India Says No to Genetically Modified Eggplants

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steve, this is not my area of expertise by any stretch, but I really disagree with you here.

First - I would disentangle two different themes in this thread. (1) the nature of GMOs themselves, and their safety (2) the practices of large companies, particularly Monsanto, in marketing and distributing GMO seeds.

I believe that GMOs are on balance a very good thing - they are human ingenuity using science to improve the quality and quantity of our food supply. GMOs are in fact an extension of what humans have been doing ever since we adopted agriculture. We've simply accelerated the rate of change due to our vastly improved understanding of the genetic structure of our foodstuffs as compared to previous generations.

I am also prepared to believe that Monsanto is a "big bad and ugly" corporation which is abusing its monopoly status and coming down heavy on farmers who it feels aren't complying with its licensing terms.

Those two things don't contradict each other. GMOs can be beneficial, and the company developing and marketing them can be nefarious. Happens all the time.

Coming back to GMOs, I think there's a lot of media hoopla about "frankenstein" mutants which is way off base. Ultimately a genetic code is nothing but a sequence of amino acids. The sequences of every living thing on Earth - you and me included - have been arrived at due to mutations in that code. An A here transcribed to a T there. Those mutations are random in nature, and then natural selection acts on them over time to choose the hardiest mutants and weed out the less hardy. Human agriculture - whether the selective growing and hybridization of plants, or animal husbandry - has for 10,000 years or so tried to "speed up" that random mutation process by intentionally picking mutations that had superior characteristics. GMOs are just the logical next step - not waiting for a random mutation to occur, but intentionally inserting a mutation. I really fail to see a difference.

I'm all for preserving ancient species - wild grasses, original grains, rainforest plants. I'm all for land and water conservation. I think you know me well enough to know I'm not a loon. But on this issue, I think the science of GMOs is ultimately benefiting us, by giving us higher crop yields with less chemicals. That means more food on less land, which in turn means less land and water needed to be converted to agriculture, which means more forests and wetlands. You'd think environmentalists would be all over this.

Ron, genetically engineered crops as defined are likened to someone inserting fly DNA into a human stem cell, then using it to produce a human. That example, which isn't too far off from reality, brings forward all kinds of ethical questions. Again, I'm all for hybridization, heirlooms, but introducing bacteria genes into plants, particularly ones we consume is too dangerous because we don't have any data to tell us what kinds of long term effects it would have on us, the consumers. That is a fair assessment as we do know from data, the many health benefits we humans derive from certain properties or chemicals found naturally in various produce. As I mentioned earlier, there was a situation where a GM corn that was not approved for human consumption, but approved for animal feed, found its way into corn that humans consume.

.....

Conventional Breeding versus Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

For thousands of years farmers have used a process of selection and cross breeding to continually improve the quality of crops. Even in nature, plants and animals selectively breed, thus ensuring the optimum gene pool for future generations. Traditional breeding methods are slow, requiring intensive labor: while trying to get a desirable trait in a bred species, undesirable traits will appear and breeders must continue the process over and over again until all the undesirables are bred out.

In contrast, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through genetic modification, without other traits included and within a single generation. However, this technology too is inherently unpredictable and some scientists believe it can produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed.

"

The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional Breeding:

Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.

Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. The viral booster (called a "promoter") radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus — deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism's own genes behave. …

Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism."

¹¹

One of the main differences between conventional and genetically modified crops is that the former involves crosses either within species or between very closely related species. GM crops can have genes either from closely related species or from distant species, even bacteria and viruses. A typical example of a GM crop in the market in Australia is cotton known as Ingard.6 This cotton has a gene from a naturally occurring soil bacterium known as

Bacillus thuringiensis

(Bt). The Bt gene renders the cotton resistant to the heliothis caterpillar, a major threat to the cotton industry. In this example, an appropriate and selected gene (in a construct containing a promoter, transcription terminator, selection marker, etc. genes) was inserted into the cotton, unlike in conventional breeding where not only the appropriate gene was inherited in breeding but other genes as well.

¹⁰

^link

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ron, genetically engineered crops as defined are likened to someone inserting fly DNA into a human stem cell, then using it to produce a human. That example, which isn't too far off from reality, brings forward all kinds of ethical questions. Again, I'm all for hybridization, heirlooms, but introducing bacteria genes into plants, particularly ones we consume is too dangerous because we don't have any data to tell us what kinds of long term effects it would have on us, the consumers. That is a fair assessment as we do know from data, the many health benefits we humans derive from certain properties or chemicals found naturally in various produce. As I mentioned earlier, there was a situation where a GM corn that was not approved for human consumption, but approved for animal feed, found its way into corn that humans consume.

.....

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA).

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine ©, and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

Fly DNA, and human DNA, all use the same alphabet. In essence, DNA is a series of instructions on how to make certain proteins. These proteins are the messengers that instruct the various components of livings things to turn off and on. Perhaps someday, they will determine which sequence tells a starfish to replace a missing limb, or a reptile to replace a missing tail, and use that in humans to replace a missing organ or other body part. That is the hope of bio-genetic engineering.

[AandD 20]

I myself for one do not find myself inclined to have a have a wish or grant for genetically modifed eggplant

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fly DNA, and human DNA, all use the same alphabet. In essence, DNA is a series of instructions on how to make certain proteins. These proteins are the messengers that instruct the various components of livings things to turn off and on. Perhaps someday, they will determine which sequence tells a starfish to replace a missing limb, or a reptile to replace a missing tail, and use that in humans to replace a missing organ or other body part. That is the hope of bio-genetic engineering.

Bill, you can't simply place DNA from one organism into another... (from the article I posted above)

Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. The viral booster (called a "promoter") radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus — deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism's own genes behave. …

Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism."¹¹

[I'm Gone 60]

Ron, genetically engineered crops as defined are likened to someone inserting fly DNA into a human stem cell, then using it to produce a human.

It think that has already happened, because I know people that eat sh*t and bother people. LOL

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Bill, you can't simply place DNA from one organism into another... (from the article I posted above)

Your article is bunk.

Another GMO scare falls short scientifically

Ooops. Another GMOs-as-evil-incarnate story has been knocked into a cocked hat — although, no surprise, it was basically ignored by TV and metropolitan newspapers.

But it has raised a major stink in scientific circles after the prestigious journal Nature recanted the peer-reviewed paper it published last November from a Berkeley professor and graduate student contending that DNA from genetically engineered corn had contaminated native maize in Mexico, raising fears of an eventual loss of the old varieties.

The original article was trumpeted far and wide by anti-GMO organizations and a cooperative mass media, renewing calls by opponents for a worldwide moratorium on genetically modified crops. The Mexican government was urged to halt all corn imports from the U.S. until American shippers could certify their corn as GMO-free. April 10-17 was set to stage protests and hold press conferences across North and South America to launch a Continental Campaign Against Genetically Engineered Corn.

Greenpeace, the Let's-Take-Farming-Back-To-The-Stone-Age organization, pontificated that “the U.S. has a moral obligation to stop sending genetically engineered corn to Mexico, a major world center of diversity” and said the government had confirmed contamination in at least 15 communities in central Mexico. It urged an e-mail/fax campaign to pressure the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to end the registration of all Bt crops.

“This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg,” a Greenpeace spokesperson said, adding that the research reinforced concerns that “GM crops may be out of control.” Friends of the Earth also weighed in with a comment that “the biotech industry has been grossly irresponsible in designing crops that are genetically polluting the planet,” and worried that rice, soybeans, potatoes, canola, and beets might become similarly contaminated.

While Nature didn't outright retract the paper, a letter by the editor noted that the available evidence “wasn't sufficient to justify” its publication, and it included scathing criticisms from other researchers who said the conclusions reached in the study were wrong. One termed it “a testament to technical incompetence,” and Nature noted that three other scientists who reviewed the paper said it was clouded by technical errors. Six Berkeley professors, in a letter to the journal, termed the claims of the original article “unfounded,” and commented: “It is important for information about genetically modified organisms to be reliable and accurate, as important policy decisions are at stake.” Amen.

This makes two research goofs in a row: Recently shot down was a widely publicized study alleging that pollen from GMO corn was causing the death of milkweed-feeding caterpillars that become Monarch butterflies. After a cascade of righteous indignation by butterfly lovers worldwide, it turned out the research was based on faulty data and any danger to the caterpillars was insignificant.

Ironically, a short time later hundreds of millions of the lovely butterflies were wiped out when a freak cold spell hit their overwintering area in Mexico — an infinitely greater disaster than would have occurred over thousands of years of exposure to GM corn pollen.

http://deltafarmpress.com/mag/farming_gmo_scare_falls/

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

GMO `Scare Campaign` Deplored, Farmers, Scientists Back Biotech

Associated Press Some of the country`s biggest farmer organizations recently branded an "apparent organized campaigns to discredit the government`s food security policy using biotechnology as politically-motivated and counter-productive since this will derail the country`s bid for food sufficiency".

Farmer-leader Edwin Paraluman, chair of the Agricultural and Fisheries Council of General Santos City, and of the Provincial Farmers Action Council of South Cotabato, said recent attacks on the government`s pro-biotechnology policy for agriculture by Norwegian anti-genetically modified food (GMO) activist Terje Traavik "is highly suspect in terms of timing and motivation".

Traavik recently alleged that a genetically-modified corn variety planted in Mindanao has caused various respiratory ailments and allergies among B`laan tribesmen. He, however, later admitted that his allegations "are not conclusive" and needed further studies. Mindanao health officials also belied Traavik`s claims.

Leading Filipino scientists and University of the Philippines medical experts Nina Barzaga has also asked Traavik to support his attempt to link the B`laan illness to genetically-modified corn. Barzaga said Traavik` s claim need to be evaluated based on the principles of immunology and immunobiology. Without this evaluation, Barzaga said Traavik "must not be given the chance to have the exposure that he craves for with these scare tactics.

Paraluman said Traavik`s recent attacks on the government`s food security policy "are mere rehash of the Greenpeace-led scare campaign last year. International pressure group Greenpeace came under fire in the country last year for alleging that GM food "cause cancer clusters, deformities, millions of dead bodies and sick children."

Paraluman stressed that the genetically-modified corn variety planted locally, called bacillus thuringiensis of Bt corn, "has been subjected to rigid tests and was backed by the local community of respected Filipino scientists and farmer groups."

Among the scientist groups that supported the government`s adoption of biotechnology were the Women Association of Scientists in the Philippines, The Philippine Association for the Advancement of Crop Science Society of the Philippines and the Biochemical Society of the Philippines. It was also backed by the Philippine Maize Federation, the country`s biggest organization of corn farmers.

Paraluman said Traavik recent campaign against the government policy "is a blatant attempt at derailing the progress of our food security efforts". He said Bt corn is expected to radically increase the yield of the country`s shrinking corn farms while significantly reducing, or eliminating altogether, the need for toxic chemical fertilizers.

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/news/latest...ts-back-biotech

[I'm Gone 60]

If they can make a turkeys with 6 drumsticks or strawberries as big as apples I say go for it. Better living through chemistry.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Invoking “Food Imperialism” to Scare Public on GMOs

Ever heard of a phrase “food imperialism?” Opponents of modern crop genetic engineering regularly use it to discredit genetically modified (GM) foods, especially in developing countries. Since virtually all agri-biotech companies are U.S.-based, they reckon that they promote the America’s dream of colonizing the global food supply.

This argument resonates well with those xenophobic enough toward anything U.S. Yes, we get to hate GM foods not out of scientifically proven safety concerns, but because they merely originate from mighty U.S. We allow activist groups to pander to us that GM crops threaten the environment and biodiversity, without demanding evidence to that effect.

Out of fear – it’s misplaced - we demand that our own homegrown scientists be left alone to develop indigenous solutions to our food woes. This is usually music to those who least appreciate the potential benefits of modern agricultural technologies such as crop genetic engineering.

Well, there’s nothing wrong with scientists developing homegrown solutions to their countries’ food problems. Who wouldn’t love such patriotic scientists? Such efforts, however, must not be mutually exclusive to scientific developments in other parts of the world. We’re in a global village.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to zoning scientific research. Research is research irrespective of its geographical location. If research into biotech agriculture in a U.S. lab results in more nutritious, drought resistant and high yielding food crops that can be used in Africa, Asia, Europe or Latin America, well and good.

I see no justification, for instance, to discredit genetically modified (GM) crops just because they emanate from the U.S or Canada. How excited I am to learn that scientists from South Africa have developed maize streak virus resistant transgenic maize! For a long time anti-GMOs activists have argued that the U.S. wants to hoist GM foods on unwilling Africans. Now we have our own GMO product. Will we fete or condemn it?

This is an indigenous scientific breakthrough. It’s what, I rightly guess, proponents and opponents of GMOs have been waiting for. I anticipate it will receive unequivocal endorsement. It’s INDIGENOUS.

http://www.gmoafrica.org/2007/08/invoking-...ic-on-gmos.html

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

It think that has already happened, because I know people that eat sh*t and bother people. LOL

[Niels Bohr 72]

Steps to inject the jellyfish glow in the dark gene into an E.Coli bacteria.

First, remove the plasmid from the the E.Coli bacteria by inducing into hypotonic state. Second, obtain the restriction enzyme that cuts the plasmid (bacteria dna) to the designated section where the glow in the dark gene will attach too. For example, thymine will pair up with adanine, and gaunine will pair up with cytosine. Third, remove the DNA from a dead jelly fish. Use a different restriction enzyme that will cut the location of the specific codon that produce the protein that makes the jelly fish glow in the dark.

Take that gene and deposit it into the dish of the E.coli bacteria. Now, using a third enzyme, this will attach the jelly fish gene into the section of the plasmid where it belongs. Reverse hypotonic by inducing a hypertonic state. Let the E.coli bacteria do its division, and turn off the lights! Voila! You know have a glow in the dark e.coli bacteria.

If you want to do this experiment,let me know. The restriction enzymes are not cheap. And, the e.coli bacteria can be obtained from your feces.

Note: E.coli is only dangerous when it's in its aerobic form. In anaerobic form, it's not as active so it's not dangerous. Aerobic is when it is in the presence of oxygen.

It isn't really possible yet. They need to do research on apples to determine what gene sequence makes it grow that big or strawberries.

If they can make a turkeys with 6 drumsticks or strawberries as big as apples I say go for it. Better living through chemistry.

[scandal 951]

Ron, genetically engineered crops as defined are likened to someone inserting fly DNA into a human stem cell, then using it to produce a human. That example, which isn't too far off from reality, brings forward all kinds of ethical questions. Again, I'm all for hybridization, heirlooms, but introducing bacteria genes into plants, particularly ones we consume is too dangerous because we don't have any data to tell us what kinds of long term effects it would have on us, the consumers. That is a fair assessment as we do know from data, the many health benefits we humans derive from certain properties or chemicals found naturally in various produce. As I mentioned earlier, there was a situation where a GM corn that was not approved for human consumption, but approved for animal feed, found its way into corn that humans consume.

.....

"The Fallacy of Equating Gene-Splicing With Traditional Breeding: Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.

Biotechnicians achieve this unnatural boosting by taking the section of DNA that promotes gene expression in a pathogenic virus and fusing it to the gene prior to insertion. The viral booster (called a "promoter") radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus — deeply different from the way it behaves within its native organism and from the way the engineered organism's own genes behave. …

Consequently, not only does the foreign gene produce a substance that has never been in that species, it produces it in an essentially unregulated manner that is uncoordinated with the needs and natural functions of the organism."11

Steve, you are sounding just a bit shrill and alarmist here.

You are making it sound as though genetic sequences from a bacterium or other species are somehow alien. They are not.

An amino acid is an amino acid is an amino acid. Regardless of its origin, or how it comes to be part of a sequence.

Did you look a bit more closely at the source you quoted there?

It dates to 2002. Here's the bio of the author:

Kerryn Sakko is an undergraduate student at Adelaide University, Australia, studying for a double degree in chemical engineering, mathematics and computer science. In 2001, she represented Australia, with 19 other students from around the country, at the APEC Youth Science Forum held in Singapore. Currently, Kerryn assists the Junior Field Naturalist Club and helps in the supervision and running of events for CSIRO’s Double Helix Science Club. She is also a member of Youth Science Forum, a club that promotes science, where she contributes her time and skills to science learning events, including Sieman’s Science School.

In all fairness, the writings of undergrad student on the Internet are not exactly a dispassionate peer reviewed source. Besides, she makes basic factual errors:

Traditional breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms.

That's simply not true. Plant hybridization is frequently based upon selectively grafting species. Ever eaten a seedless grape? That's non-sexual hybridization at work, with cuttings used for asexual reproduction of new plants.

The transferred genes are similar to genes in the cell they join. Define similar. You do realize that your genome and that of the fruit fly overlap something like 50-75%, yes? Meaning that you can identify Drosophila genes that are like for like matches with our own, identical base sequences, and encode for the same proteins. They are chemically identical, and "alien" only to alarmists. If such a gene were to be spliced from fly to human the resultant cell would behave identically. (There's not much point to doing so because they ARE identical - the interesting science is in splicing subtly DIFFERENT genes that do subtly DIFFERENT things, i.e. produce different proteins, or suppress them, under comparable stimulii).

In short, your source convinces me of nothing.

I do respect that there is a serious debate underway about GMO in our food supply. I'm willing to listen to credible evidence of hazards. I do think there should be oversight and regulation by the FDA and other bodies to ensure that we don't accidentally release new variants that can rapidly displace existing ones. That danger is similar to importing foreign species (zebra mussels, Asian carp, etc.) to a new habitat. It's a real danger and should be monitored. However I do know enough about natural processes of selection, and historic human techniques of selective breeding, to understand that a fundamental level the insertion of a gene by laboratory techniques is not fundamentally any different than waiting for a beneficial mutation in the wild to occur, and then selecting for it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Fair enough, Ron. Here's somebody you might appreciate his credentials more, who express his professional concerns about the risks of GMOs:

Dave R. Schubert, professor and head of the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, studies hormones and other substances that affect the activities and survival of brain cells. Much of his research is providing new insights into Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative brain disorders.

Schubert has been studying beta amyloid protein, a substance that accumulates in the brains of Alzheimer's patients. Schubert has shown that this protein can cause nerve cell death, while vitamin E can protect cells from its toxic effects.

A recent study conducted by scientists at UCSD showed that Vitamin E does, in fact, slow the progression of Alzheimer's. Schubert's lab also is studying the mechanisms of cell death in Parkinson's disease, stroke and ischemia, with the goal of trying to identify drugs that inhibit these processes.

Education

• B.A., Chemistry, University of Indiana in Bloomington
  
• Ph.D., Cell Biology, UCSD
  
• Postdoctoral fellow, Cell Biology, Nobel Laureate Francois Jacob, Pasteur Institute, Paris
  
• Graduate student with Mel Cohn, Salk Institute
  

Awards and Honors

• Jacob Javits Award, 1986
  
• Zenith Award, Alzheimer's Association
  
• Jacob Javits Award, 1993
  

• 
  

link

The Risks of GM Food

Prof. David Schubert

(excerpt)

In addition to their primary sequence of amino acids, the structure and biological activity of proteins can be modified by the addition of molecules such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars or lipids. The nature of these secondary modifications is totally dependent upon the cell type in which they are expressed. For example, if a protein involved in the cause of Alzheimer's disease, the beta amyloid precursor protein, is expressed in liver cells it contains covalently-attached chondroitin sulfate carbohydrate, while the identical gene expressed in brain nerve cells contains a much simpler sugar. This is because each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying proteins after they are synthesized. Once modified, the biological activity of the molecule may be changed. In the case of the beta-amyloid precursor protein, the adhesive properties of the cells are changed, but there is, at our current state of knowledge, no way of knowing the biological effects of these modifications.

The second concern is the potential for inducing the synthesis of poisonous or toxic compounds following the introduction of a foreign gene. These observations are clearly at odds with the individuals who imply that everything is fine because they are simply introducing one gene. In fact, the introduction of a single gene invariably alters the gene expression pattern of the whole cell and each cell of the individual or plant responds differently. One recently published example is the transfection of a receptor gene into human cells. In this case, the gene was a closely related isoform of an endogenously expressed gene. The pattern of gene expression was monitored using gene chip technology, and the mRNA levels of 5% of the genes was significantly upregulated or downregulated. Similarly, the simple introduction of a bacterial enzyme used for growth selection of transfected cells changes the expression of 3% of the genes. While these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users.

Furthermore, they are not unexpected. The maintenance of a specific cell phenotype is a very precise balancing act of gene regulation, and any perturbation is going to change the overall patterns of gene expression. The problem, like that of secondary modifications, is that there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis.

Third, the introduction of genes for a new enzymatic pathway into plants could lead to the synthesis of totally novel or unexpected products via the interaction with endogenous pathways. Some of the products could be toxic. For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and derivatives of retinoic acid are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development. Since these compounds are soluble and work at ultralow concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A may also produce retinoic acid derivatives which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in abnormal embryonic development.

Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.

Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.

link

Edited February 14, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Niels Bohr 72]

The Dr. concern is a very legitimate one. There are ethical issues concerning GM food. Risks such as a certain species may destroy another species rate of population, thereby, becoming extinct.

For example, in Canada, Scientists have genetically modified Salmon to make it grow larger than usual and quicker. However, by introducing this to the food chain, their metabolism increases. So, they will out eat their own food supply thereby affecting other species food supply.

Noone exactly know the long term effects of a GM food. However, one thing is for certain is that humans will run out of food without some GM food.

PH.Ds holds a lot of ethics than regular civilians. Especially in the field of Genetic Engineering. Right now, we are able to 100% modify human DNA. There are also trials in Thailand using a Virus to inject the modified RNA into a human cell so that the pancrease can produce insulin for those of Diabetes type 1.

As far as that undergrad is concerned, they aren't even close to the core of the apple. When they right papers, it isn't as deep as a grad student for their lack of depth. An undergrad biologist is not really quite focus in the subject matter as a grad. The reason, undergrad has stringent requirements to complete a whole load of general education courses, and their major courses.

[Nasturtium 500]

No matter what, GM is not equal to either cultivation, selection, or hybridization. To say they are on the same level is completely incorrect. One major issue with GM is the terminator issue. Although that could be seen as a great idea to prevent escape into the wild, the problems are several:

1. Most of our cultivated crops have basicxallt zero ability to survive in the wild without us helping/coddling them along anyway

2. You cannot save seed

3. They can wind-pollinate (big issue with corn) into non-terminator crops of the same species and sometimes genus, including wild cousins

Besides the fact that GM can violate religious law (which surprises me that Israel gets involved in this, but then again they have such a fractured society at times it's also not surprising... and maybe no one has really though about it OR they don't get involved in certain aspects of GM... I don't know enough about their programs to say one way or another-- maybe Scandal knows) with mixing of plant and animal, the terminator deal is a major issue IMO.

Despite what all the pro-GMO research says, anyone who deals in corn and corn growth KNOWS that corn pollen travels by wind. It travels by wind for miles. So, despite the fact that you, a regular joe, are not growing GMO things, your corn (amongst other things) can become contaminated. Some of the monsanto suits are over this very issue-- they are suing farmers who do not buy from them for having fields which contain their genetic patens whichare carried by wind or animal pollination. that is ridiculous. Secondly, if the plants in question have the terminator gene, your crops are now rendered useless for seed-saving. Seed saving is aprt of selective breeding-- in order to accimate plants to your environment. It is unimaginable that people cannot see the consequences of rendering this process useless... You will end up with major crop failure issues under the right circumstances (as what happened in India a couple of years ago).