (as they fall into the category of insect susceptible apparently)
© Further studies by EPA support initial research indicating that in actual practice, concentrations do not rise to threatening levels and fall within acceptable guidelines.
Note: BT is used as a spray on natural insecticide by organic farmers. Just becasue we engineer its expression in plants does not turn it into some sci fi substance.
Any and all insecticides will have risks. Any and all will have fall out. Relative to other forms, Bt has less impact. This is good
Government “hiding” does not in any way enter into this. All publicly available research. Most of it non-gov too. There’s alwys going to be some back in forth in science, that’s the way it works.
In any case, as I said the real concern is in resistance management. I have some sympathy for organic farmers complaints re their usage being threatened by poor resistance management schemes. In fact in the USA I believe public figures put non-full-compliance with resistance management planting schedules at 30%. That is a real problem.
So, there we have it.
(Bacardi treatments, see Cecils Columns on worms and my current paranoia about contracting bilharzia.)
A muslim or a jew may object to a food souce modified with pig genes, thus rendering it non-halal/non-kosher.
On a slightly differant track, I wonder why there is a need to produce more crops from less land.
There are those who justify increased production/reduced losses due to disease, as being likely to produce food at lower cost and hopefully to reduce hunger in poorer nations.
Much if not most of third world poverty is due to man made causes such as war and displacement of populations and the use of food as a tactical and political weapon.
Personally this argument is at least in part a red herring to assuage the fears of a mistrustful, and possibly technically ignorant public.
Addressing world hunger is a matter that genetically engineered crops cannot meet.
In Europe our problem is overproduction and the storage of unwanted high guarunteed price products at enormous cost to taxpayers.
Given that I wonder why we need to increase yields at all when better distribution and fewer conflicts would meet the needs of the third world .
(a) More people, demographic explosion, declining productivity of current agricultural lands due to such factors as (i) too intensive use for too long (ii) irrigation related salinization (iii) inherent soil fragility --seperate issue from (i) although obviously connected to it. E.g., Egypt where I am currently located has 60millions right now. By 2020 estimates put their population at 120 millions. Arable land can not be radically increased due to water constraints.
We need to produce more on less because of land/population pressures. We also need to find means by which agriculture in the deeloping world can cheaply become more effective and productive given the kinds of constraints I have noted above. Declining soil productivity is a serious problem, as it is very, very. very difficult to reverse.
Solutions should be located, then, in poorer nations. Hopefully mature biotech technology will be able to do this on a cost-effective basis. Clearly now, where we are more or less learning the ropes, development will be focused on the most profitable markets --i.e. the developed world-- however we are not neglecting entirely the developing world, ergo my presence.
[quote]
Much if not most of third world poverty is due to man made causes such as war and displacement of populations and the use of food as a tactical and political weapon.
[/quote
No, that is not correct. A great deal of famine and starvation is man-produced. However, that is not the same question as poverty. Poverty is a seperate issue. Poverty in the 3rd world, and here we have to make some vast and only barely supportable generalizations, but… in any cse poverty is largely a function of low growth rates (economic) combined with high population growth rates. The number of folks who are sittig at the table is doubling, while the number of pies is only going up by fourths. Serious problem.
Now, in re the issue of agricultural producitvity we’ve got several problems. As I noted, population increase is leading to (a) uninterupted use of good lands, leading to productivity declines (b) expansion into marginal lands, same effect, and worse – e.g. desertification. © absolute water shortages in the coming 50 years. Not just shortages of potable water but absolute shortages to meet agri and human needs period. (d) dumping of agri products from subsidized first world agri production (no just Europe but also USA to an extent) combined with high tariff barriers denying (or better undermining) 3rd world producers the ability to sell surpluses, when they might exist, to the developed world
I disagree, 50%. There is some marketing bullshit in there, but there is a reality. Why else am I where I am? (Although frankly I think the plug might be pulled… Let’s just say risk is increasing on a weekly basis in this region and my folks don’t like that for projects that are not generating revenues.)
All alone, true. Can it help given what I have outlined above? Hopefully, especially if we successfully develop – and this is just a matter of time-- drought, salt resistant crops. E.g. low water usage rice would be of profound importance in helping meet African needs in the coming century given absolute water shortages.
These issues are of course complex, however,
Well, this is in large part a conscious choice of the European union. Subsideized production which is then bought up. If Europe dropped its tariff walls and let its inefficient producers die out, then we might see some more opps for the poor bastards elsewhere, and you’d get cheaper produce.
Absolutely the worst thing to do.
First, much Euro production is heavily subsidized and not at all efficient. It hardly makes sense to kill off 3rd world production --who have few other prod. choices-- by dumping such products on their markets. Much more sensible is to help allow 3rd world producers to become more efficient for their own markets, take pressure off of marginal lands and help meet the issues of desertification --which will become more severe with climate change. Creating technology to help allow that to happen is the only way to prevent disaster.
Second, increased ability to produce will certainly make redundant numbers of farms. This is a good thing in the long run as we can return more land to other uses, decreeasing impact of agriculture as well as upping efficiency. Increased efficiencies are the sole way to create and ensure greater wealth in the future. While this may undercut romantic notions, in order to meet the requirements of the 21st century and the perhaps 15 billion people we will see, we need to continue the “Green Revolution.” – Or better make a Green Revolution II
It would be nice, by the way, to have more government support going to public research to benefit 3rd World producers to cover situations where we privte sector folk can’t because of our constraints. I fully support that. Noting this to be clear that I don’t see my industry as the be all end all of the crisis. It is a component, and if done right, including proper neutral scientific oversight for our developments to help ensure that we don’t mess up, it will positively contribute.