GMO's

[wexer9]

I got an interesting message on Facebook from a man criticizing my support of GMO crops. He raised some interesting points, and is causing me to reconsider my position on GMO crops. Can anyone see any problems with his arguments, or does anyone have any commentary? (His words are italicized, my responses are bolded)

GMO's are not going to feed the world. I understand that you are young and that big companies like Monsanto have put millions into advertising that GMO's are safe and offer the promise of a better world. The world does not have a food shortage. The world has a food distribution problem. GMO's are not the same as naturally bred plants. They remove DNA from bacteria and force them into the plants using such techniques as firing them into the plant cells coated with gold and strapped to a 22 caliber bullet (essentially). This method is called gene gun. Some of the crops are genetically modified to produce pesticide. Yes I’m serious. You could be eating a plant filled with poison. How do they get away with this you might ask? Because according to the current law GMO's are "natural." So they could have that plant produce bleach and it would not have to be regulated or tested because it was produced "naturally." I'm sure you will take the stand of a normal high school student and laugh about this e-mail but I hope one day you take the time to learn about GMO's.

Have you ever heard of Normal Borlaug? The greatest human being of all time? He saved over a billion lives due to biological engineering of food crops.

The "Green Revolution" had nothing to do with GMO's. Normal Borlaug is famous for introducing artificial fertilizer to third world countries in order to boost their crop yields. You should do some research on the Haber-Bosch process. I realize that you think GMO's are going to be used for good, but the fact remains they will be utilized in order to achieve control over the food system under the banner of hope and prosperity. Do you not agree that it is frightening that a corporation be allowed to “own” food? Ask yourself if corporations like Monsanto and Cargill care at all about the welfare of third world countries. You seem like a very intelligent guy, you should read the book "Food Wars" or "Food Politics." I think they would give you a far greater insight into the world of modern agriculture and biotechnology.

Okay, I'll check them out when I have time.

But what about the fact that genetically modified crops can be used to feed these third-world countries by creating crops with a higher bounty and more resistant to the elements, disease, etc.?

Ah, I’m very glad you asked that question. It does seem like a very straightforward assumption to think that GMO's would be used in a positive fashion to better society etc, etc. Unfortunately this is not what is happening. You are aware that humans have 26 sets of chromosomes, and that we know very little about what most of our DNA codes for. Well most plants have hundreds of chromosomes, so you can imagine how little we know about them from a genetic standpoint. We have very little ability to manipulate their DNA in a positive direction. Mostly everything we do is just dumb luck. We bombard cells with fragments of foreign DNA, thousands of times, in the hopes that one of the recombinations will create a viable "product." In the end all they care about is that the plant grows, looks normal, and expresses the particular DNA strand that they forced into it. We know almost nothing of the side affects of this extra DNA; in fact almost all the cells that they add extra DNA to create monstrous plants, deformed and unable to survive. Is it so hard to believe that the extra DNA could produce other problems that we can't see? Scientists have done countless studies on the subject and many have found disturbing results. One English scientist studied GMO potatoes on rats. Almost all the rats fed GMO potatoes ended up developing intestinal cists that are the precursors to cancer. He is the main reason GMO's for human consumption are banned in Europe.

There are three main GMO products widely used in agriculture today, none of which are of any benefit to farmers or consumers. They are BT Corn, Roundup Ready Corn, and the Terminator Gene. “BT” derives its name from the bacteria in which the original DNA strand was taken. The strand codes for a type of protein based insecticide. Essentially it turns every part of a corn plant into poison. If an insect eats even one bite, it’s dead. And yes they feed this corn to people.

The second is “Roundup Ready Corn.” I’m going to assume you know what Roundup is. Basically what this DNA addition allows the corn to do is metabolize roundup into fertilizer. A good thing at first glance but a scary thing once you understand the implications. First off the corn is weaker than its natural relatives. The addition of the new DNA makes the corn more susceptible to disease, drought and a whole range of other genetic problems. The only benefit is that the farmer can now spray his field over and over and over with roundup until he has killed every living plant on the field except for the Roundup Ready Corn. I don’t need to tell you that is unsustainable and disturbing to say the least. Yes they feed this corn to humans as well. In fact most of the corn grown in the US is Roundup Ready Corn.

The third most common GMO is what is known as the “Terminator Gene.” This gene basically causes the plant to commit suicide at the end of one season. This means you cannot grow the seed that the plant creates, because the seeds are “duds.” This is possibly the most disturbing GMO of all because if it makes it into the natural plants genetics all the “real” crops will die, leaving people no choice but to grow GMO crops. Imagine a world with only one type of corn, soybean, rice, etc, etc. And Monsanto, the creator of all these lovely GMO’s, was allowed to release this “technology” into the world with no real testing of its safety.

Well this is a really quick summation of why GMO’s are a dangerous thing. I hope I have at least helped a little to educate you on the subject.

I'll look further into the subject.

Thank you for sending me this.

I found a video clip that you may find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=CA&hl=en&v=c_OJcPKEYDE

Sorry here is the longer 32 minute clip...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4343232132600238289&q=The%20World%20According%20to%20Monsanto&hl=en

 

[Pipirr]

GMO's are not going to feed the world. I understand that you are young and that big companies like Monsanto have put millions into advertising that GMO's are safe and offer the promise of a better world. The world does not have a food shortage. The world has a food distribution problem.

It's a food distribution problem? Fine, then lets fix that.

How about a global government that ensures equal distribution of food to every person on the planet.

Or a free market solution: get some big companies involved, like Monsanto or Cargill (to pick two names completely at random), and they can help fix it. Make themselves some money moving goods around the planet. And don't forget, removing trade barriers could help loosen up that problem of insufficient food distribution.

Or affluent countries could devote large, annual sums of money to giving their surplus produce to countries that don't have enough.

Or, as just one among many solutions to the problem of food shortages, we could use the power of science!!! to improve agricultural productivity, and farmer's livelihoods, in regions that aren't producing enough. Improvements that could well include GMOs.

Yeah, it's a food distribution problem. But just try and find a solution to the problem that your friend will find acceptable.

 

[Delvo]

GMO's are not going to feed the world. I understand that you are young and that big companies like Monsanto have put millions into advertising that GMO's are safe and offer the promise of a better world.

Politics, not science.

The world does not have a food shortage. The world has a food distribution problem.

The latter being true does not make the former false. Nor does it matter to the question of the value or harm of GMOs (which DOES NOT HAVE AN APOSTROPHE because it's plural, not possessive!), since that's still politics, not science.

Technically, enough food is made on Earth to feed the people who live on the Earth right now, so the assertion is true for the moment in a certain sense, but false in others and massively shortsighted even in that one. Feeding them all well is another matter, and the population is still only growing and already large enough to create considerable stress on the world's biological productive capacity. The "enough or not enough" line is fuzzy, not all or nothing, and the reason why is revealed by the question "enough for what?". This person's argument assumes the answer must be "to keep the current population not starving to death". But starvation to death is not the only problem that GMOs, or even just increased food production in general, would help solve. What if you instead answer that question with "to keep them all not just living but healthy"... or "to sustain that population level x# years into the future"... or "to accommodate x# amount of population growth (because it is still only growing)"... or "to feed the population while holding the amount of remaining natural land steady or letting more natural habitats recover instead of having more and more of it deleted for farm land"... or "to compensate for loss of usable farm land in one area with increased production from another"...

Some of the crops are genetically modified to produce pesticide. Yes I’m serious. You could be eating a plant filled with poison.

Poison to insects... while the plant is living and producing the compound to keep up with the compound's breakdown... and only in the leaves and stems, not the part you eat.

I'm sure you will take the stand of a normal high school student and laugh about this e-mail but I hope one day you take the time to learn about GMO's.

Condescending derision, not science.

Normal Borlaug...

I don't know who that is.

I realize that you think GMO's are going to be used for good, but the fact remains they will be utilized in order to achieve control over the food system under the banner of hope and prosperity.

To some extent, this is true. The companies that invent the stuff are trying to use it to make a profit. Sometimes that means selling people a better product. Sometimes it means harming the competition or restricting the buyer's options. In all three cases, sometimes it doesn't even work.

you should read the book "Food Wars" or "Food Politics." I think they would give you a far greater insight into the world of modern agriculture and biotechnology.

I'd go with "Lords of the Harvest", because it doesn't favor any one side over another and shows how people of good will and intentions can still clash and screw up and make things worse for somebody somewhere by just not understanding how others think... scientists who don't understand markets, merchants who don't understand political or ideological movements, political/philosophical/religious activists who don't understand science...

The real history of genetic manipulation of crop species so far has been a history of failed attempts. The big drastic changes that are theoretically possible have been frustratingly slow in coming and seem farther off now than they did before. The smaller changes that have been available in the short time geneticists have had to work on this stuff have generally been obscure traits of minor significance that haven't panned out in the markets due to real-world uncooperativeness. The "Flavr Savr" tomato was definitely different from other tomatoes, but not in a way that customers could easily discern, so its sales were never particularly high and didn't outweigh production costs. A modified type of carrot that would have tasted better to most people (and I think came in a more convenient size and/or shape) lost out in competition to new treatments of regular carrots (serving them cut into smaller pieces, frequently softened, in a sweet sauce) that came out at roughly the same time. A type of rice was invented which "naturally" produced some nutrients that normally aren't found in rice, the nutrients in question being exactly the ones that many poor people who eat a lot of rice are short of. This was to be a great breakthrough in fighting malnutrition, but the people to whom it was targeted because they were the ones whose needs it had been designed to meet rejected it because it wasn't white and they didn't like the idea or appearance of pale-yellowish-orangish rice.

You are aware that humans have 26 sets of chromosomes, and that we know very little about what most of our DNA codes for. Well most plants have hundreds of chromosomes, so you can imagine how little we know about them from a genetic standpoint.

Mindless gibberish. I don't know what fraction of the human genome has had the genes "decoded" in the sense that the genes' functions are known, but it's only growing has nothing to do with how many pieces (chromosomes) the genome is divided into. Plants not only don't generally have much more DNA than us, but also don't even generally divide it into more pieces than us. And even if that weird claim about the hundreds of chromosomes were anywhere near true and did have anything to do with how much DNA is there to decode, it still wouldn't mean anything at all about what fraction of it we've decoded so far or what can and can't be done with that knowledge, and even if it did, that still wouldn't mean anything at all about the benefits or risks of the few things we have figured out and can do.

We have very little ability to manipulate their DNA in a positive direction. Mostly everything we do is just dumb luck. We bombard cells with fragments of foreign DNA, thousands of times, in the hopes that one of the recombinations will create a viable "product."

That's one method. There are several others. The fact that this person mentioned this one alone as if it were the only one, and did so TWICE, apparently believing this to somehow constitute an argument against agricultural genetics, tells me (s)he has some kind of fixation on it and associates some kind of emotion with it. Maybe it just sounds too primitive to feel like real science, or, from the use of the name "gene gun" and the verb "bombard", maybe it violates this devoted anti-corporate lefty's pacifist sensibilities. But there's no way around the fact that getting new genes into a cell nucleus requires puncturing the cell membrane and nuclear membrane with something, and shooting tiny objects at them works.

We know almost nothing of the side affects of this extra DNA

Lie.

in fact almost all the cells that they add extra DNA to create monstrous plants, deformed and unable to survive.

Lie.

One English scientist studied GMO potatoes on rats. Almost all the rats fed GMO potatoes ended up developing intestinal cists that are the precursors to cancer.

I'm not familiar with such a study, but I do note two things that come to mind immediately which would make this not a big deal even if it is true at all:

1. The first studies on any new medical thing in animals are usually of the "acute" type, meaning they use absurdly high doses first to see whether that does anything big & obvious in a short time. More sensitive, finely adjusted tests come later. This first step has a tendency to discover problems that only come from the dosage, not the nature of the substance in question.

2. GMO potatoes are not on the market for human consumption, which indicates, if anything at all, a success of the system for keeping dangerous things out, even if these potatoes really are that bad.

There are three main GMO products widely used in agriculture today, none of which are of any benefit to farmers or consumers. They are BT Corn, Roundup Ready Corn, and the Terminator Gene.

Also Roundup-Ready soy, but yes, this is accurate enough.

“BT” derives its name from the bacteria in which the original DNA strand was taken. The strand codes for a type of protein based insecticide.

Yes. It's an insect that otherwise kills a substantial fraction of the crop, so stopping the insect increases yields without changing anything else.

Essentially it turns every part of a corn plant into poison.

Lie.

If an insect eats even one bite, it’s dead.

Lie.

And yes they feed this corn to people.

...which kindo exposes the fact that the dramatics above are lies, since there has been no harm at all to humans.

The second is “Roundup Ready Corn.”... First off the corn is weaker than its natural relatives. The addition of the new DNA makes the corn more susceptible to disease, drought and a whole range of other genetic problems.

Lie. (And even if it weren't, that's a problem for the company that makes these corn seeds and Roundup, not anybody else, because all it does is give seed buyers an incentive not to buy that inferior product. A business idea that doesn't work out for the company that tries it is not evil, and the expectation of a business failure is not a reason to ban the company from trying it and risking failure.)

The only benefit is that the farmer can now spray his field over and over and over with roundup until he has killed every living plant on the field except for the Roundup Ready Corn. I don’t need to tell you that is unsustainable and disturbing to say the least.

Why not? Because it's too obvious? It isn't. Maybe (s)he should have, instead of merely telling you so (while claiming not to be telling you so), just come out with the supposedly obvious explanation of why. Roundup kills what's photosynthesizing at the time it's applied but then breaks down rapidly, without leaving any chemical effects of the environment, and the only alternatives to herbicides are either decreased crop yields & health due to crop competition with weeds, or more soil erosion and higher costs due to physical weeding.

Yes they feed this corn to humans as well.

Oh no, that means if I eat it I won't be able to photosynthesize anymore!

In fact most of the corn grown in the US is Roundup Ready Corn.

I don't know otherwise, so: This one might be true!

The third most common GMO is what is known as the “Terminator Gene.” This gene basically... the seeds are “duds.” This is possibly the most disturbing GMO of all because if it makes it into the natural plants genetics all the “real” crops will die

The gene (s)he's talking about does indeed cause a plant that has it not to produce viable seeds. That's what it's for.

Last time I checked, this was what was being said would someday happen, but there had been no evidence yet that it had, would, or could. So in the years since then, even the slightest indication that there was any actual chance of it in the real world would have been big news, which I've somehow missed. Somehow, that seems less likely to me than that this person is simply reciting yet another invalid anti-GMO talking-point. For that matter, it's pretty much logically impossible because, by definition, a gene that prevents the seed from germinating and growing can not possibly come to dominate and overwhelm the population; that's what happens when something reproduces too much, not too little!

I'll be nice and give him/her one thing on this gene, though. Its purpose is the ideal example of these businesses having profit in mind at least some of the time rather than only self-sacrificial generosity to humanity. It's there to keep farmers coming back for seeds next year instead of just sowing the seeds made by this year's plants. However, that would be a fairly small adjustment of the market to a model that's already in use with some other species, because in some other species, most famously corn, it's already that way. Farmers don't even try collecting seeds for next year; they just routinely buy more, and always have. That's because the best health and highest yields in those species come from crosses of two strains, somewhat misleadingly called "hybrids", which don't "breed true"; if they do reproduce, their offspring don't reliably have the desirable traits of their parents. Buying seeds every year lets a farmer be sure to always have the type that will be the most healthy and productive.

* * *

No time for the videos for now...

 

[oggiesnr]

Farmers don't even try collecting seeds for next year; they just routinely buy more, and always have. That's because the best health and highest yields in those species come from crosses of two strains, somewhat misleadingly called "hybrids", which don't "breed true"; if they do reproduce, their offspring don't reliably have the desirable traits of their parents. Buying seeds every year lets a farmer be sure to always have the type that will be the most healthy and productive.

In many third world countries they do collect part of the crop for seed. It's one reason why old and trusted variants tend to stick around.

Likewise the seed that our farmers buy was of course grown, cross pollination is one of the issues that is still being addressed as some of the companies are very litigious if parts of their genetic fingerprint is found in other strains.

Steve

 

[athon]

Delvo did a pretty good job with addressing this, however I'll add my two cents worth as well;

GMO's are not going to feed the world. I understand that you are young and that big companies like Monsanto have put millions into advertising that GMO's are safe and offer the promise of a better world. The world does not have a food shortage.

This is both true and false. As such, the world as a whole produces enough food to feed all of the current human inhabitants. The problem isn't that globally sufficient food can't be produced, but rather that humans don't all have access to identical resources.Some regions have poor access to transport, water, good soil conditions, certain nutrients etc. In many ways, it makes the distribution of food equally an economic one.
As a science, genetic modification can address some of these imbalances. Yet you can't take the politics out of the practice - what companies do with the technology is a distinct (although equally important) argument.

They remove DNA from bacteria and force them into the plants using such techniques as firing them into the plant cells coated with gold and strapped to a 22 caliber bullet (essentially). This method is called gene gun.

Any time somebody uses such emotive language to describe a rather straight-forward process, my alarm bells go off. Yes, this is one method of introducing genes to plant cells; anthropomorphising it isn't an argument.

Some of the crops are genetically modified to produce pesticide. Yes I’m serious. You could be eating a plant filled with poison. How do they get away with this you might ask?

Yes, you could be consuming something like a spore produced by a bacteria that kills insects. Mind you, that same spore in mammals has zero effect. We lack the physiology to even recognise it.

This is a completely ignorant statement. 'Poison' is a subjective term that depends on the organism which is to be affected and the amount they consume. Many things we consume in foods would be poisonous to different organisms, or to ourselves in large amounts.

Because according to the current law GMO's are "natural." So they could have that plant produce bleach and it would not have to be regulated or tested because it was produced "naturally." I'm sure you will take the stand of a normal high school student and laugh about this e-mail but I hope one day you take the time to learn about GMO's.

Well, given it's part of my job to understand it...

The "Green Revolution" had nothing to do with GMO's. Normal Borlaug is famous for introducing artificial fertilizer to third world countries in order to boost their crop yields. You should do some research on the Haber-Bosch process. I realize that you think GMO's are going to be used for good, but the fact remains they will be utilized in order to achieve control over the food system under the banner of hope and prosperity.

I actually agree with him that a number of other processes are necessary. 'Biochar' is something that's getting a lot of press lately, and could be damn useful. The problems addressed above won't all be solved by GM. It is a tool that could prove useful, is all. Likewise, the HB process and processes like it will also play a role, and won't present a complete answer.

Do you not agree that it is frightening that a corporation be allowed to “own” food? Ask yourself if corporations like Monsanto and Cargill care at all about the welfare of third world countries.

To his first question, I wouldn't say 'frightening' (they own the rights to certain strains of crop ffs...it's not like they 'own food' in a manner that could starve a nation), but I also feel there are immense problems with the patenting and R&D system as far as GM goes. In any case, that's a political problem more than a scientific one. If it's such a big deal, he should be arguing against the current processes rather than a shot-gun 'GM is bad' approach.

You are aware that humans have 26 sets of chromosomes, and that we know very little about what most of our DNA codes for.

It's an argument of ignorance. It's true that while we've sequenced our genome, we haven't mapped it. A lot of the sequences aren't clear. It does not mean, however, that we are completely ignorant on how genetics works.

Well most plants have hundreds of chromosomes

Non-sequitor. The chromosome count has nothing to do with the complexity of the genes or the organism.

It's a shame that this guy is so bent on muddying the waters. The GM debate is a worthwhile one to have, and I agree we need to be damn careful about how it's implemented. Yet having fools like this making such ignorant statements means the debate isn't an honest one. I fear that with people like this making the fight against GM, it makes it easier for ill-conceived implementations (and therefore mistakes) to occur.

We have very little ability to manipulate their DNA in a positive direction. Mostly everything we do is just dumb luck. We bombard cells with fragments of foreign DNA, thousands of times, in the hopes that one of the recombinations will create a viable "product." In the end all they care about is that the plant grows, looks normal, and expresses the particular DNA strand that they forced into it. We know almost nothing of the side affects of this extra DNA; in fact almost all the cells that they add extra DNA to create monstrous plants, deformed and unable to survive.

There is so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start. It's like suggesting that because your mechanic uses a hammer instead of carefully pushing a pin into place, it's just 'dumb luck' that your car gets fixed.

In some ways, the process seems to the layman to be based on luck. It is a numbers game, true, but that doesn't make it less accurate.

One English scientist studied GMO potatoes on rats. Almost all the rats fed GMO potatoes ended up developing intestinal cists that are the precursors to cancer. He is the main reason GMO's for human consumption are banned in Europe.

I was waiting for this one. It's like he's reading straight out of the 'Anti-GM BS' guide book.

Ok, the study he's referring to was actually quite a significant one, but for very different reasons to what is typically touted. It suggested that it was possible for an inserted gene to create side-effects in a food substance that could result in unpredicted biological activity in the consumer;

We suggest that the promotion of jejunal growth was the result of the transformation of the potato with the GNA gene, since the jejunum of rats was shown to be stimulated only by GM potatoes but not by dietary GNA (table 1), in agreement with a previous study in which the dietary GNA concentration was 1000-fold higher than the one used in this study. Thus, we propose that the unexpected proliferative effect was caused by either the expression of other genes of the construct, or by some form of positioning effect in the potato genome caused by GNA gene insertion.

from this site.

True, this could be a cause for concern. Which is why such testing does need to take place with GM - you can't whack any old gene in a food and think it'll just make that substance. It is more complicated.

However, it's not a magical system where all GM makes all things poisonous. As with many things in science, GM needs to be explored on a case-by-case basis.

They are BT Corn, Roundup Ready Corn, and the Terminator Gene. “BT” derives its name from the bacteria in which the original DNA strand was taken. The strand codes for a type of protein based insecticide. Essentially it turns every part of a corn plant into poison. If an insect eats even one bite, it’s dead. And yes they feed this corn to people.

People, who aren't insects.

To be completely honest, it was my boss who came up with the BT GM technology. I have no personal investment in it and although it's part of my job to understand GM, I also have no stake in 'selling' it one way another. It's the science which is important. The politics I leave to other people to argue. Although I do have my personal opinions on it.

The third most common GMO is what is known as the “Terminator Gene.” This gene basically causes the plant to commit suicide at the end of one season. This means you cannot grow the seed that the plant creates, because the seeds are “duds.” This is possibly the most disturbing GMO of all because if it makes it into the natural plants genetics all the “real” crops will die, leaving people no choice but to grow GMO crops. Imagine a world with only one type of corn, soybean, rice, etc, etc. And Monsanto, the creator of all these lovely GMO’s, was allowed to release this “technology” into the world with no real testing of its safety.

Again, a little bit of misinformation goes a long way.

Terminator genes are suicide genes, under certain circumstances. Yet most GM crops are simply unable to breed, meaning you have to keep buying each year's crop from the corporation. Make of that what you will (I can see both sides of the dilemma).

The first problem with his claim is that terminator genes could escape into other plants and destroy them. Anybody who has a high school understanding of evolution will see the big flaw here - plants requiring certain conditions to remain alive will not be competitive.

GM cross-pollination is a real problem that needs to be considered. Again, this guy is risking upsetting the debate with misinformation. I'm reminded of GM protestors a few years back uprooting a field of GM research crops (well, they actually screwed up and invaded another farmer's premises...which as tragically funny as it was, simply proves they're not the sharpest pencils in the box). My thought was 'how the hell are we supposed to learn about GM safety if we have people spoiling the process?'.

Athon

 

[Kuko 4000]

Wexer, could you ask the person to join the discussion here? There's a lot of mis- and disinformation surrounding this topic and he / she seems like a reasonable person to discuss this with.

 

[paximperium]

The "Green Revolution" had nothing to do with GMO's. Normal Borlaug is famous for introducing artificial fertilizer to third world countries in order to boost their crop yields. You should do some research on the Haber-Bosch process. I realize that you think GMO's are going to be used for good, but the fact remains they will be utilized in order to achieve control over the food system under the banner of hope and prosperity. Do you not agree that it is frightening that a corporation be allowed to “own” food? Ask yourself if corporations like Monsanto and Cargill care at all about the welfare of third world countries. You seem like a very intelligent guy, you should read the book "Food Wars" or "Food Politics." I think they would give you a far greater insight into the world of modern agriculture and biotechnology.

Norman Borloug is one of the greatest human beings in recent history and helped advance the feeding of the world's population and is credited with saving untold millions from starvation. He won the Nobel Peace Price and a multitude of other awards.

Your friend's assessment of the Green Revolution is false. The revolution occurred due to Dr. Bourloug(a plant geneticist) introduction of modern fertilizer, irrigation and pesticides(the ever so evil product) along with a heavily crossbred modified high yield rice and wheat.

 

[wexer9]

Thank you for the responses, guys! Very interesting!

Also, sorry, GMOs, not GMO's.

 

[Tapio]

It's a shame that this guy is so bent on muddying the waters. The GM debate is a worthwhile one to have, and I agree we need to be damn careful about how it's implemented. Yet having fools like this making such ignorant statements means the debate isn't an honest one. I fear that with people like this making the fight against GM, it makes it easier for ill-conceived implementations (and therefore mistakes) to occur.

Well said.

This is why I think we need expert dialogue on the subject by people who can make the stuff comprehensible also to us laymen.

At the moment the most difficult thing for my kind of person (former organic/anti-GMO fanatic) is trying to keep emotionally unattached in front of claims, regardless where they're made from. No need to tell which side is doing more in order to get advocates by appealing to emotion.

I'm glad we've got one older GMO scientist doing a pretty decent job in Finland to fight (sometimes surprisingly fiercely) against such eco-fundamentalists.

Good idea from Kuko! How about it, wexer?

 

[wexer9]

Wexer, could you ask the person to join the discussion here? There's a lot of mis- and disinformation surrounding this topic and he / she seems like a reasonable person to discuss this with.

Okay, I'll send them a message.

 

[wexer9]

He says he'll join the discussion.

 

[macdoc]

Delvo - good post.

Normal Borlaug...
I don't know who that is.

You should for some credibility...

Norman Ernest Borlaug (born March 25, 1914) is an American agronomist, humanitarian, Nobel laureate, and has been called the father of the Green Revolution.[1] Borlaug is one of five people in history to have won the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.[2] He is also an awardee of the Padma Vibhushan, India's highest civilian honour to non-citizens of exemplary accomplishment.

Borlaug received his Ph.D. degree in plant pathology and genetics from the University of Minnesota in 1942. He took up an agricultural research position in Mexico, where he developed semi-dwarf high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties.

During the mid-20th century, Borlaug led the introduction of these high-yielding varieties combined with modern agricultural production techniques to Mexico, Pakistan, and India. As a result, Mexico became a net exporter of wheat by 1963. Between 1965 and 1970, wheat yields nearly doubled in Pakistan and India, greatly improving the food security in those nations. These collective increases in yield have been labeled the Green Revolution, and Borlaug is often credited with saving over a billion people from starvation.[3] He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1970 in recognition of his contributions to world peace through increasing food supply.

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

I'll admit I did not recognize his name either tho I knew there was a scientist who drove the Green revolution.

My take- GM is like any technology and is simply a less random aspect of the gene manipulation and breeding humans have been doing. There are risks and rewards.

The outcomes are up to us to set in place the oversight against dangerous outcomes as we do with any technology.

Your note about Roundup is summary of the knee jerk anti GM reactions without knowledge....
the "poison" is a cabbage virus...

•••
Athon....also well tempered informative illuminative post

 

[Kuko 4000]

He says he'll join the discussion.

Excellent, I'm looking forward to it.

 

[soylent]

You should for some credibility...

Your sarcasm detector appears to be malfunctioning; have you checked the batteries?

 

[CurtC]

Mostly everything we do is just dumb luck. We bombard cells with fragments of foreign DNA, thousands of times, in the hopes that one of the recombinations will create a viable "product." In the end all they care about is that the plant grows, looks normal...

Funny, this is the exact same example I use to disarm GM opponents. But he's confused - the bombardment of cells randomly, in hopes to find something that makes for an improvement, is how it used to be done, before GM. Technically, I guess that technique would be "genetic modification," but GM refers to modern gene splicing.

Food developers in the past radiated seeds, or exposed them to harsh chemicals, in order to damage DNA, to see what happens.

Gene-splicing is precise - they know what the gene does that they're splicing in, they know where they're putting it, then they just have to test for that effect, and to make sure there are no unintended consequences like allergic reactions.

 

[athon]

Funny, this is the exact same example I use to disarm GM opponents. But he's confused - the bombardment of cells randomly, in hopes to find something that makes for an improvement, is how it used to be done, before GM. Technically, I guess that technique would be "genetic modification," but GM refers to modern gene splicing.

We might be splitting hairs over that one. I would consider the shotgun method of introducing novel genes into plant cells a potential part of the modification process. To be honest, I'm not entirely certain of how often we use it - I know some processes where adult plant cells are modified this way still utilise it, but it's only one tool in the tool box, so to speak.

Athon

 

[Toke]

In 1991 I had "genetic engenering" in high school.
It was a kit our teacher got hold off, some materials brought some rented.

We disolved a E. coli culture that were resistant to one type of antibiotica.
Centrifuged the liquid and removed the dna.
Another culture were mixed with a chemical that weakened the cell wall, and the dna were mixed in.
The result were some surviving cells that were resistant to antibiotic.

I am not sure what the metod were called but it looked pretty random and only worked because there were so many cells that some would succed.

 

[athon]

In 1991 I had "genetic engenering" in high school.
It was a kit our teacher got hold off, some materials brought some rented.

We disolved a E. coli culture that were resistant to one type of antibiotica.
Centrifuged the liquid and removed the dna.
Another culture were mixed with a chemical that weakened the cell wall, and the dna were mixed in.
The result were some surviving cells that were resistant to antibiotic.

I am not sure what the metod were called but it looked pretty random and only worked because there were so many cells that some would succed.

Genetic engineering has been around for ages. We've been playing with bacteria for decades now, using their natural tendency to suck up extracellular strands of nucleic acid to study genes. What's relatively new (as in the past decade or so) has been the transformation of multicellular organisms using genetic engineering techniques and utilising this process in agriculture.

It also depends on what you mean by 'random'. The process itself is a numbers game. Only a percentage of the bacteria will take up the nucleic acid strands. The process by which they do this and the way they use the strands isn't random - it's quite well understood.

Athon

 

[Toke]

It also depends on what you mean by 'random'. The process itself is a numbers game. Only a percentage of the bacteria will take up the nucleic acid strands. The process by which they do this and the way they use the strands isn't random - it's quite well understood.

By random I mean that we did not know what bacteria would survive the weakening of cell walls and absorb the correct genetic material in correct amount.
We sorted them afterwoods by growing on a petri dish with antiboitic in the media.

It was genetic engineering, but a world apart from taking individual cells and dna sequenses.

 

[Kuko 4000]

Wexer, have you heard from your Facebook friend since your last update here?