Sciencemadness Discussion Board

Genetically modified organism

 Pages:  1  

ISCGora - 21-4-2015 at 13:06

I was thinking about this and I decided to post it since it looks like many people have no clue what this is.

Genetically modified organism(GMO)


-it is basically organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques.

Now the main thing about this topic is that many people say it is very bad for many different reasons like following:

-GMOs are unhealthy.
-GMOs contaminate―forever(crops,seeds).
-GMOs increase herbicide use.
-Government oversight is dangerously lax.
-Independent research and reporting is attacked and suppressed.
Those are just some of the points.

Monsanto as a leading company producing GMO basically denied every of the points stated.Gmo production is located in USA,Canada and India.
Specially in Us where the government gave permission for not labeling the product as GMO(because they say it is basically all natural)instead just labeling as Natural/Organic which means you don't have your basic rights to know what you are eating.

Also there have been some researches done on this theme but the people working on it were mostly discredited and fired from their jobs.

Over 80% of all GMOs grown worldwide are engineered for herbicide tolerance. As a result, use of toxic herbicides like Roundup has increased 15 times since GMOs were introduced. GMO crops are also responsible for the emergence of “super weeds” and “super bugs:’ which can only be killed with ever more toxic poisons like 2,4-D (a major ingredient in Agent Orange). GMOs are a direct extension of chemical agriculture, and are developed and sold by the world’s biggest chemical companies. The long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown, and once released into the environment these novel organisms cannot be recalled.
Because GMOs are novel life forms, biotechnology companies have been able to obtain patents with which to restrict their use. As a result, the companies that make GMOs now have the power to sue farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMOs, even when it is the result of inevitable drift from neighboring fields. GMOs therefore pose a serious threat to farmer sovereignty and to the national food security of any country where they are grown, including the United States.

Now point of this post is what are your thoughts.Personally I would avoid GMO food for every cost.I think it is better to pay a bit more for real organic food then get many of possible diseases that come with DNA changes in GMO products.In some countries like EU they have to label the products as GMO,Russia doesn't allow GMO products.

Texium - 21-4-2015 at 13:20

I do not believe that it is possible to get diseases by consuming GMOs that have been carefully engineered and tested to ensure their safety. Before long, there will be too many people to feed without the use of GMOs. Conventional farming is not efficient enough to sustain such a large population.

I do however agree that the ability to patent a genome is a farce that needs to end. The problem with companies like Monsanto suing farmers for "stealing" their seeds when they end up finding them in their fields is real, and has actually happened. Letting such large corporations have full control over the world's food supply is irresponsible, and will definitely lead to major problems in the long run if changes aren't made soon. It is no reason to go against the actual idea of GMOs though. In the right hands, they can do no harm.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 21-4-2015 at 13:23

All for GMOs. They undergo testing and scrutiny like the "natural" product never did and never will.

doi:10.2527/jas2014-8124

ISCGora - 21-4-2015 at 13:25

Okay,but how can you explain that nothing can grow after maybe 5-8 years on dirt where GMOs were farmed.Is that positive.
EDIT:
Oh and by the way don't take this offensively I just want to have some kind of debate.:)

[Edited on 21-4-2015 by ISCGora]

Texium - 21-4-2015 at 13:26

Source for claim please? Otherwise it's far too broad and weighty a claim to make.

ISCGora - 21-4-2015 at 13:30

http://www.gmeducation.org/environment/p207351-suffocating-t...

http://www.psrast.org/soilecolart.htm

Also:
http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....

http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...


[Edited on 21-4-2015 by ISCGora]

DraconicAcid - 21-4-2015 at 13:38

That looks like a source that I would take with a grain of salt.

I'd take anti-GMO activists a lot more seriously if they didn't conveniently ignore the practices of organic farming that aren't as nature-friendly as they would like to appear. They do use pesticides, only a more limited number of them. They do genetically modify their crops, just not using precise gene splicing, but "shot-gun" style applications of mutagens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

ISCGora - 21-4-2015 at 13:45

Well they use less pesticides that means the food is healthier also to grow organic food you don't need pesticides also by cross breeding plant with similar plant doesn't do much but when you take a gean from a bacteria and insert it in a plant ....it is a big change because DNA from bacterias are not found in plants.
also by eating GMO you change your geans which is by it's own not a good thing.

DraconicAcid - 21-4-2015 at 13:54

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
Well they use less pesticides that means the food is healthier also to grow organic food you don't need pesticides also by cross breeding plant with similar plant doesn't do much but when you take a gean from a bacteria and insert it in a plant ....it is a big change because DNA from bacterias are not found in plants.


Bullshit. Do you have any idea how much genetic material is shared between plants, us, and bacteria? And how much of it got there by bacteria?

Quote:
also by eating GMO you change your geans which is by it's own not a good thing.


Again, bullshit. You do not change your own DNA by eating food that contains DNA. If it did, your digestive tract would not be able to tell the difference between modified DNA and "natural" DNA, and your genes would be much more affected by the kind of organism you were eating than whether or not it was GMO. Do people turn into minotaurs by eating too much beef?

Zombie - 21-4-2015 at 14:09

I only have one thought on this.

Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people? Is it because the result(s) could be catastrophic?

I mean in real life who cares if one, ten, 50, 1000, 1,000,000 people die. We kill at that rate annually anyway.

So why is it alright to modify plants, animals, insects? Will that catastrophe be any less?
I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.
It of course will eventually lead to genetically modifying people. Perhaps cure diseases... Perhaps finish Hitlers vision of an Aryan "master race.? I'd like to see the women at least.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 21-4-2015 at 14:28

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
I only have one thought on this.

Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people?

Because people are terrified for no good reason. It's the kind of idea that has to be introduced gradually.

Anyway, it is being tried. Look up gene therapy.

Did you know after five years houses owned by GMO humans become uninhabitable?

blogfast25 - 21-4-2015 at 14:32

ISCGora:

We’ve been producing ‘GMOs’ since the dawn of organised agriculture. The cross breeding of plant and animal varieties to improve all kinds of characteristics ultimately resulted in what you and I consider food (whether branded as ‘organic’, ‘macrobiotic’ or ‘GMO’). Or do you think that staple foods and cash crops like corn, grain and most modern vegetables were created by G-d? Seedless grapes, anyone?

The difference between traditional crossbreeding and Monsanto’s GMO techniques is that with the former HUGE chunks of DNA get exchanged whereas with the latter only tiny, highly targeted pieces get inserted into the target DNA. GMOs get tested very thoroughly for any undesired proteins they might produce, historically new cross bred varieties…not so much!

I do have concerns about GMOs with regards to potential monopolisations of food supplies by a few very large corporations. But instead of investigating these potentially important effects, people like you prefer to buy into pseudo-scientific (if not downright anti-scientific) baloney. The ‘it’s organic!’ crowd would rather spend extra money to buy a bottle of ‘organic wine’ (LOL) but feel queasy at the thought of consuming GMO corn that hasn’t just been tested to destruction but also has been consumed by now by millions of people without any side effects.

If you’re looking for real scammers, look no further than the ‘organics’ brigade, who’ll brand just about anything with that label so that well-meaning but credulous consumers part more readily with their money.


[Edited on 21-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Etaoin Shrdlu - 21-4-2015 at 14:34

Quote: Originally posted by DraconicAcid  
Again, bullshit. You do not change your own DNA by eating food that contains DNA. If it did, your digestive tract would not be able to tell the difference between modified DNA and "natural" DNA, and your genes would be much more affected by the kind of organism you were eating than whether or not it was GMO. Do people turn into minotaurs by eating too much beef?

There are people who like to tell me GMO tomatoes have fish genetics, which is unnatural and my body is going to absorb the fishtomato genes. They are strangely unconcerned with the idea of eating fish and tomatoes at the same time.

blogfast25 - 21-4-2015 at 14:38

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  
There are people who like to tell me GMO tomatoes have fish genetics, which is unnatural and my body is going to absorb the fishtomato genes. They are strangely unconcerned with the idea of eating fish and tomatoes at the same time.


What will happen if you eat some fish and then have the inside of your mouth swabbed for DNA? Identity crisis! :D

Pasrules - 21-4-2015 at 14:42

I've covered this topic in cell biology and understand it is safe I'm not an activist and couldn't really care what humanity does for money so from a scientific standard GMOs unbalance the environment purely because if more food is available the animals (us in this case) become prolific until they outweigh what is available and then consume the plant down to the roots.

The natural counter to this is the old pathogens evolving to become pathogenic to resistant modified plants. Oh and of course the population reaching a tipping point seeing as now we've increased our population density higher than that of any sustainability without the new farming methods.

To activists who come across this firstly learn what GMO stands for before you think your saving the environment and as stated above go learn how poisoness organic farming can be due to old style pesticides. Lastly to the idiot who invented the brand organic water I hope you drown in it.

As you can see I'm quite the cynical conservative.

phlogiston - 21-4-2015 at 14:47

There will be a day in the distant future when we image how wonderful it must once have been to walk in a natural world, where every organism and every human is the incredible result of eons of natural evolution rather than the clever design of a bioengineer.

Yet, I wish that future was already here. Just imagine the endless possibilities.

blogfast25 - 21-4-2015 at 14:51

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are.


Why that specific door, Zombie?

Ignorance is Mankind's worst enemy, BTW...

Zombie - 21-4-2015 at 15:18

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
I don't know enough about it but in my humble opinion... It's opening a door that we may want to keep locked.

Ignorance is bliss. I'm happy the way we are.


Why that specific door, Zombie?

Ignorance is Mankind's worst enemy, BTW...



I think Etaoin said (in response to my asking "why not fix people") "It's the kind of idea that has to be introduced gradually".

This is my concern. Just like civil rights in America are being stripped away "gradually" my concern is all the genetic experimentation (while leading in a positive direction) will eventually lead to a sociological approval of genetically modifying humans.

While this MAY be the real answer to curing or preventing many if not all of the "ailments" we suffer from, I'm not sure I am comfortable with companies doing all this for profit.
IF profit were not the motive, there would be no applying for patents, or corporate secrets or proprietary methods / compounds, ect.

IF this research should continue I believe it should all be done in an "open source" mode. Don't you believe that progress would happen exponentially faster?

Maybe I just have no faith in where this could be leading.

[Edited on 4-21-2015 by Zombie]

Chemosynthesis - 21-4-2015 at 15:21

So much fake science in the anti-GMO claims, it's mind-boggling.
What crops do to soil will depend on what genes they are given. Saying GMO crops do anything specific, without specifying the crop and giving actual data, is just worthless.

Unless live, zoonotic viruses are present in the crop, you will not transfer genes to humans. Using viral vectors for transformation or transfection is NOT the same thing.
On soil, see:
GM Crops 1:3, 1-5; May/June 2010
Riv Biol. 2005 Sep-Dec;98(3):393-417.
J Environ Qual. 2004 May-Jun;33(3):816-24.

Are there concerns using any genetic modification? Yes. Do I have them? Sure. Are there problems? Potentially. Does that excuse websites from lying to the public or being too incompetently staffed to discern fake science? No. That said, did you know that corn is now incapable of surviving without human intervention due to how it drops seed? It has been selectively groomed through agriculture to be reliant on humans now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048800...

Anyone in the biological sciences likely uses genetic engineering on a daily basis. We do it to bacteria, viruses, human cells.... I do it all the time, and I am concerned about organisms escaping the lab when pathogenic or using antibiotic resistance screening methods... but that is technique-specific, and not the same thing as modifying a food source.
Quote: Originally posted by zts16  

The problem with companies like Monsanto suing farmers for "stealing" their seeds when they end up finding them in their fields is real, and has actually happened.

Highly questionable statements.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-fi...


Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
Try genetic modifications on humans. Why not work on fixing people? Is it because the result(s) could be catastrophic?

We have and do. Gene therapy was set back by Jesse Gelsinger's death, but gene therapy has been used to treat SCID, Wiskott-Aldrich, and other patients.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029413.200-bubble-ki...

http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32333161

Gene therapy is kind of difficult to get past regulators sometimes because of the permanency of treatment. Say I give you a toxic drug. Often I can discontinue treatment and have little to no longterm effect. Much more often than a genetic modification, which you are stuck with. We can't reach in and pluck out all of a 'bad' gene from your body yet.

The argument by GMO proponents is that world hunger likely affects more people than any one disease, and because it is easier for us understand some plant genomes than humans (harder for others).

As for profit, don't you own a business? Want me to tell you how to run it and why? You guys do realize that previous profits are where the money came from to perform today's private industry experiments, right? To hire new scientists? To pay for private scholarships, post-doctoral training, prototypes, etc.? Who cares if someone works for profit, narcissistic ego-touting, philanthropy? Just let 'good' be accomplished. By the way, there is a push for more and more open-access data from federal funding sources. Journals are indicating being more stringent on data publishing as well. If someone doesn't like it, they can use their own money and publish in a shrinking number of journals, or not work in the field. Open-access genomic alterations will eventually lead to problems too. Did you know the smallpox genome is public? Companies and nation states are now in the synthetic genome manufacturing era.

How about that old genomic data is capable of being deanonymized?
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/509901/study-highlights...

I'm not arguing against morality or laws, but when people who don't understand the science start trying to push their own pet moral agendas on people doing the work, it's one reason we get laws we dislike.

[Edited on 21-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

blogfast25 - 21-4-2015 at 16:26

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
That said, did you know that corn is now incapable of surviving without human intervention due to how it drops seed? It has been selectively groomed through agriculture to be reliant on humans now.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048800...



I wanted to use that story but couldn't find it right away. Thanks for digging it up.

ISCGora - 22-4-2015 at 05:12

Okay how do you all explain results from research of Dr. Arpad Pusztai in Great Britain?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfoo...

There are probably some other sources just search it.

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 05:31

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
Okay how do you all explain results from research of Dr. Arpad Pusztai in Great Britain?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfoo...

There are probably some other sources just search it.

It's not our job to do your research for you. Please provide some peer-reviewed literature with attached methodologies such as the history of the animals used for animal studies, instead of some random website if you want any kind of semi-educated discussion on the matter, which will probably just go over the heads of lay public anyway, and waste everyone's time. Thanks.

Also, see
1. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...
2. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):290-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

Mesa - 22-4-2015 at 06:10

Opposition to practical applications of genetic engineering seems to be motivated by either religious/philosophical moral objections, or industrial/commercial entities that stand to lose the most profit to introduced GMO products.

I find a fairly amusing correlation in the communities/people opposed to GMO being those with the worst understanding/education of the relevant science. It's a 21st century version of the anti-evolution arguments that have a reputation of ignorance and stupidity in online forums.


ISCGora - 22-4-2015 at 06:12

Please read my post.I said "There are probably some other sources just search it."

I didn't say you need to research for me so your statement is not true also:

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....

http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...

Also two things you gave are nothing more then as you said "semi-educated discussion on the matter".

Loptr - 22-4-2015 at 06:17

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
Okay how do you all explain results from research of Dr. Arpad Pusztai in Great Britain?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_geneticfoo...

There are probably some other sources just search it.

It's not our job to do your research for you. Please provide some peer-reviewed literature with attached methodologies such as the history of the animals used for animal studies, instead of some random website if you want any kind of semi-educated discussion on the matter, which will probably just go over the heads of lay public anyway, and waste everyone's time. Thanks.

Also, see
1. http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...
2. J R Soc Med. 2008 Jun;101(6):290-8. doi: 10.1258/jrsm.2008.070372.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]


Chemosynthesis,

You mentioned above that you participate in genetic engineering. Could you speak towards the process that takes place in order to introduce genes and how precise these changes are? Is there a high occurrence of unintended changes being introduced into the genome? What quality assurance protocols exist to ensure the genetic engineering has occurred as intended? I know that with pharmaceuticals there exist thresholds for side-products, etc., so are there thresholds in genetic engineering as well?

Please excuse my ignorance in this matter.

DraconicAcid - 22-4-2015 at 06:37

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
Please read my post.I said "There are probably some other sources just search it."

I didn't say you need to research for me so your statement is not true also:

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....

http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...

Also two things you gave are nothing more then as you said "semi-educated discussion on the matter".


Citing NaturalNews as a science source is like calling Kent Hovind a tax expert or calling on Ken Ham as a source on paleontology. It's generally flat-out lies and propaganda.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 06:42

Another thing that really amuses me are the conspiracy theory style claims of all powerful lobbies and how dissent is being suppressed, yet finding non-peer-reviewed garbage on the subject of GMOs is far easier than finding primary, peer-reviewed literature on that subject.

Google.co.uk, on “genetically modified food dangers” returns 3.1 million results. Going by the titles, at least the first 50 results (I didn’t look beyond page 5) were all 100 % relevant to that search term.

So much for the dissenters being suppressed or ‘silenced’: whoever’s doing the silencing is doing a really bad job!

Also in common with conspiracy theories is that GMO critics tend to wildly overshoot their target: GMO crops are now said to be responsible for cancer, a rise in allergies, soil erosion, soil ‘suffocation’, increased use or herbicides/pesticides and whatnot. Is there anything the naysayers don’t/can’t attribute to GMOs?

ISCGora - 22-4-2015 at 06:53

Found something interesting but dont hvae time to read all:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-f...

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 07:36

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  

http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...

http://www.naturalnews.com/037249_gmo_study_cancer_tumors_or...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/02/genetically-modifie...

http://www.naturalnews.com/035511_insecticide_bees_collapse....

http://grist.org/article/first-came-superweeds-and-now-come-...




Not a single one of your sources is primary, peer-reviewed literature. NOT ONE. That doesn't bother you?

No, thought not.

Publications like 'naturalnews', 'huffpo', 'grist' etc are simply opinion pieces. They have ZERO value in a scientific debate.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Fulmen - 22-4-2015 at 09:22

Let's look at the first of the links:
http://www.anh-usa.org/genetically-engineered-food-alters-ou...

Right of the bat they make the following claim:
"The only published human feeding experiment revealed that genetic material inserted into GE soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function."
They document this claim by linking to this study:
http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v22/n2/full/nbt934.html

But when I look at the abstract I see this:
"As this low level of epsps in the intestinal microflora did not increase after consumption of the meal containing GM soya, we conclude that gene transfer did not occur during the feeding experiment."

So who do we believe? Some unknown writer (the article isn't signed) with no known credentials or the ones that actually performed this study?

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 10:00

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  

Chemosynthesis,

You mentioned above that you participate in genetic engineering. Could you speak towards the process that takes place in order to introduce genes and how precise these changes are?

Sure. I do use forms of genetic engineering, or cloning, as do almost anyone in a "wet" (non-purely computational) biological science. In fact, if an individual were to take any molecular biology or virology undergraduate course with lab and not genetically alter an organism, I would question the validity of that class.

I do worry about people completely taking what I say next out of context, but I suppose I can't control peoples' desire to misconstrue. The process can vary depending on what type of cell you want to change. With bacteria, one can use liposomes, phage, electroporation, or (if cheap) heat shock as examples for cloning with varying degrees of success. With eukaryotes, modified non-reproductive viruses are more common. The vector can depend on the size of the gene(s) you want to insert, and the specificity of insertion site can vary depending on desired outcome. It often doesn't matter where insertion takes place, and you generally don't know or care the precise location of insertion. Example: you want to replicate a protein. You don't care about anything but the protein. You try to constitutively express the protein in bacteria such as E. Coli, lyse your cells, and collect the protein. Your cells may look really sick, but as long as you get enough of your target protein, everything else is entirely irrelevant since you are destroying the cells anyway. Typically, some of your cells die from DNA inundation, disruption of housekeeping gene/promoter integrity, etc. You select, then screen for gene insertion and functional translation. In bacteria, this is usually with antibiotic resistance genes and sometimes a color indicator, but can also be a metabolic pathway gene. For fluorescent human cells, a common transfection, you just look for the cells with glowing proteins of interest, select a single cell for a monoclonal culture, then see if it appears to function as normal while continuing whatever experiment you had in mind.

New techniques, such as those used for human gene therapy, have much greater specificity, for example CRISPR. Not only can one be pretty specific about where to insert a gene, but using techniques such as genome sequencing, you can very cheaply and rapidly determine exactly where your gene of interest inserted. For a patented genome, one would need to publish the exact sequence, as opposed to a trade secret genome (which would be silly given sequencing anyway).

Quote:
Is there a high occurrence of unintended changes being introduced into the genome? What quality assurance protocols exist to ensure the genetic engineering has occurred as intended? I know that with pharmaceuticals there exist thresholds for side-products, etc., so are there thresholds in genetic engineering as well?

Please excuse my ignorance in this matter.

This depends entirely on the technique used and the application of the resultant organism, but I have never heard of unintentionally inserting a gene into an organism. There have been historical cases of accidentally putting a SCID gene therapy into an oncogene repressor, later causing leukemia, but this can be patient-specific and worst-case-scenario, eating a plant with cancer wouldn't give a human cancer.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807175438.ht...

Sometimes you get weird quirks, such as membrane proteins abnormally localizing to the nucleolus, and sometimes these weird models have a funny way of finding their way into publication in a deceptive manner.... but it's usually easy to spot these, as this is more often the result of modifying an existing protein such as for fluorescence visualization than inserting a completely new gene to encode a novel protein. I have worked on both transformation and transfection techniques for pretty standard labwork as well as some sequencing and transcriptome applications for disease, both in viruses and humans, but I am neither a geneticist nor anyone avidly engineering anything at the genome level, so I can't really answer anything too in-depth as any actual alterations I perform on a genome are purely means-to-end, and I have never been a part of an organization attempting to market said organisms, so that's really all I can think of for now.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
Now, with the advances in cheap, fast genomic sequencing techniques, it's easier to determine where you want to put a gene and tailor your insertion point appropriately. You may theoretically get some transposon activity, but this occurs in normal human DNA and with viruses anyway, and to be honest, I am not sure how controllable this is, nor do I see it as a reason to fear eating a modified plant.

One thing non-scientists don't realize is that you see unintended consequences in just growing normal cell lines for several passages, no active 'engineering' required. You begin to notice chromosomal and methylation differences which correlate well to morphological inconsistencies.

aga - 22-4-2015 at 10:40

As advanced as science is at this moment, our knowledge of the intricacies of the life systems on this planet are feeble to say the least.

Add in their interactions and the possibilities are endless.

Releasing GM organisms into the big wide world is simply asking for Disaster,

The bottom line is that they cannot be guaranteed to behave benignly.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 10:44

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
So who do we believe? Some unknown writer (the article isn't signed) with no known credentials or the ones that actually performed this study?


This is the heart of the matter, of course. Most of us here are not molecular biologists, geneticists or involved in transgenetic work. In that sense we’re probably no more qualified than the OP.

So who am I to believe? Material published by qualified scientists published in peer-reviewed science journals OR op eds penned by often anonymous, unqualified and self-appointed ‘netexperts’ that make highly dubious claims, often doused in unnecessary adjectives (carefully chosen to set the ‘mood’)?

It’s not a hard choice, IMO.

It’s a choice I also have to make regarding other fields that are outside of my expertise. And it’s why we have peer-reviewed science…

Mesa - 22-4-2015 at 11:05

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  

Chemosynthesis,

You mentioned above that you participate in genetic engineering. Could you speak towards the process that takes place in order to introduce genes and how precise these changes are? Is there a high occurrence of unintended changes being introduced into the genome?


These questions aren't really applicable. There will be unintended changes to the genome of an organism for each generation in the culture regardless of if it has been genetically modified in a lab. Differentiating between the genomic changes caused by any human interference and a random variation from parent to offspring would be next to impossible with any accuracy.

Sure, you can point at a recombinant E.Coli strain and show that it's basically unrecognizable as E.Coli, but the purpose of recombinant cells is to produce as high quantities of a target enzyme as you can possibly fit in the cell without killing it. The cultures are designed to be grown and harvested in a lab with pretty stringent conditions. Accidental contamination is a pretty huge fuck up that sometimes results in the entire culture becoming useless, there is much incentive for the labs to ensure the proper procedures are observed.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Mesa]

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 11:12

aga:

I suggest you carefully read this page (and many others from that site):

http://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette...

… to get a good idea of just how much DNA reshuffling takes place during conventional cross breeding, compared to what happens when transgenetic organisms are created. In neither case have unintended consequences been much of a problem, if at all. But entirely logically, unintended consequences from transgenetic methods can be expected to be even less frequent.

GM sceptics generally have a very poor understanding of just how much DNA manipulation has been induced over the ages (thousands of years) by breeders, as well as of other more recent non-transgenetic techniques (chemical and radiative) used to create variation (allowing to then select the 'best' breeds).

Transgenetic techniques are really no more than a continuation of millennia of DNA manipulation but in many respects less brutal and more surgical than traditional, as well as more modern chemical and radiative (but non-transgenetic) methods.

The sceptics ignorantly believe that ‘natural must be best’, without understanding what ‘natural’ (i.e. non-transgenetic) methods really do.

aga - 22-4-2015 at 11:38

Thanks for the link bloggers.

Personally i'm not anti-GM, just that i cannot subscribe to the view that we know so much about a hugely complex paradigm that we must therefore know enough to release it into the wild.

The moment that a scientist can create a malicious lifeform, release it into the wild, then create a counter-lifeform that successfully kills 100% of the malicious one, then promptly kills itself leaving the planet exactly as it was, will be the moment that i will believe that GM is controllable and sufficiently understood by it's progenitors.

I do not believe that the science is at that stage yet.

Edit:

Another point of view is that we Humans are natural products of evolution on this planet and therefore whatever We do (e.g. change plant genes) is in fact a natural event.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by aga]

ISCGora - 22-4-2015 at 11:44

I totally agree with you aga when they developed GMO corn they introduced it to public right away with such minimal research.

Also now US is pressurizing EU to allow GMO food,which means Eu has some reason not to ahve it on market also Russia doesn't allow anything involved with GMO.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by ISCGora]

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 11:55

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
I totally agree with you aga when they developed GMO corn they introduced it to public right away with such minimal research.

If you don't admittedly know much of anything about the screening processes, which are identical to other types of food, or what goes into cloning a gene, respectfully, how on earth are you qualified to determine the metric by which research is judged as 'minimal?'

ISCGora - 22-4-2015 at 12:02

What does my statement has to do anything with what you replied is it not allowed to agree with some one? I dont think it is.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by ISCGora]

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 12:06

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  

As for profit, don't you own a business? Want me to tell you how to run it and why? You guys do realize that previous profits are where the money came from to perform today's private industry experiments, right? To hire new scientists? To pay for private scholarships, post-doctoral training, prototypes, etc.? Who cares if someone works for profit, narcissistic ego-touting, philanthropy? Just let 'good' be accomplished. By the way, there is a push for more and more open-access data from federal funding sources. Journals are indicating being more stringent on data publishing as well. If someone doesn't like it, they can use their own money and publish in a shrinking number of journals, or not work in the field. Open-access genomic alterations will eventually lead to problems too. Did you know the smallpox genome is public? Companies and nation states are now in the synthetic genome manufacturing era.
]



I haven't read the updates on this yet (page 2).

I had to think about this reply (yours).

Making a new formula for pancake batter or a new airplane wing design is fine, and dandy. Fair game for a "for profit" venture.
Developing ways to better humanity is something I feel we OWE to each other. I believe it is our responsibility as humans to find the answers to a better life, and world for each other.

Profit means someone has to pay. The people that can not pay are automatically, and systematically excluded. This, now is not an act of compassion or human responsibility. It is an act of greed, and power.
The very traits I despise in humanity.

I'm going out on a limb Chemo, and am going to guess that this (genetic engineering is what you do.

My suggestion here is that we as humans should be funding the research. Everyone from the CEO of the chemical supplier to the builder(s) of the facility(s) used for this research should be supplying it all at no cost.
Yes the engineers should be paid. This may be the single most valuable field of research there is.
Put a dollar sign on this and everything changes. It's like taking children at birth, and selling them to the highest bidder.

Let me finish with a simple statement that everyone here will understand.

You have no way of knowing so it is a statement. Do you have any idea how many medical maladies I have that remain untreated due to someone wanting to make a profit on my suffering? Torn cartilages... improperly set bones from fractures, other mental, and physical issues that bother me yet can not be addressed because someone wants money, and F@cking crazy amounts of it to simply help another human live a more comfortable life!!!

Actually it makes me sick(er) to think about it.

Any field in medicine should be funded but not run for profit.

Just my 2 cents. I'll catch up on the thread later because I have a cold from fixing peoples boats in the rain the past 6 days... See my point. A frigin boat is more important than the health of the fella that fixed it...

[Edited on 4-22-2015 by Zombie]

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 12:06

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
What does my statement has to do anything with what you replied is it not allowed to agree with some one? I dont think it is.

You assessed GMO research as "minimal" in your own words. I'm asking how you're qualified to make such as assessment given you admitted being very ignorant of what that research and regulation entails. You are espousing an opinion without any factual background in formulating it.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 12:09

Quote: Originally posted by ISCGora  
I totally agree with you aga when they developed GMO corn they introduced it to public right away with such minimal research.



You're so full of bullshit you're simply not worth engaging any further with. Please go find some gossipy chat room, filled with likeminded morons.

You're an 'expert' in making vague, Barnumish statements without any evidentiary backing whatsoever.

This is a forum about science, not for 'believers' like you.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 12:25

Just caught up... :D:D:D:D

It's good to trust your instincts (for me). I figured this is what you do.

I'm glad to know you know what you are talking about Chemo. Your point of view has always been realistic, and educated on any discussion you contribute to.

This is a very enlightening thread. Thanks OP!

Now it's off to NiteQuill land.

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 12:26

Zombie,I "do" science, not genetic engineering. Most people in any biological science from the lab tech to the PI/corresponding author PhD who isn't a management deskjockey utilizes these techniques, as they are common in undergraduate college labs.

I hate to go off on this tangent because I think it's suited for Whimsy, but you mention that there is rationing in a profit-driven system. Services-based systems have rationing as well, but it's based on different metrics. At least in a relatively free market, people ostensibly get to choose what they fund, be it research, entertainment, getting a fancy car/house/etc. You say "profit means someone has to pay." Nothing is free. Operating at cost means someone has to pay, but now the dispute is on the quantity.

If the government provides a service, the taxpayer has to pay as well. There is no getting around that, and then you end up in an awkward situation where accounting for social benefit is arbitrary and people can't opt out. While imperfect, accounting for revenue is tied to an objective measure.

The problem with the system you want, aside from a total lack practicality and possible dis-incentivization, is that rationing will still occur, and you have provided absolutely zero basis for determining the primacy of funding. You have a limited amount of resources. Should we invest in cancer, HIV, or your problems? While no system is perfect, you ultimately run in to the problem of how you ration scarce resources. There is no getting around this. You can choose your interests and place them above others, or mandate that one group of people work for cost (and then how do they fund further research, train new employees, maintain equipment, expand, etc.?) but this doesn't help people actually doing the work and making tough decisions on what to fund. As long as people are purchasing goods and services of their own free will, they will tend to purchase things with a marginal utility that benefits their life, be it a medical service, a movie, a vacation, etc. Why remove the profit motive from medicine and not entertainment, which is arguably much less necessary for life? You do realize that profit incentive is what makes companies make things faster and cheaper, right? That is how much of technology advances and we all own cars and color televisions, or can get antibiotics and generic meds for ten bucks at Walmart.

Plenty of people in the private sector put in charitable work, both medically and scientifically. Plenty of people in government work for abuse of funding, academic power, and prestige. Ultimately, in the mixed system we have with science, where the major funding sources are government, a group of bureaucrats decides where to spend all of our money based on their evaluation of where it is needed. We do all pay into this, and it is generally not very efficient. With private enterprise, a group of managers decide where to spend the money private individuals willingly gave to them in exchange for previous goods and services no one was entitled to, in order to attain the most profit. Additionally, a highly profitable sector of research is prone to having competitors test the research, and the desire to sell a drug at least guarantees the synthetic chemistry is replicable. It's easier to commit academic fraud in an esoteric region of science no one cares about. With the synthesis of drugs, Israel is going to be cranking out generics day 1 if you don't have international patents in place, and the rest of the world once the patents expire (if not sooner).

Which system you prefer is entirely up to you. And it would probably surprise people which system I have spent most of my time in based on how I talk. I say let the people doing the job choose what they want, be it salary, profit-sharing, government regulatory, academic, or private industry, and then let the consumer choose to reward desired work. With a pricing system, profit is often an indicator of superiority between otherwise equivalent systems (i.e. lower cost of production, faster production cycles, etc.). Are there sometimes issues with marketing perceived differences instead of real ones? Sure. But I will say that almost no one in the sciences goes into it for money. That's a fool's game. They tell you that at every step of the process.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

aga - 22-4-2015 at 12:35

In my case i understand almost nothing of the field of GM.

The miniscule fraction of Chemistry that i feel that i understand does not give me any sense of Mastery of the Universe, nor the right to put sodium acetate crystals into other people's ears on a daily basis.

The difference seems to be that some people (companies) feel it perfectly fine to insert the products of their chemistry experiments into a food chain that supplies entire populations.

Money (sigh).

It will probably all work out just fine, yet no true Scientist would hand-on-heart say that they have enough long-term experimental data yet to support a claim that it Will certainly be fine.

Time will tell, and the science will advance with the accumulating data.

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 12:47

Of course I understand all of this. Utopia is out of reach.

I live a Keep It Simple Stupid, life style. I'd rather pay twice as much in taxes to fund medical research as I do now to fund "for profit wars". More of our money is going toward creating death than health? I might be wrong but if you break down where our tax dollars go... I think I might be right.

See the problem with Utopia is... One group will always like to be in charge. To kind of keep an eye on things for everyone.
Then they spot something that they believe is not appropriate for a Utopian... It has to be stopped, corrected, whatever. Instantly, no more Utopia.

i get it.

Give, we the people the choice. Allow US to determine where our dollars go. Open the books, and let US vote on the budget, and not for leaders.

I would instantly send MY money into fields that help people. No more bullets for you guys. You've had too many already.
Send MY money to pay for elderly care. For social betterment.

Enough said. This is not the topic.

I hate the way our world is run.

[Edited on 4-22-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 12:53

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
It will probably all work out just fine, yet no true Scientist would hand-on-heart say that they have enough long-term experimental data yet to support a claim that it Will certainly be fine.



Science doesn't work towards certainty. No one would be able to release any type of technology if one would have to wait for 100.000 % certainly of safety.

The same principle holds here: enough research needs to be done to be sure 'beyond reasonable doubt' (but that doesn't equate to 100.000 % certainty).

Re. money: what do you think motivated thousands of years of conventional cross-breeding?

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 12:58

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
More of our money is going toward creating death than health? I might be wrong but if you break down where our tax dollars go... I think I might be right.

Not according to my sources. Wars are discretionary funding.
http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/fil...
The trend has continued.

Back to the science, here is a great site on how E. coli evolved through the current 50k generations with artificial constraints on reproductive diversity: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 13:00

Quote: Originally posted by Zombie  
Of course I understand all of this. Utopia is out of reach.

I live a Keep It Simple Stupid, life style. I'd rather pay twice as much in taxes to fund medical research as I do now to fund "for profit wars". More of our money is going toward creating death than health? I might be wrong but if you break down where our tax dollars go... I think I might be right.



Although I certainly agree there, even reducing the military budget to a mere fraction of what it is now does not fundamentally change the resource allocation (rationing) problem. But it would free up a hell of a lot resources, that's for sure.

Loptr - 22-4-2015 at 13:00

Quote: Originally posted by Mesa  
These questions aren't really applicable. There will be unintended changes to the genome of an organism for each generation in the culture regardless of if it has been genetically modified in a lab. Differentiating between the genomic changes caused by any human interference and a random variation from parent to offspring would be next to impossible with any accuracy.

Sure, you can point at a recombinant E.Coli strain and show that it's basically unrecognizable as E.Coli, but the purpose of recombinant cells is to produce as high quantities of a target enzyme as you can possibly fit in the cell without killing it. The cultures are designed to be grown and harvested in a lab with pretty stringent conditions. Accidental contamination is a pretty huge fuck up that sometimes results in the entire culture becoming useless, there is much incentive for the labs to ensure the proper procedures are observed.

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Mesa]


This is in response to the stated fact that unintended changes happen very frequently over generations. I would think that variation would be very apparent as the desired attribute would then be present in the organism.

I realize that changes take place and the genetics of an organism are going to very over generations. However, what I am not clear about is how effective the changes typically are across generations, as compared to deliberate introduction of a specific functional change to a genome, which is known to accomplish XYZ in the original organism. Isn't it possible that such a cherry picked change is more likely to have a greater effect on the target organism, than say those generational changes you mention?

(I probably sound like an idiot asking this...) Isn't this a sort of equilibrium difference? In a natural process, the equilibrium will be maintained, while if you specifically introduce a gene you are essentially pushing the equilibrium favorably to one side? Nature may correct this equilibrium down the road if the introduction of said gene has a negative effect on the organism, while nature didn't have the ability to restrict its introduction when it was done in a lab. All this is trying to make the point that there is less of a chance of a gene being introduced that negatively impacts a species or a dependent specie since its spread would be more inhibited by its presence. This is regarding the difference between a gene introduced through generational changes vs one directly introduced in a lab. (EDIT: So you can't really compare the two equally.)

(I may not be very clear on what I am trying to ask, but like I said, please excuse my ignorance, since I am well out of my realm and just trying to understand.)

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Loptr]

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 13:17

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  

(I probably sound like an idiot asking this...) Isn't this a sort of equilibrium difference? In a natural process, the equilibrium will be maintained, while if you specifically introduce a gene you are essentially pushing the equilibrium favorably to one side?

I'm not sure what you're asking exactly, but populations genetics can shift, at the most extreme towards speciation, in 3 classical ways: sympatric, allopatric, and parapatric speciation.

Inserting a gene may be an extreme form of indel mutation (or not, if you consider a virus), but any risk of introducing a genetically modified organism mirrors the typical problem of invasive species today. These species are thought to have emerged from any one of those 3 classical speciation event types.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 13:24

Quote: Originally posted by Loptr  
I realize that changes take place and the genetics of an organism are going to very over generations. However, what I am not clear about is how effective the changes typically are across generations, as compared to deliberate introduction of a specific functional change to a genome, which is known to accomplish XYZ in the original organism. Isn't it possible that such a cherry picked change is more likely to have a greater effect on the target organism, than say those generational changes you mention?



The evidence doesn't seem to bear this out at all.

I believe that with "genetics of an organism are going to vary over generations" you're referring to 'natural' variations and not man-made ones? But what about the latter ones, where huge chunks of genomes get reshuffled by various cross-breeding methods? Why a priori assume these would have less 'impact' (unintended consequences, if you prefer) than the quite pin-point insertions used in transgenetic methods?

aga - 22-4-2015 at 13:25

Please pardon my obvious ignorance.

Would it not be the case that the matrix of Life would be more likely to be able to respond to a mutant species that mutated in the same Environment that the rest of life did ?

Introduce, say Gasoline into a wasps' nest and they tend to die a lot, as they never had such an environmental evolutionary pressure exerted, ever (light it and they die more).

Having said that, Life is so accustomed to change and adaptation, it would most likely respond in a way that kept it alive.

My only worry is that Life generally would find a way to exclude Human Life from that matrix as a solution to whatever threat(s) we introduce.

Fulmen - 22-4-2015 at 13:26

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
...how on earth are you qualified...

Exactly! Most of aren't! So we are "forced" to rely on the experts opinions. We still have the right to question it, to be critical to it but we can't simply dismiss it without evidence.

I'm not saying I trust science blindly, we KNOW it can miss and mess up badly. But the method works nevertheless. It is our only working model of reality that has anything to show for it.

Are there any potential problems with GMO? Sure, as it it with any technology. But the same goes for NOT doing it. The wrong antibiotic can kill a person, but not using them would kill millions if not billions.
You have to look at both the pros and the cons, if GMOs weren't fundamentally useful we wouldn't be having this discussion?

And no, I'm not saying the politics and economics surrounding GMOs are all good, but can't you at least see the potential when it comes to feeding our growing population? This isn't just about our food, it's about food for everyone.

aga - 22-4-2015 at 13:32

GMOs are certainly useful in the Lab.

How is GM Food useful apart from $ ?

More exactly, is GM food actually doing anything Good anywhere ?

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 14:13

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  
Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
...how on earth are you qualified...

Exactly! Most of aren't! So we are "forced" to rely on the experts opinions. We still have the right to question it, to be critical to it but we can't simply dismiss it without evidence.

Completely agreed, and I don't consider myself a nutritional or crop expert at all. I have a good background in understanding things about them, but I will defer to experts where applicable. Clearly everyone can have an opinion, but an analysis should come from fact.


Aga, GMO proponents believe GMO food can alleviate world hunger by growing closer to sources of poverty, making trans-national shipment less of a logistical issue.
Also http://www.goldenrice.org/
Nutritional deficiency alleviation is a goal of some projects. So money is not the only goal, but money is indicative of a market demand for a good or service, otherwise no one would pay.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 14:27

Quote: Originally posted by aga  

More exactly, is GM food actually doing anything Good anywhere ?


Almost none of the food we eat is not the result of intensive cross-breeding over hundreds or thousands of years. Would you call a modern carrot 'good'? Or 'bad'? Clearly people buy them. Even allotment-grown varieties (usually lower crop yield varieties and reportedly tastier) aren't substantially different from cash crop types. I'm not sure 'good' or 'bad' are useful terms here but surely no one advocates returning to the root vegetables from which they were originally developed?

Did you read the story linked to upstairs about how corn and humans are essentially in a symbiotic relationship?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1048800...


[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Amos - 22-4-2015 at 14:27

Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:

-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients
-Provide a distinct advantage to supercorporations that can afford such research, edging out the little guy

I say allow genetic engineering of produce while setting nutritional standards for all GMOs, and ban the patenting of genes or crop strains. Nationalizing the agriculture industry might do some good, too, so that profit isn't the main motivation for providing food to the population.

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 14:34

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:

-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients


Do you care to put up even a scintilla of evidence for these claims, in particular the more easily quantifiable second one? Remember that this is supposed to be a forum about science, not the op ed pages of some anti-GM blogger...

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 14:34

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:

-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)

If this is true, then they probably won't monopolize the market. (Of course this is silly because all crops are selectively bred, whether by natural selection or horticultural. Seedless grapes? Watermelon?)
Quote:
-Don't contain as many nutrients

Source? Because currently the FDA seems to disagree: http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/Biotechnology/uc...
As does UC Davis: http://news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=11038
Quote:
-Provide a distinct advantage to supercorporations that can afford such research, edging out the little guy


Wealthy people, corporations, and governments always have an economic advantage over less wealthy ones. Return on investment may be less, which makes the company far less appealing to shareholders, but this is not anything new. Whether the process entails planting lots of foodstock to select for traits or splicing a gene into a foodcrop, it's easier when you're wealthy. As for what defines "supercorporation" that is a new one on me. Is there some kind of capital requirement or asset/debt ratio involved in that title?

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

DraconicAcid - 22-4-2015 at 14:50

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
Genetically modified/selectively bred crops:

-Don't taste as good as more traditional ones(they are bred for size and color)
-Don't contain as many nutrients


This is much more a problem with selectively bred crops than genetically engineered ones. The Red Delicious apple? Selectively bred to turn red early, so that it looks good in the store. Sure, it tastes like crap, but it's still one of the most produced apples in North America. But genetic engineering had nothing to do with it.

If you want to blame anything for such things, blame industrial agriculture.

Etaoin Shrdlu - 22-4-2015 at 15:25

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
More exactly, is GM food actually doing anything Good anywhere ?

It could be. See golden rice. People fight against legalization of this not because it's bad, but just because it could lead to more acceptance of GMOs. Ridiculous.

Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming marvelous effects from nonexistent sources.

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 15:34

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  
Quote: Originally posted by aga  
More exactly, is GM food actually doing anything Good anywhere ?

It could be. See golden rice. People fight against legalization of this not because it's bad, but just because it could lead to more acceptance of GMOs. Ridiculous.

Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming marvelous effects from nonexistent sources.



We should be focusing on something real like Psychic surgery.

images.jpg - 6kB

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 15:53

Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  

Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming marvelous effects from nonexistent sources.


My favourite is probably 'Urotherapy':

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/UT/Urine.aspx

Beats homeopathy in wackiness, pants down (no pun)!

Also available in cow-variety, for the really adventurous...

[Edited on 22-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 15:58

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  

Also this thread is scaring me. Amos, ISC, guys, come on. Most anti-GMO rhetoric is on about the same level as that of homeopaths, both claiming marvelous effects from nonexistent sources.


My favourite is probably 'Urotherapy':

http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/UT/Urine.aspx

Beats homeopathy in wackiness pants down (no pun)!



Just this title "Urotherapy is an Acclaimed Traditional Method of Healing with Urine" was enough of a read for me.

I don't believe Pee is good for too many things.

Now Feca Theropy on the other hand...

aga - 22-4-2015 at 16:03

Looks more like UroThrappy to me.

Anyway, back to the Science maybe ?

I have accumulated 20 minutes of Scientific Data, gathered under controlled conditions, that proves that my genome will do no harm ever.

(it's a lie, but roll with it)

Does that mean that releasing my Genome into the Wild will be OK every time over it's interactions with Others out there over the next 50 years ?

GM may be Scientific, yet so New as to have little provenance, therefore insufficient Proof to said to be 'safe' in any sense.

Chemosynthesis - 22-4-2015 at 16:27

Do we have reason to believe the horticultural crops out there today won't "do harm" with their genome (not sure what that means)? What mechanism for harm do you expect?

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 16:37

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
GM may be Scientific, yet so New as to have little provenance, therefore insufficient Proof to said to be 'safe' in any sense.


Repeating the same falsehood doesn't somehow make it true all of a sudden, aga.

That question has already been dealt with.

No amount of research can provide the 100.000 % answer as regards the safety of any given technology. But extensive testing can provide reasonable answers regards the safety of a 'new' technology. GM technology, BTW, is hardly new.

You use (air)planes all the time, in the knowledge that by and large the technology is very safe but also in the knowledge that plane disasters do occur. For GM you seem to demand other standards, possibly inspired by your repeated use of the word 'wild'.

GM crops are no more 'in the wild' than your garden variety carrot. And DNA doesn't just 'jump' from species to species in that largely imaginary 'matrix of life' you mentioned earlier.

Arguments of the 'it hasn't been tested enough' variety continue to be used ad infinitum by 'sceptics' in all kind of fields, e.g. 'mobile phones may cause brain tumours' (despite there being not a shred of evidence supporting that claim). It's difficult to satisfy those who not only are poorly qualified to be judges but also tend to lazily cherry-pick 'evidence' that supports their claims, while ignoring more mainstream and established science.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 22-4-2015 at 16:53

They have been doing this for a long time.

As I remember those Bio Steel or Spider Goats went back to the 70's. Same w/ the cloned sheep, and countless other examples.
Lots of crops, lots of insects, mammals, fish, ect.

I can honestly state that I have never seen a directly relate-able issue or cause for mass concern.

Now I'm going to take this conversation backwards 400 years. American bred slaves!
lots of folks comment on how or why professional sports athletes in the US are predominantly of African American descent.
Don't take this the wrong way but it is a direct result of Bio Engineering. The term used then was, selective breeding.

This whole topic is nothing new.

Mesa - 22-4-2015 at 17:35

Quote: Originally posted by aga  


Does that mean that releasing my Genome into the Wild will be OK every time over it's interactions with Others out there over the next 50 years ?


This is just an indirect way of asking us if it's a good idea for you to procreate... If you need to ask perhaps a chemistry forum isn't the best place to do so.


The arguments that GMO's have some sort of inherent competitive advantage over wild ecological species and therefore pose a danger to them are fundamentally untrue.
The basis of evolution is the alteration of a species genome geared specifically towards increasing that species ability to survive and reproduce in it's environment. Genetic modification invariably requires deleting or replacing a gene in that organism with one that has been chosen for a completely different purpose. If the resulting organism was still capable of reproducing with it's wild type parent strains, the changes it has undergone will inherently make it less survivable and continued cross reproduction will produce generations progressively less likely to include the inferior genes.

It would require a targetted and fairly significant modification intentionally focused to achieve that purpose in order to be an honest threat. Even then, it's fairly unlikely most evil scientist's creations will work without years of trial and error.
Evolution has just got so much of an advantage over us in it's ability to chose what variations give the most effective advantages for the resulting generations.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Mesa]

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 17:40

Quote: Originally posted by Mesa  
This is just an indirect way of asking us if it's a good idea for you to procreate... If you need to ask perhaps a chemistry forum isn't the best place to do so.


Alternatively, if you come across a genome wandering 'in the wild', you know who to U2U!

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]

blogfast25 - 22-4-2015 at 17:58

Top 10 consumer questions on GMOs:

https://gmoanswers.com/studies/top-10-consumer-questions

Amos - 22-4-2015 at 20:23

Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort. As DraconicAcid pointed out, yes, I suppose what I am far more against is the general practice of industrial agriculture and the concept that what we put into our bodies was given no second thought by the people that produced it other than the profit margin they can skim off it.

Factory-farmed fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc. do not taste nearly as good as the stuff you can grow at home or find at a farmer's market. Supermarket tomatoes will never touch a good heirloom variety. I have no clue why anyone would every ask for sources on this; what do you think all of the country's best restaurants are shifting towards, and where have your taste buds been your whole life? My source is that I have a functioning tongue. Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old strains grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell. Of course it sells! It's cheaper, more easily distributed to large grocers, and more importantly, the majority of the population has seldom ever tasted really good food.

As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts). If anyone wants to poke holes in this research, I'm all ears; I would actually love to change my mind and believe that we haven't all been put at a disadvantage when compared to past generations.

My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind". The more comfortable agricultural giants become in their ability to eliminate competition, the less they have to worry about what they're feeding us. If you fall on the right(as opposed to left) side of the aisle economically, you probably think otherwise.

Genetic engineering is a fascinating technology with enormous potential, and it may end up a regular part of my job(I'm a bioengineering student) in a few years. There are so many applications for it in the agricultural industry it could be used for, but at the moment, the only focus seems to be on producing more crops and bigger ones. And it's being done by the kinds of people that time and time again have shown that money comes first, not public health or safety.

Will I buy GMO produce in stores, at least for now? Absolutely; I don't think it's going to cause any genetic damage(lol) or other harm to me. But one day that apple from the supermarket just might not taste good enough to keep me from switching entirely over to farmer's markets or small local stores. And I don't want those farmer's markets to be gone because Monsanto's put them out of business. Nor do I want government standards on pesticide safety relaxed because none of the ones deemed safe work anymore to deter pests. I merely think that genetic engineering should be done delicately, transparently, and without the option of patenting specific genes or sequences.

Edit: One more thing, I'm in no way against selective breeding, just the way it is usually carried out that makes food superficially look better while potentially sacrificing taste or requiring them to use more or stronger pesticides. Negligence on the part of at least one biotech company MIGHT be killing off huge numbers of honey bees: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/15/us-usda-honeybees-...

[Edited on 4-23-2015 by Amos]

Amos - 22-4-2015 at 20:35

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
ISCGora:

I do have concerns about GMOs with regards to potential monopolisations of food supplies by a few very large corporations.

[Edited on 21-4-2015 by blogfast25]


There we go, this pretty much sums up what I was trying to say in a third of my original post.

Mesa - 22-4-2015 at 22:15

Quote:
Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort. As DraconicAcid pointed out, yes, I suppose what I am far more against is the general practice of industrial agriculture and the concept that what we put into our bodies was given no second thought by the people that produced it other than the profit margin they can skim off it.

We didn't label you as anti-GMO, we just pointed out how the statements you made in your post displayed a complete lack of understanding of the subject, and unwillingness to do the basic research required to provide evidence for your argument.
Your point about businesses motivated by profit leading toward less healthy GMO's would have a shred of legitimacy if not for the fact that the bulk of the GMO's being researched and developed are done by academic institutions on government funded grants. Coles/Tesco etc. aren't exactly famous for sponsoring scientific research projects.
Quote:

Factory-farmed fruits, vegetables, meat, dairy, etc. do not taste nearly as good as the stuff you can grow at home or find at a farmer's market. Supermarket tomatoes will never touch a good heirloom variety. I have no clue why anyone would every ask for sources on this; what do you think all of the country's best restaurants are shifting towards, and where have your taste buds been your whole life? My source is that I have a functioning tongue. Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old strains grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell. Of course it sells! It's cheaper, more easily distributed to large grocers, and more importantly, the majority of the population has seldom ever tasted really good food.

Case in point.
Farmers markets are swapmeets where commercial farmers sell their day to day produce. The same farmers that generate the bulk of their income supplying produce to retail outlets.
Do you honestly believe that they can make an adequate living from the money they earn from their 2 day per week stalls?

Quote:

As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts). If anyone wants to poke holes in this research, I'm all ears; I would actually love to change my mind and believe that we haven't all been put at a disadvantage when compared to past generations.

Yep, you've managed to find quite a well written article on how standard farming practices that have nothing to do with genetic engineering have resulted in lower quality food. Uhh... Thanks?

Quote:

My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind". The more comfortable agricultural giants become in their ability to eliminate competition, the less they have to worry about what they're feeding us. If you fall on the right(as opposed to left) side of the aisle economically, you probably think otherwise.

Again, a point that even basic research would have revealed to be untrue.

A lot of the GMO's that have passed the required regulations and are ready for large scale production are available to all registered farmers through the national seedbanks. There are government run conferences every 6 months intended to provide as much information as possible on any new strains and their applications. My family is heavily involved in the sugar cane industry and I've been to a couple of them myself.


Edit: I'm looking through the BBcode of this post and I can't find where the hell the unpaired quote tag is that's screwing up this post :(


[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Mesa]

blogfast25 - 23-4-2015 at 05:33

Amos:

You worded your concern rather clumsily, in particular when you conflated GM and selective breeding.

The whole point of GM is NOT to alter the proteome of the host plant. If that is achieved, then neither taste nor nutritional profile are affected. Of course if the host organism has already had some taste/nutrition bred out of it to begin with, the transgenic version isn’t going to improve that.

That is where GM and other selective breeding techniques substantially differ: GM is required to extensively test the proteome of their creations, conventional breeders develop today and take to market tomorrow.

I think you look at the ‘greed’ aspect of selective breeding/GM rather selectively: most people WANT low cost foods. Have you ever had a <i>poulet de Bresse</i>? These chickens really are out of this world but they do on average cost about twice as much as their more common counterparts. Not to mention that production capacity is far too small to meet larger demand (if their price was lower).

Similarly, farmers mostly need volume to scratch a living together.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Chemosynthesis - 23-4-2015 at 05:33

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
Wow, guys, way to jump to conclusions here and label me as anti-GMO when I clearly said nothing of the sort.

Asking for sources for your disputed claims, which you now failed to originally provide, is labeling you anti-GMO? Interesting reading comprehension.

Quote:
Chemosynthesis says that if todays mass-produced, brightly-colored produce actually didn't taste as good as that from old strains grown on small farms, it wouldn't sell.

No, this is not what I said. Use the quote function if you have trouble with quoting people. I said if GMO food doesn't taste as good, it probably won't monopolize a market. Then I pointed out the fact that all food is genetically modified... through meiosis and genetic drift with horticultural selective breeding. Why you would think companies wouldn't try and alter flavoring for consumer taste and preference is ridiculous.
Even if we ignore the common sense of that, there are sources of data that support this:
http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2013/market-view-tast...
http://www.hur.nu/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2012-The-import...

And actually, the USDA has the USDA's Agricultural Research Service, so I doubt you know what you're talking about when you say they have no research role. I cited newer research by UC Davis, a public research university, and the FDA and somehow they aren't good enough for you.

Quote:
As for whether or not agricultural products today are less nutritious than they were decades ago, I was mainly quoting a National Geographic article that I had read a little while ago. I can hear all the scoffs and jeering already. But as it turns out, they aren't the only ones that say this:
http://news.utexas.edu/2004/12/01/nr_chemistry
That article references this study, which follows the decline of nutrients in vegetables and some fruits since 1950, using findings by the USDA(a third party that has no direct role in this research and would have no reason to fudge the facts).

No, it doesn't follow the decline of nutrients. It associates hugely assumed range values (look at all the assumptions) between two years. It follows nothing, correlates nothing (which is still extremely dubious for study methodology purposes), and you're putting way too much stock in it because you are either not familiar enough with how science works (as an engineering student who is not even yet an engineer), and thus how to even be skeptical in an educated sense, or aren't reading well enough to be skeptical for whatever reason... if not both.

Did you notice that the previous study they published was flawed, according to the USDA (unable to draw conclusions about valididity, etc.) ? The authors didn't account for moisture content or an unspecified 12 other changes in their previous study... and now they just conveniently use a different endpoint year for comparison? Maybe 1950 is an uncommonly high measure, and the adjustments for accuracy invalidated the 1984 data... otherwise why not show a greater actual correlation rather than between-2-year association? Seems like cherry picking to me, particularly when the USDA had to point out unmentioned increases in nutrients from the last study.

Quote:
My third point, which stated that practices like genetic modification give vastly wealthy corporations even more ability to crush competition from smaller farms and businesses, was not said as a way of attacking the practice of genetic engineering. It was more my way of saying "this is great technology, but it's not being put to good use for the betterment of mankind".

Yes, let's just say 'more ability' with absolutely zero factual basis because golden rice is about money.... Let's just ignore all the government research into every aspect of science. Do you even know the largest single sources of science funding in the US? Federal government agencies. We're talking DoD, HHS/NIH, DoE, and NSF, in that order last I checked. Private industry may spend more as a total sum, but they are competing with one another, have some private charitable organizations in research, and don't have the budgets that the federal government has. Of course, you've never had to fill out a grant, an IRB, IACUC, or anything have you?

It appears you don't want to believe that commerce betters human life. You don't like private enterprise. That's fine, no one is making you. That doesn't deal with the science behind GMO's, and it doesn't give you an excuse to get sloppy with quotes, facts, ignore points you seem to dislike, and argue a priori. That's no science. Science is coming up with quantifiable mechanistic physical issues through observation and testing hypotheses. This kind of demonization is exactly why I don't like telling people my concerns about GMO food policies (which are much less than my fears on CAFOs, actually); I want to get factual results and not fear monger.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

blogfast25 - 23-4-2015 at 05:49

An interesting article on GM research funding (including types of sources):

http://fafdl.org/gmobb/about-those-industry-funded-gmo-studi...

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Amos - 23-4-2015 at 06:16

It looks as though I screwed myself over by trying to discuss multiple facets of the agricultural industry I have problems with instead of just genetic engineering. That, and it looks like I need to do a lot more research before I try to argue what I will admit is largely a gut feeling rather than a high level of education on the subject. What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in the way it is carried out, but that agricultural practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or food supply. So I'm not going to reply to all of the comments that have essentially trashed my arguments; that would take too long. I need to learn more before I can choose whether or not to agree with your points.

On a separate note: In industralized nations like the United States or those in Western Europe, which often produce more food than they need to, but simply don't spread it equally enough for everyone to be fed, is there a reason that we should be pushing for genetically modified crops within our own borders? It stands to reason that with the increasing amounts of pesticides and herbicides we're using, which have at least in part been made either possible or necessary by GMOs, nature will eventually adapt and become resistant to these tools. What improvements to mainstream farming in developed countries are we currently making with genetic engineering, other than increased yields or chemical tolerance?


Chemosynthesis - 23-4-2015 at 06:24

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  

On a separate note: In industralized nations like the United States or those in Western Europe, which often produce more food than they need to, but simply don't spread it equally enough for everyone to be fed, is there a reason that we should be pushing for genetically modified crops within our own borders? It stands to reason that with the increasing amounts of pesticides and herbicides we're using, which have at least in part been made either possible or necessary by GMOs, nature will eventually adapt and become resistant to these tools. What improvements to mainstream farming in developed countries are we currently making with genetic engineering, other than increased yields or chemical tolerance?


I think that's an excellent question. I have heard reduced fertilizer usage cited as a potential reason to push for engineering food in the US. Fertilizer runoff can have negative environmental effects. I am sure economic arguments could be made as well (since farm subsidies are so prevalent, and price fixing occurs ostensibly to stabilize markets). If food yield were capable of being made more consistent, this would theoretically cost the taxpayer less in subsidies and help farmers stabilize their financial expectations. Whether that is realistic at all is questionable.

blogfast25 - 23-4-2015 at 06:33

Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in the way it is carried out, but that agricultural practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or food supply.


W/o claiming you're either right or wrong, I simply don't see how you draw your two main conclusions from the content of this thread.

As regards 'how they may impact the environment or food supply', you need to be far more specific for anyone here to be able support or counter your argument. Do you have examples of what you consider 'cutting corners' for instance?

For what that's worth, it seems to me that 1st World agriculture and food supply are highly regulated. The GM industry is a point in case.

Amos - 23-4-2015 at 07:18

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Quote: Originally posted by Amos  
What I've largely come to realize from this thread is that genetic modification may not be perfect in the way it is carried out, but that agricultural practices in general seem to cut a lot of corners concerning how they may impact the environment or food supply.


W/o claiming you're either right or wrong, I simply don't see how you draw your two main conclusions from the content of this thread.

As regards 'how they may impact the environment or food supply', you need to be far more specific for anyone here to be able support or counter your argument. Do you have examples of what you consider 'cutting corners' for instance?

For what that's worth, it seems to me that 1st World agriculture and food supply are highly regulated. The GM industry is a point in case.


Well I will agree with you that at least in the US, I feel that the food crops I consume are very safe. When I say "cutting corners" I don't mean that farmers are necessarily violating laws, but that their practices aren't environmentally friendly. Examples in the United States include aggressive use of groundwater resources (second link here)in the American southwest despite an increasing frequency of droughts, and fertilizer runoff that produces oceanic dead zones. And then we have other parts of the world, where deforestation to further commercial agricultural interests, often illegally done, is a major concern, and the use of pesticides like DDT that have been banned in developed nations, which persists in many countries.

What I was saying is that I've realized that, even if I personally believe for the time being that GMOs have environmental consequences, I can also see problems produced by current agricultural practices that could potentially be largely solved through the use of genetic modification.

blogfast25 - 23-4-2015 at 07:23

Re. the OP’s “The science just hasn’t been done”.

Errrm… 2,000+ global studies beg to differ:

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/10/08/with-2000-g...

aga - 23-4-2015 at 14:32

Soooo ...

Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.

I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?

Fact is that the accumulated knowledge of a mere few decades simply isn't enough to even understand the effects of human-altered plant genes in the wild let alone predict the outcome(s).

At this point in time, we cannot even stop ourselves dying or getting diseases.

THAT is where we are at in our Superb Scientific Understanding of All and Everything.

I'd vote for decades of extensive/expensive/expansive testing to learn much more before taking the stance of 'We Know Best How Our Food Needs To Be Constructed'.


Etaoin Shrdlu - 23-4-2015 at 14:49

Soooo...

Seeing as the effects of breathing oxygen are so perfectly understood, well-researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of surfacing after being held underwater, could somebody upload my brain to the internet please.

[Edited on 4-23-2015 by Etaoin Shrdlu]

aga - 23-4-2015 at 14:51

Life Biochem is very poorly understood as it is a Dynamic, making it much harder to get a handle on.

While you read that, your brain was scanned in a picosecond and uploaded to the Cloud.

Nobody knows exactly which cloud, so keep checking the sky for clues.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by aga]

Chemosynthesis - 23-4-2015 at 16:21

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
Soooo ...

Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.

I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?


These are entirely different issues, but we have genetically modified human genes and then inserted them back into real human patients who are out and interacting with the world. I cited examples in this thread. Lots of us are trying to grow people new livers, pancreases, retinas, etc. That is much more difficult than modifying a gene here or there, or inserting a new one, but it is happening slowly.

Of course there is risk, but there is also risk of someone developing cancer in their daily life, or becoming a disease vector/reservoir, or a crop catching a blight, or leaching lead/cadmium, etc. into itself. Nothing that takes place in genetic engineering is unnatural because we are using natural processes to produce these changes... we just harness them on a vastly different timescale than one would expect them to take place.

blogfast25 - 23-4-2015 at 17:01

Quote: Originally posted by aga  

Soooo ...

Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.

I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?


Funny that you should bring up ‘simple’, because you really are reasoning like a simpleton here. I suspect you’re reasoning in bad faith and are out mainly to deliberately annoy people here. :mad: You also start off with a massive straw man. In fact I think you're deliberately trolling.

NO technology gets tested the way you see it (and for other technologies you’re more than happy with that). Assessing safety is about assessing risk to benefit ratios, not about establishing some 1000 % level of confidence.

Quote:
Fact is that the accumulated knowledge of a mere few decades simply isn't enough to even understand the effects of human-altered plant genes in the wild let alone predict the outcome(s).


FACT???, aga?

That whole sentence shows how little you know or are willing to learn. The transgenic genes, for one, aren’t “human-altered”. They are specifically chosen genes, inserted into the genome of the host to impart specific properties to the latter. See e.g. Golden Rice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice


[Edited on 24-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Mesa - 23-4-2015 at 17:05

Quote: Originally posted by aga  
Soooo ...

Seeing as GM is so perfectly understood, researched, and with several hundreds of years of data to back up the effects of Releasing human-modified gene sequences into the Wild, could somebody grow me a new liver please.

I guess it's just Not That Simple is it ?


Sure thing, just get all the other zealots to quit lobbying against stem cell research while it's in the oven yeah?
(This is meant to be tongue in cheek, I'm not calling you a zealot.)

[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Mesa]

Zombie - 23-4-2015 at 17:10

Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis  
Quote: Originally posted by aga  



Of course there is risk, but there is also risk of someone developing cancer in their daily life, or becoming a disease vector/reservoir, or a crop catching a blight, or leaching lead/cadmium, etc. into itself. Nothing that takes place in genetic engineering is unnatural because we are using natural processes to produce these changes... we just harness them on a vastly different timescale than one would expect them to take place.



Sooo I'm standing in the produce section, and an ear of corn says to me... Psssst! Buddy. Check out those melons!

I thought of you guys right away. :cool:

crazyboy - 23-4-2015 at 19:16

I am very interested in GMOs and am a bit surprised that by the opposition to GMOs considering the nature of this forum. A few things I want to point out:

blogfast25 said:
Quote:

We’ve been producing ‘GMOs’ since the dawn of organised agriculture


This is something I hear from those in favor of GMOs but it's wrong. GMOs are produced with biotechnology, by direct genomic alterations. I realize GMO is in quotations but this is misleading.

I think Bt corn is a good example of a GMO. The soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis produces a protein known as a delta endotoxin which is toxic to many crop pests. This protein has been known for decades and Bacillus thuringiensis and their extracts have been used for decades as a pesticide, they are not harmful to mammals and are currently approved and used in organic agriculture. The gene for this protein was expressed in chloroplasts so only the leaves and stalk carry the pesticide protein. Less pesticide is required, no labor is needed and the corn is virtually free of endotoxin which would not be the case when the Bt is sprayed as in organic agriculture.

I also don't buy this "nature is so complicated we can never understand it" type argument from aga. Virtually every food crop has been extensively bred by humans and released into the wild, the same goes for dogs, cats, horses etc. In GMOs only a few genes are generally added or modified and often the genes originate in other edible plants or animals, or harmless bacteria.

GMOs are undoubtedly the future of agriculture, unless the uninformed mob has it's way and forces more government restriction.

Chemosynthesis - 23-4-2015 at 20:07

Crazyboy, I certainly understand your position, but the use of different vectors and specificity of modification is kind of secondary to the overall effect. Direct genomic modification obviously occurs in meiosis, in viral infection, and through proofreading errors. Selection is very much still a part of any genetic manipulation, from transfecting a human cancer cell line to growing blue roses. I'm not really sure if I can see a distinction in the difference.

While argument could certainly be made about the purposeful causes of mutation in organized agriculture on the part of humans, it has been occurring since the 1920s (30s era ex. PMID 16588111). Here is an excellent timelime of MSU's work with selective breeding and radiation mutagenesis, which the USDA ARS oversaw: http://agbioresearch.msu.edu/uploads/files/Research_Center/S...

It seems to me that the most conservative estimates, we are rapidly nearing 100 years of publicly released for uses including food. The whole debate really reminds me of what I've read in Renaissance literature about the uneasiness of horticulture and 'artifice.'

Side note:
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2006/061231.htm
USDA ARS evaluated some GMO cows that prevent BSE prion disease incidences as far back as 2006/7.
Edit typo. second link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070101103354.ht...

[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Chemosynthesis]

Mesa - 23-4-2015 at 22:08

I get the impression that Crazyboy's post is intended to point out how disconnected the debate is due to how inherently flawed the term "Genetically modified organism" is by definition.


Amos - 24-4-2015 at 02:25

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  
Amos:
Of course if the host organism has already had some taste/nutrition bred out of it to begin with, the transgenic version isn’t going to improve that.

[Edited on 23-4-2015 by blogfast25]


I forgot to mention this earlier, but this is one of the things I was worried about regarding the culinary quality of produce. The most likely candidates for the kinds of genetic engineering meant to increase hardiness or yields are the ones that are already the favorites of large intensive farming operations. So while it won't necessarily give a direct effect to the flavor profile of produce, genetic engineering will give more commercial advantages to cultivars that aren't as tasty.

Fulmen - 24-4-2015 at 04:16

Quote: Originally posted by crazyboy  

I think Bt corn is a good example of a GMO. The soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis produces a protein [which] has been used for decades as a pesticide


Excellent explanation of how GMO usually work. At the moment we're not talking about engineered genes or proteins but known, natural genes that is found in nature.

Now genes are not dangerous (except for viral genes), as far as I know no natural food is screened for specific genes. If something is harmful to animals it's tied to specific proteins or chemicals, not the underlying genes. And these chemicals and proteins can easily be studied.

Has GMO hanged this? I can't see any evidence for it or any strong arguments for why it should. One can be skeptical to introducing new organisms to existing ecosystems, but that's nothing new. Or one can dislike the politics surrounding it, but that should be addressed by changing the politics rather than smear GMOs with false claims.

And considering how the opposition misrepresents the scientific facts, are you really sure that these evil cooperations are as vile as they're portrayed? I don't like these huge cooperations, nor do I blindly trust the politicians to do the right thing when they have to choose between public health and campaign funds. But these are problems that apply to most things in life, I don't think GMOs are any worse than other foods in this respect.

As for things like taste and nutritional value I suspect that farming practices are more important than genetics. Why do my own tomatoes taste better than the store bought? Are they using other plants or do they simply grow them too fast for flavors to develop properly? Or is it that they must be picked early to survive the transport while mine are picked when ripe?
And why does locally grown strawberries taste better than the imported ones? They all come from commercial farmers, so again it's unlikely that genetics are the explanation. But differences in soils, farming practices and growth conditions probably mean that the local ones grow slower, giving them more time to develop flavor.

blogfast25 - 24-4-2015 at 06:04

Crazyboy: I used quote marks because organisms that have been genetically modified by cross breeding or chemical or radiative mutagenic techniques are... genetically modified organisms. No getting around that.

Quote: Originally posted by Fulmen  

And considering how the opposition misrepresents the scientific facts, are you really sure that these evil cooperations are as vile as they're portrayed? I don't like these huge cooperations, nor do I blindly trust the politicians to do the right thing when they have to choose between public health and campaign funds.


That much of the technology originated from the 'MonSatan' partly explains the feverish attacks on the GMO industry. This is after all, the company one 'loves to hate'.

But I don't care about Monsanto<sup>*</sup>, Bayer et al as long as the science is sound. Going by what I've read, mainly literature reviews and some of the crap the anti-GMO missionaries put out, the science is sound as a pound. And the industry has a proven track record in terms of food safety.

Merely the tone much of the anti-GMO material tells you right away where the bias really lies. That much of the anti-GMO crowd is incapable of seeing that says much about their own biases, IMO.

I'm not a GMO advocate and in many ways couldn't care less about implementing it, although in specific cases it's hard not to see the huge potential. But when solid science comes under attack the way GMO has, that appals me. Age of Unreason, Part Umpteen...

<sup>*</sup> Having said that, I worked 'with' (as a customer) and 'against' (as a competitor) Monsanto for about 5 years in a completely unrelated technology field. I can't in all honestly say that Monsanto was any more or any less 'ethical' or 'moral' than any other players in that field at that time.

[Edited on 24-4-2015 by blogfast25]

Mesa - 24-4-2015 at 06:22

My brother graduated with first class honours and went on to get his doctorate in biotechnology/microbiology almost a decade ago. He works as a laborer or security guard now, I got first hand commentary on exactly how many projects had funding pulled or never got off the ground from time to time so I'm somewhat unapologetic in my attitude.

[Edited on 24-4-2015 by Mesa]

blogfast25 - 24-4-2015 at 07:03

Here's an example of an anti-GMO group ('New Age') playing seriously dirty games with regards to Bangladeshi genetically modified pest-resistant Bt brinjal (eggplant), from the blog of former anti-GMO Mark Lynas:

http://www.marklynas.org/2014/05/bt-brinjal-in-bangladesh-th...

Fulmen - 24-4-2015 at 08:59

Quote: Originally posted by blogfast25  

But when solid science comes under attack the way GMO has, that appals me. Age of Unreason, Part Umpteen...

This is my sentiment as well. It's not so much about GMO as it is about the irrational fear that some propagate. I have no doubt that if there are any dangers with GMO they will be the last to know of them yet the ones crying "we told you so" the loudest.

blogfast25 - 24-4-2015 at 10:24

"Scientists behind 'golden rice' GM crop to receive humanitarian award from the White House"

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-behind-...

 Pages:  1