So... what's the deal with GM food?

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I'll cut through the crap for ya


GM foods aren't going to cause problems when eaten. There is no real magic here. The food is safe

BUT

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

Ok, neither was any meat from calves fed on crunched up bone meal, were they?

How long did it take to discover what would happen?

How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

 

[ReiAyanami]

indeed we might end up with a bunch of super-weeds. fire ants and africanized "killer" bees

a few years ago there was some story about monarch butterflies coming into contact with some GM corn crop or pollen and it killed tens of thousands of them but nobody could figure out why

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
indeed we might end up with a bunch of super-weeds. fire ants and africanized "killer" bees

a few years ago there was some story about monarch butterflies coming into contact with some GM corn crop or pollen and it killed tens of thousands of them but nobody could figure out why

We get mutated bacteria from mutated forms of penicillin, bacteria that is much more powerful than any other bacteria, what would happen if a plants genetical setup could attract, feed and mutate such a species of bacteria?

From feeding calves unusual foods and creating something in a scale it has never seen before we should have learned something, do NOT fvck with mother nature, she won't let you.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Klixxer
How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

I'm with you klixxer, but I bet we've both eaten GM products unwittingly (ok, I don't know anything about you, but I just eat the normal collection of supermarket fare (incl, cereal, veggies, etc) - only organic when available - & I'm SURE I've eaten plenty of GM food) They don't label it as "GM".

funny sidenote: there's a asian produce market near me named "GM Produce" the irony is that the produce and selection looks like its from smaller/local producers - ie probably not GM

 

[chess9]

True, but I doubt they have a case. And, they'd probably only get to bring one or two per Circuit before they were handed their ass. These would be Federal cases as well, I would guess since they arise under the U.S. Code. Federal judges aren't going to puzzyfoot around too long with Monsanto.

-Robert

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Klixxer

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I'll cut through the crap for ya


GM foods aren't going to cause problems when eaten. There is no real magic here. The food is safe

BUT

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

OK, neither was any meat from calves fed on crunched up bone meal, were they?

How long did it take to discover what would happen?

How do YOU know that one of the chains of proteins that have been genetically altered will not act the same way CJD does? Can you prove that? No? Cool if they find out five years from now that GM corn actually carries a similar amino acid chain that will create the same result, huh?

I won't eat it unless it is proven to be safe, remember how long it took for the bone meal to actually have an effect, 10-20 years.

Well, I showed this post to my wife who's field is molecular genetics as well as the one regarding "attracting bacteria".

She works with genetic transformations every day, and it has been a good long while since I had any hands on with this so I asked just in case. To say the least she considers your specific points novel.

I suppose we really don't "know" what you suggest, no more than if we "know" the Sun will rise tomorrow, or if Earth's gravity will suddenly reverse flinging us all into space. Likewise there is a non-zero probability that the entire universe just popped into existence, with all our memories being created in the same instant and they all coincide to produce the illusion of continuity.

All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I have concerns about GM, but not for the reasons you state.

Eli Lilly is not worried about getting a prion into it's Humulin insulin, and really you don't need to either.

 

[zephyrprime]

1) Humans evolved with their food supply. Now we are evolving our food supply . . . on a human time scale.

Humans have done very little evolving with our food supply. And all our major crops are very artificial (ie corn and the zillion descendents of the mustard plant)

What they need to do with GM food is to make something that people actually want. Nobody wants GM corn. What people want is a cholesterol free cow. *That's* a money maker.

 

[chess9]

cquark:

Well, the Canadian case sounds like one nail in Monsanto's coffin. Furthermore, they are treading on pretty thin ice with Congress. Even if they pump millions of bucks into the hands of our greedy legislators, they have NO votes. All those farmers vote and believe me if they get pissed off Congress mayl not hesitate to respond. So, although the legal route is a pain for the small farmers, Congress will ultimately hammer them if they get too much. Or, I hope they will. Something else, when one farmer is sued over something like this some group jumps in and helps to fund the defense. You think all the farmers are going to sit by and say: "Oh, that's Farmer John's problem?" Uh, they know they have to hang together or they'll hang separately. Monsanto, by the way, is not loved down here in Florida because one of their products was the source of quite a bit of litigation a few years ago. Ditto for several other states. And judges don't have short memories. In short, I am not too worried about Monsanto. That dog has one tooth.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about research. We discussed that issue extensively in OT two years ago. When you do a meta-analysis of all research, including research "in the drawer", you find, for instance, that men don't have significantly higher math abilities than women. A lot of stuff we "KNOW" is pure bunk. (Of my three children, my only daughter is the only one of my children to take AP Honors Algebra II/Trig. N = 1 seems to good enough for some research! So, why not?)

-Robert

 

[glenn1]

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

indeed we might end up with a bunch of super-weeds. fire ants and africanized "killer" bees

a few years ago there was some story about monarch butterflies coming into contact with some GM corn crop or pollen and it killed tens of thousands of them but nobody could figure out why

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

Political and business concerns like millions in the third world whose lives could otherwise be saved if GM was brought into greater use? I see your concerns, but I think the only sensible approach is to worry about starving people first and dead monarch butterflies second. To put it another way, if someone is on fire, your first concern is to put out the flames, and worry about high lead levels in the water you're using to douse him with afterwards.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: chess9
cquark:

Well, the Canadian case sounds like one nail in Monsanto's coffin. Furthermore, they are treading on pretty thin ice with Congress. Even if they pump millions of bucks into the hands of our greedy legislators, they have NO votes. All those farmers vote and believe me if they get pissed off Congress mayl not hesitate to respond. So, although the legal route is a pain for the small farmers, Congress will ultimately hammer them if they get too much. Or, I hope they will. Something else, when one farmer is sued over something like this some group jumps in and helps to fund the defense. You think all the farmers are going to sit by and say: "Oh, that's Farmer John's problem?" Uh, they know they have to hang together or they'll hang separately. Monsanto, by the way, is not loved down here in Florida because one of their products was the source of quite a bit of litigation a few years ago. Ditto for several other states. And judges don't have short memories. In short, I am not too worried about Monsanto. That dog has one tooth.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about research. We discussed that issue extensively in OT two years ago. When you do a meta-analysis of all research, including research "in the drawer", you find, for instance, that men don't have significantly higher math abilities than women. A lot of stuff we "KNOW" is pure bunk. (Of my three children, my only daughter is the only one of my children to take AP Honors Algebra II/Trig. N = 1 seems to good enough for some research! So, why not?)

-Robert

I suggest looking at the pending legislation against the RIAA, who is loved a great deal less than Monsanto.

That legislation? There isn't any. Congress is in their pocket. Likewise, I think you will find that the govt. is very hands off on this, especially with the Reps being in control of Congress and the White House.

That is why I advocate fully funded fully independent research on the public nickle.

Despite the fact I find some concerns without merit based on established science, work needs to be done, and without conflicts of interest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

The real problem IMO is that no one knows precisely how the pollen from GM plants will interact with wild type. You are introducing a whole new unknown element, and once the genie is out of the bottle you can't get it back.

indeed we might end up with a bunch of super-weeds. fire ants and africanized "killer" bees

a few years ago there was some story about monarch butterflies coming into contact with some GM corn crop or pollen and it killed tens of thousands of them but nobody could figure out why

A few other political and business concerns, however they are trivial compared to the above.

Political and business concerns like millions in the third world whose lives could otherwise be saved if GM was brought into greater use? I see your concerns, but I think the only sensible approach is to worry about starving people first and dead monarch butterflies second. To put it another way, if someone is on fire, your first concern is to put out the flames, and worry about high lead levels in the water you're using to douse him with afterwards.

If the concern were about dead monarchs that would be one thing.

Let me ask you this as a for instance. Suppose a weed came into being that out competed everything, was impervious to herbicide and insects and was toxic. Would that be OK?

If someone was on fire, would you try to put it out with gasoline?

 

[quikah]

Percy Schmeiser did not win his case http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/21/canada/schmeiser_monsanto040521. He was found guilty of infringing Monsanto's patent (he knowingly planted RR canola in his fields without paying the fee), however there was insufficient evidence that he used the benefits of the RR canola (no evidence he sprayed his field with roundup) and so neither side was awarded damages.

A GREAT look at GM foods was done by Frontline about 2 years ago. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/ Read through everything on that site and see if you still have the same opinion you had when you started. It is a VERY complex issue. Check your local library to see if they have a copy you can borrow, if not suggest they get as much of the Frontline series as they can it is excellent.

 

[Moonbeam]

I don't want my tomatoes to stay fresh because they have a flounder gene in them. I don't want to eat Aunt Mae's tumor inhibiting factor when I buy potatoes. I don't want rat genes in my corn. I have always been at least two hundred years ahead of everybody I knew, but here I'm a conservative. I pay a fortune to eat organic food, totally organic too. I won't even eat meat that's not certified grass fed. Screw corporate America and frankenfood. I'll pay to eat local grown small farm food.

 

[glenn1]

If the concern were about dead monarchs that would be one thing.

Let me ask you this as a for instance. Suppose a weed came into being that out competed everything, was impervious to herbicide and insects and was toxic. Would that be OK?

If someone was on fire, would you try to put it out with gasoline?

Super weeds? Is that the 21st century version of the Godzilla (atomic energy)/The Matrix (the internet)/HAL 9000 (computers)/Frankenstein monster (electricity) world-killing monster that people have dreamed up as a potential nitemare consequence of basically every single invention of the last few centuries?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Let me clarify something Glenn1

I am NOT against GM food, however I deal with medications daily. They must be shown to be safe and effective. If something was wrong with a particular batch of drug, there is a recall process.

Suppose we decided that this should be held to a LOWER standard than medications. What recall mechanism would you propose for genetic material?

How do you recall the dandelion? The zebra mussel? The starling?

The above are pretty harmless. Suppose they were not? Suppose in our zeal we shelved prudence?

That is what I argue against.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Edited for civility

 

[glenn1]

Let me clarify something Glenn1

I am NOT against GM food, however I deal with medications daily. They must be shown to be safe and effective. If something was wrong with a particular batch of drug, there is a recall process.

Suppose we decided that this should be held to a LOWER standard than medications. What recall mechanism would you propose for genetic material?

How do you recall the dandelion? The zebra mussel? The starling?

The above are pretty harmless. Suppose they were not? Suppose in our zeal we shelved prudence?

That is what I argue against.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your POV, just don't agree with it. In some ways the question boils down to one similar to the drug approval process. At what point is the public good of trying to keep unsafe medicines off the shelves overcome by the public good of allowing those who would otherwise die to have access to them without having proved their safety first. There are perfectly good and valid arguments on both accounts. There's no right or wrong answer. IMHO, that's the crux of the GM argument. The profit motive and every other point mentioned is just a red herring compared to that basic question.

 

[Moonbeam]

Everybody should live in cities and leave the corporate robots to grow our solyent green. Gardens must be banned incase they contaminate the crops. There should be two foods you can buy. One to eat and one to drink. Think of the money we can save.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Let me clarify something Glenn1

I am NOT against GM food, however I deal with medications daily. They must be shown to be safe and effective. If something was wrong with a particular batch of drug, there is a recall process.

Suppose we decided that this should be held to a LOWER standard than medications. What recall mechanism would you propose for genetic material?

How do you recall the dandelion? The zebra mussel? The starling?

The above are pretty harmless. Suppose they were not? Suppose in our zeal we shelved prudence?

That is what I argue against.

Don't get me wrong, I understand your POV, just don't agree with it. In some ways the question boils down to one similar to the drug approval process. At what point is the public good of trying to keep unsafe medicines off the shelves overcome by the public good of allowing those who would otherwise die to have access to them without having proved their safety first. There are perfectly good and valid arguments on both accounts. There's no right or wrong answer. IMHO, that's the crux of the GM argument. The profit motive and every other point mentioned is just a red herring compared to that basic question.

I'll give this just one more shot against my better judgement.

Businesses are in the business of making money.

There are established protocols regarding drugs that have been in place forever. One can argue that they are too stringent. Then one could argue they are not, or else there would be no suprises.

What widely recognized protocols exist at all for this? None really. Who then sets the standard? Monsanto?

There is great potential here, however there is NO recall and can NEVER be.

BTW, you ought to know I have a serious backround in biology. You aren't communicating to a plumber about the possibility of radioactive toast.

 

[Fausto]

I've posted this before, but it bears another look in the context of this thread.

Researchers are beginning to understand plants so precisely that they no longer need transgenics to achieve traits like drought resistance, durability, or increased nutritional value. Over the past decade, scientists have discovered that our crops are chock-full of dormant characteristics. Rather than inserting, say, a bacteria gene to ward off pests, it's often possible to simply turn on a plant's innate ability.

The result: Smart breeding holds the promise of remaking agriculture through methods that are largely uncontroversial and unpatentable. Think about the crossbreeding and hybridization that farmers have been doing for hundreds of years, relying on instinct, trial and error, and luck to bring us things like tangelos, giant pumpkins, and burpless cucumbers. Now replace those fuzzy factors with precise information about the role each gene plays in a plant's makeup. Today, scientists can tease out desired traits on the fly - something that used to take a decade or more to accomplish.

Even better, they can develop plants that were never thought possible without the help of transgenics. Look closely at the edge of food science and you'll see the beginnings of fruits and vegetables that are both natural and supernatural. Call them Superorganics - nutritious, delicious, safe, abundant crops that require less pesticide, fertilizer, and irrigation - a new generation of food that will please the consumer, the producer, the activist, and the FDA.

 

[chess9]

Winston:

Yeah, I've little faith in Congress, but the farmers are not college kids with an addiction to stealing songs. (I oppose stealing mp3s but let's not degrade this discussion.) Farmers carry HUGE weight with Congress. Look at all the farm subsidies.

Quikah:

Thanks for that update. And, yes, that was certainly a set of facts more to Monsanto's liking. Certainly not a case of genetic "drift". I hadn't read the case and am probably at fault for not doing so. My bad.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Fausto:

So, Monsanto's little dream may evaporate like FlavrSavrs? Interesting.

I just don't keep up with my reading in biology like I should. Thank God for you guys. You find everything.

Isn't this place the cat's mee-ow?

-Robert

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
All the above are quite unlikely. If you put water into a milk jug, you get milk out? No, you get water. If you have a gene (say one for human insulin) and put it into bacteria (which is not human) you get human insulin. Why? Because the machinery that makes proteins in living things makes the same proteins in living things if given the same instructions. It just is.

I agree that there's no special reason to be afraid of transferring genes from one organism to another. However, even computers aren't as digital and predictable as you make our protein generation machinery out to be, and we can't always ignore the details below the simple picture of the protein generation. Yes, both the computer and the protein generation process will generally perform the correct, identical procedure given identical instructions/DNA. However, both also perform multiple actions simultaneously (in a simulated fashion for a single processor machine, in reality for the cell or multiprocessor machine) and thus are dependent on what else is happening. Race conditions are a type of bug arising from such dependencies in computer programs, where the program functions correctly 99.9999% of the time, but fails at apparent random times. Cellular machinery is less precise and more complex, leading to more and worse such problems.

However, that doesn't mean that I think we should avoid all GM foods, but it does mean that we should acknowledge that there are risks and we should evaluate whether those risks are worth the benefits. I think the current benefits for third world farmers, many of whom live in areas where it is difficult to regularly grow crops, could be tremendous (especially if Monsanto's Terminator technology was eliminated), but I'm less convinced of the possible benefits for first world farmers, who have fewer problems growing food and thus have less need for hardier plants, which often comes at the expense of lower yields, thus reducing the amount of food they produce. Unfortunately, first world farmers have much more money to spend, unlike the people who most need the crops.

 

[cquark]

You think all the farmers are going to sit by and say: "Oh, that's Farmer John's problem?" Uh, they know they have to hang together or they'll hang separately. Monsanto, by the way, is not loved down here in Florida because one of their products was the source of quite a bit of litigation a few years ago. Ditto for several other states. And judges don't have short memories. In short, I am not too worried about Monsanto. That dog has one tooth.

Farmers do have impressive political clout compared to their numbers, but after the tremendous extensions in copyright and patent laws in the last decade, I'm not ready to count Monsanto and the other biocorps out either.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comment about research. We discussed that issue extensively in OT two years ago. When you do a meta-analysis of all research, including research "in the drawer", you find, for instance, that men don't have significantly higher math abilities than women. A lot of stuff we "KNOW" is pure bunk. (Of my three children, my only daughter is the only one of my children to take AP Honors Algebra II/Trig. N = 1 seems to good enough for some research! So, why not?)

Sounds like an interesting discussion. My reading on math ability indicated that the average for men was only slightly higher than for women, but that there are a much larger percentage of men at the highest ability levels (within the 99.9 percentile), which is likely a result of the general higher standard deviation in male abilities/achievement compared to female (i.e., there are many more male CEOs than female, but there are also many more men in prison than women, as there are more male professors than female while there are more mentally retarded men than women.)

 

[Fausto]

Originally posted by: chess9
Fausto:

So, Monsanto's little dream may evaporate like FlavrSavrs? Interesting.

I just don't keep up with my reading in biology like I should. Thank God for you guys. You find everything.

Isn't this place the cat's mee-ow?

-Robert

If the SuperOrganics thing pans out like the researchers in the article are hoping, that will basically be the case. Imagine what Linux would do to MS if it were totally user-friendly (and still free).