[Blue_Nose]

I checked, and there doesn't seem to be a discussion on this subject.

What are your opinions on the use of, and research on, genetically modified (GM) foods? I think, to keep it focussed, we can stick to foods and not other forms of genetic research (stem cells research, medical, etc).

A few sites I've come across:

http://www.biotech-info.net/golden.html

http://home.houston.rr.com/skeptical/arc20030401.html

http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/ ... alter.html

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial ... 44554.html

http://www.frankenfoods.org/


It's my opinion that, while there are legitimate concerns regarding the use of GM foods, most of the fears are based on lies and propaganda from special interest groups. The rumour that tomatos with fish genes have been produced commerically is a lie, for example, but most people have heard about it, and Greenpeace uses it in their campaign against corporations.



Technology is changing our lives in every aspect, yet agriculture research has been singled out as "unnatural" and dangerous. Many of the "dangers" associated with GM foods are no less prominent in any other form of agriculture, or technological research.

It disgusts me how science is ruined by special interest groups (on both sides), and the bad wrap that GM foods get is unjustified.

[SireJoe]

I dunno....I have read and heard a lot about GM foods....I am of the faith that nature does a hell of a job making what we need. Human beings have pretty much JUST begun to delve into altering our foods to grow faster, produce more, and be stronger in harsher climates. The problem is that these plants are not designed for it, so they have to altered at a genetic level. With very little actually known of the long term effects of these alterations on people and the enviroment, they could very well be devistating.

Yes, they are of great benefit to use atm, but what if the rising cancer rates and sickness in parts of the world are attributed to this science? I just think that further studies and testing need to done on a longer term basis before being implemented into society on a whole. They just seem to do some work on a new "product" and sell it right away (in the grander scheme of things I mean).

Personally, I think this is one part of science that needs to take many many baby steps before we can say "great job! Lets eat!" I'd rather leave a healthy future for the future as opposed to one that needs be fixed becuase of more past mistakes.

[DerbyX]

$1:

I dunno....I have read and heard a lot about GM foods....I am of the faith that nature does a hell of a job making what we need. Human beings have pretty much JUST begun to delve into altering our foods to grow faster, produce more, and be stronger in harsher climates. The problem is that these plants are not designed for it, so they have to altered at a genetic level. With very little actually known of the long term effects of these alterations on people and the enviroment, they could very well be devistating.

Human beings have been "modifing" plant and animal gene's since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. Would do you think animal husbandry and farming does? Selective for genes because they make more meatier cows or bigger strawberries isn't any different then genetic modification and gene modification is a magnitutde of order safer and enviornmentally safe then the billions of tons of pesticides and herbicides we use to protect our food sources.

"sickness" and "cancer" caused by GM foods is an urban myth at best and based on very faulty data at best.

[Scape]

GM foods are patented. Therefor if you grow them you can be sued by the creator of that strain. GM foods require more expensive fertilizer than organic. Also, once GM food mixes with an organic crop, because there is no way to determine what is GM and what isn't, the whole crop would be considered GM and thus the food and equipment could be seized.

A trade war started this.

This will take it to the next level.

[MissT]

"Human beings have been "modifing" plant and animal gene's since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. Would do you think animal husbandry and farming does? Selective for genes because they make more meatier cows or bigger strawberries isn't any different then genetic modification." DerbyX

This is the argument that the industry keeps saying (and of course some good citizens like yourself, DerbyX) but it's not true. Human beings have NOT been inserting genetic material from one species into the genomes of other species for milennia. It's only relatively recently that we developed the technology to either fire a teeny tiny "gun" with a gene stuck onto a "bullet" into the genome, in the hope that the gene will lodge somewhere in the host genome (and causing alot of damage to surrounding DNA in the process); or to use a viral vector to invade the genome and insert the new gene somewhere, and switch it on. This is all rather new, and not as predictable as biotechnologists like to make out.

Genes don't work in isolation. They work in the context of the other genes and DNA they are surrounded by, and the proteins they produce interact and form new proteins all the way down the biochemical pathway. So when you insert a new gene from a bacteria into corn, you don't know where in the genome it will land, and you don't know what that protein will do once it's in there.

New research from Australia (CSIRO) last year showed that when a gene from a kidney bean was inserted into a pea, the protein produced by the GM pea was slightly different from the intended protein (glycosylation at 2 points if you're interested). Tests on mice produced severe allergic reations, and the whole GM pea project was pulled after 10 years of research because they realised the danger. The testing they used here was unique, and that's why they spotted the problems. What we need is that same test to be carried out on all GM foods.

But somehow I doubt that the industry will let that happen. They just don't tend to fund research that might make them look bad. And so much research is now funded by corporations, there are hardly any independent scientists or labs left. (Public-Private Partnerships- another Pet Peeve.) Anyone who comes up with uncomfortable data usually gets fired and villified. Tends to discourage biotechnologists from looking into these questions.

When you consider that the protein in Mad Cow Disease that eats holes into the brain is only different from a normal brain protein by being folded in one place, makes me believe that having a process as unpredictable as genetic engineering is not very cool.

And that's just a tiny part of the argument about the health impacts. There are a ton more problems to do with patents, control of the food chain and farmers, increased chemical use, seed diversity, environmental impacts etc etc etc.

Rant rant rant etc etc.

[DerbyX]

$1:

This is the argument that the industry keeps saying (and of course some good citizens like yourself, DerbyX) but it's not true. Human beings have NOT been inserting genetic material from one species into the genomes of other species for milennia. It's only relatively recently that we developed the technology to either fire a teeny tiny "gun" with a gene stuck onto a "bullet" into the genome, in the hope that the gene will lodge somewhere in the host genome (and causing alot of damage to surrounding DNA in the process); or to use a viral vector to invade the genome and insert the new gene somewhere, and switch it on. This is all rather new, and not as predictable as biotechnologists like to make out.

Your post shows an utter lack of understanding about genetics, mendellian and other wise.

Take nicotine for example. Its basically an insecticide with various other toxic affects. It kills primarily by interferring with neurotransmitters. Like any defence in plants it carries a cost. The plant pays for this protection be having increased nutrient requirements or dealing with toxic byproducts, or any number of things. Before humanity started selectively cultivating the plants there was only a small amount. Now there is a lot more. Instead of the natural cycle of plants grow toxins, insects adapt, plants grow more, insects adapt, etc humans have artifically or unnaturally selected for genes (super nicotine expression) that stand little chance of evolving naturally and certainly not at he speed we do things. What affect does that have on insects and the enviornment? Insects that feed exclusively on nicotine containing plants suddenly find that after a few generations they cannot adapt quick enough to the high levels and simply die out.

No take this example and multiply it for every single domestic food and animal we selectively grow. We select for fatter cows and larger tomatoes but we also select and concentrate every other gene in their genome or worse, breed out certain genes that allowed the species to survive in the wild.

In order to get those bannas that we all love humanity has to artifically cultivate them because they won't grow naturally. That didn't evolve you know.

Humanity has been affecting the genetic structure since we stopped clubbing wholly mammoths for food and learnt that by "burying" apple cores in specific places we could get apple trees and that if we only buried apple cores from the fattest and juiciest apples each year we could get fatter and juicier apples the next year.

$1:

Genes don't work in isolation. They work in the context of the other genes and DNA they are surrounded by, and the proteins they produce interact and form new proteins all the way down the biochemical pathway. So when you insert a new gene from a bacteria into corn, you don't know where in the genome it will land, and you don't know what that protein will do once it's in there.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. A great many genes do indeed work in isolation. Biotechnology mostlt deals with those genes such as producing a specific protein that stands alone in its work.

Sure there are millions of examples of whole biological pathways that require the use of multiple genes but that doesn't alter the fact that 1 gene 1 protein are the bread and butter of the biotech world so far.

$1:

New research from Australia (CSIRO) last year showed that when a gene from a kidney bean was inserted into a pea, the protein produced by the GM pea was slightly different from the intended protein (glycosylation at 2 points if you're interested). Tests on mice produced severe allergic reations, and the whole GM pea project was pulled after 10 years of research because they realised the danger. The testing they used here was unique, and that's why they spotted the problems. What we need is that same test to be carried out on all GM foods.

Yes that is a danger, but no les dangerous then the unknown health affects from any pesticide or herbicide or newly developed medecine.

All it shows is that we have to have good testing procedures.

Eventually GM foods and products will lead the way. We can't continue slashing and burning every forest in the world toproduce more farmland or think the oceans with support an ever increasing human population for ever.

New age hysteria is no reason to turf the very idea of GM foods.

[MissT]

Thankyou DerbyX, I had of course, already realised that there has been such a thing as selective breeding in humanity's development of agriculture. The point I was trying to make was that inserting genes from a different species is a radical departure from enhancing traits that are already in the plant's genome.

"A great many genes do indeed work in isolation. Biotechnology mostlt deals with those genes such as producing a specific protein that stands alone in its work."

Yes, perhaps I shoudl have said "genes don't exist in isolation", instead of "work". Sorry. But while the protein expressed may carry out its particular function in isolation, the point is that it may also interact with other proteins and genes to produce unpredictable new proteins, and who knows what they might do. They might be completely harmless. Or they might not be. We just have no idea how to test for them, because we don't know what they will look like.

"1 gene 1 protein are the bread and butter of the biotech world so far"

Very true. And a concept that is being challenged by many geneticists nowadays, as understanding of the enormous complexity that is genetics develops. We understand so little of how it all actually works.

"We can't continue slashing and burning every forest in the world toproduce more farmland or think the oceans with support an ever increasing human population for ever."

If GM crops actually increased yields, you might have a point but they don't. Over 95% of the world's GM crops carry only one of 2 traits. One is resistance to a particular herbicide (Roundup), the other is resistant to a particular pest (bollworm). Now while these Roundup Ready GM crops might make life easier for the farmer for the first few years, as he can spray lots of herbicide and kill all weeds in sight, it doesn't actually increase yields per se, just means less weeding. And data is emerging after a few years that this continual and widespread spraying of Roundup is creating selection pressure on weeds anyway, so they evolve resistance to Roundup too. So it stops being as effective, and farmers end up using more and more herbicides and stronger mixtures. Same with the pest-resistant GM varieties. Pests develop resistance themselves, and in the meantime other varieties of pests come in to fill that gap, particularly sucking pests. This has happened lots in India with GM cotton, and it's been a real disaster.

Your point about needing more food for the world and GM being the solution - well, do you mind if I assume you're not referring to Canada, the States, Europe, wherever, where low yields isn't currently considered to be a problem (although maybe overconsumption is). Presumably you're talking about Africa and Asia. But if you asked farmers there if weeds or bollworm/ stemborer is a cause for hunger, they would just laugh. Don't you think it would better to consider the real causes of hunger, for example using the best land and water to grow flowers, green beans, coffee, fruit etc for export, and not for feeding themselves. Water and soil erosion is up there too.

Roundup Ready and Bt are the 2 traits that the industry managed to develop successfully, and they had to make up a "problem" to justify its sale. Now we get told GM will feed the world and it's a moral imperative to grow it. But if you really want to find the solution, you need to know what the problem is first. Weeds and worms ain't it.

And anyway, weeding is a really important source of labor and livelihood in developing countries. If there's no weeding, all those women would lose their work, and then what would they eat? Yeah, weeding is a drag and it hurts your back, but it's generally agreed to be better than no work at all. In Argentina, where GM Roundup Ready soy has been widely taken up, possibly up to half a million farm laborers and small holder farmers have been forced to leave the land, as the herbicide spraying replaces the need for people to weed manually. Small farmers then can't compete and have been selling their land. They head to the cities, where of course there's no work for them. Call them new age if you like, but they might be pretty hysterical about GM too.

Hmm, me being a new ager myself, I can't figure how to do that quote box thing. Can you offer help?

[Blue_Nose]

$1:

Very true. And a concept that is being challenged by many geneticists nowadays, as understanding of the enormous complexity that is genetics develops. We understand so little of how it all actually works.

We also didn't understand how to build airplanes, or shoot stuff off into space, or communicate with radio signals.... that's the nature of developing a new technology, and agriculture just happens to be lagging with respect to the rest of our developments.

The main argument I hear from people opposed to GM research is "But I don't know what will happen if they go around messing with genes". But, how much do you understand about the computer you're looking at right now? Aren't you scared of electromagnetic waves shooting out of it and stealing your soul, or making you blind?

The research currently being done in areas of physics are extremely dangerous and has unknown results, yet there's no fuss made by people who think the sancity of neutrons is being violated.

Just because you think it sounds scary doesn't mean it shouldn't be researched and understood.

[MissT]

Yes, researched is okay. But eaten? Or planted out so that it can cross-pollinate into other crops or wild relatives and never be recalled if we find something is wrong with it? Sorry, I don't think that's a good idea.

[DerbyX]

Misst,

sorry for the tardy reply.

$1:

Yes, perhaps I shoudl have said "genes don't exist in isolation", instead of "work". Sorry. But while the protein expressed may carry out its particular function in isolation, the point is that it may also interact with other proteins and genes to produce unpredictable new proteins, and who knows what they might do. They might be completely harmless. Or they might not be. We just have no idea how to test for them, because we don't know what they will look like.

Actually we do. The company I work for does just that. We do blood testing on patients undergoing clinical trials, though mostly for pharmaceutical work. I assure you that testing is rigorous.

As for protein-protein interactions, they aren't mush more dangerous then mixing food groups. The genes spliced in are a fully sequenced and known factor as is the properties of the protein they code for. We can tell if they have enzymatic properties, protease properties, transferase properties and a to of other things that proteins do. That isn't the problem. We can anticipate its interactions based on what we know about the properties of similiar proteins.

Protein alteration (glycosylation, methylation) is at least a viable concern. That to can be detected and anticipated and isn't a greater health risk then say salmonella or ecoli. It just spooks people more. "genetic modification" is beyong most peoples understanding and the lack of knowledge is what brings fear just as fear of the dark.

Our knowledge will only increase and these problems ironed out.

$1:

Very true. And a concept that is being challenged by many geneticists nowadays, as understanding of the enormous complexity that is genetics develops. We understand so little of how it all actually works.

We understand far more then you know. We used to extract insulin from corpses and now its all made through biotechnological means. The insulin is a complex human hormone essential for well being and millions if not hundreds of millions rely on a substance produced by splicing a cloned human gene into a bacterium.

$1:

The genetic modification of a bacterium to produce insulin. The human gene for the production of insulin is collected from a donor chromosome and spliced into a vector plasmid (DNA found in bacteria but separate from the bacterial chromosomes). The plasmids and recipient bacteria are mixed together, during which process the bacteria absorb the plasmids. The plasmids replicate as the bacteria divide asexually (producing clones) and begin to produce insulin.
(Image © Research Machines plc)

Industrial use of living organisms. Examples of its uses include fermentation, genetic engineering (gene technology), and the manipulation of reproduction. The brewing and baking industries have long relied on the yeast micro-organism for fermentation purposes, while the dairy industry employs a range of bacteria and fungi to convert milk into cheeses and yoghurts. Enzymes, whether extracted from cells or produced artificially, are central to most biotechnological applications. Recent advances include genetic engineering, in which single-celled organisms with modified DNA are used to produce insulin and other drugs.

There are many medical and industrial applications of the use of micro-organisms, such as drug production. One important area is the production of antibiotics such as penicillin.

It is thought that biotechnology may be helpful in reducing world food shortages. Micro-organisms grow very quickly in suitable conditions and they often take substances that humans cannot eat and use them to produce foods that we can eat.

The fact is that biotechnology offers an unlimited potential for human advancement.

I fully understand the power of genetics and have no fear of eating GM foods or using GM produced medicine.

To help with quotes:

[quote <--- the quote must appear between these symbols ------ [/quote

I left off the last ] in order for you to see it.

Techincally the quote or /quote should be between square brackets [ ] .

Its a bit tricky sometimes but you get the hang of it.

Welcome to the forum!

[Tman1]

I hate science but am curious as to why people fear or hate genetically modified foods? I remember awhile ago that countries seem to ban modified foods such as in agricultural industries but couldn't understand why. Does it taste different or what? As long as it gives you proteins and nutrients who gives a crap.

[Blue_Nose]

Tman1 Tman1:

I hate science but am curious as to why people fear or hate genetically modified foods? I remember awhile ago that countries seem to ban modified foods such as in agricultural industries but couldn't understand why. Does it taste different or what? As long as it gives you proteins and nutrients who gives a crap.

Issues with GM foods are varied, and from all sides of the "political spectrum"...

You have the stereotypical "hippy" who thinks nature is perfectly in balance with itself, and tampering with it will completely destroy it., based on the simple fact that it's a new procedure, and has not been researched completely.

Then there's the stereotypical religious nuts who think that life is God's creation, and tampering with it at a genetic level is "playing God", or that life is sacred and it's just morally wrong to do it.

Then there are the majority of regular people, who hear the lies promoted by these special interest groups and have unjustified fears of GM foods, and their research.

I'm actually going to be presenting on this subject for a course I'm taking, along with another classmate (hence the issue's upbringing here). He seems to be of the opposite mind than me... he can't seem to explain why, but he seems to think that it's "just wrong". I told him about research that was modifying cows to produce substances in their milk that could be refined to produce drugs to combat things like haemophilia... To me, it's an amazing opportunity to produce these drugs using something as renewable and daily available as cows milk, but he just shook his head and said, "that's fucked up".

[Knoss]

$1:

Yes, they are of great benefit to use atm, but what if the rising cancer rates and sickness in parts of the world are attributed to this science?

there is little evedence of rising cancer rates, we can just detect it more reliably.

Having said that I do not think GMo's are viable in an agricultural industry where margins are too narrow, overproduction is hurting our industry, spending of innoculants, fertalizers, new machinery obstruct the purchase of assets such as land and result compatition has resulted in low commedty prices. The production of food must drop and alternate uses of plants such,as biofuels must be found.

[Tman1]

Thanks, I guess some people just aren't keen to the progression of science and technology and label them as something of an irregularity. People fail to understand the imminent danger of food shortages and keeping in context with tradition or your stated varied reasons isn't going to solve anything.

[MissT]

Thanks very much. Glad to be here!

I agree that the production of insulin using GM bacteria seems rather less controversial somehow, maybe because the insulin is extracted (? I don't know if this is the case or how). And maybe because it's not planted out, so isn't self-replicating into the environment, so we can recall it if anything is discovered. Most of the controversy therefore centers around crops and food.

But did you know that in the genetic engineering process that uses the teeny tiny "gun" and "bullet" to fire a gene into the genome, up to 5% of the host DNA gets damaged? It's like you wouldn't expect a body not to get damaged by a bullet being fired into it, well, it's the same with a genome. Seems that we might get some unpredictable gene function resulting from that, no? Of course, not all new proteins will be toxins or allergens. But some of them might.

I'm interested to hear that you think there are tests being carried out by Monsanto etc that can check for every single possible new protein produced in a GM crop. I think I remember reading that the US FDA basically admitted that it was impossible (but maybe that was a few years ago and technology has moved on - I haven't heard so if this is the case). And it's the US model for GM acceptance that has been rolled out across the world, based on the principle of "substantial equivalence". I.e. "We think that GM foods are more or less the same as normal foods and no independent testing on GM foods is required". THis was a political decision taken by the FDA against the advice of its own scientists. Now the rest of the world is supposed to think like that too, or they get sued by the US through the WTO, for putting up "illegal barriers to trade".

'["genetic modification" is beyong most peoples understanding and the lack of knowledge is what brings fear just as fear of the dark.]'

Yes, I hear that alot. You put it rather nicely, but I hear us GM sceptics being called "ignorant" alot, which I don't particularly appreciate. Funnily enough, GM is one of the few technologies where peoples' opinions harden against it the more they know about it, rather than increasing acceptance as it becomes more familiar. It's not just the science, it's also all the social and environmental issues too, around patenting, contamination, economic impacts etc. And it's not just all speculation either. There is lots of information from all over the world about the bad stuff that has already happened. Studies on animals; increased costs for farmers; farmers being sued for patent infringement for accidentally getting cross pollinated by GM crops; farmers being pushed off the land; failure of harvests; impacts on the environment; this is all actually happening. If it wasn't, the objections to the technology might have died out years ago.