ChatterBank4 mins ago
What about GM crops?
50 Answers
It seems to me that “GM” has too narrow a definition nowadays. Genetic modification of plants and animals has gone on for centuries, possibly millennia, under the names of cross-fertilisation and cross-breeding, methods of importing genes from one strain to another to improve shelf-life, flavour, appearance, edible muscle, pest-resistance and so on. This was always considered acceptable and sometimes praiseworthy (“Ooh, look at that lovely new rose they’ve produced – it’s called Princess Diana!”)
I fail to understand why GM by these long-winded hit-and-miss methods was OK but the same procedures done more quickly and accurately by isolating and moving just the right genes is considered by some to be sinister, at least dangerous or at very least dubious.
Take the latest example, the trials on introducing blight-resistant genes into Maris Piper potatoes – adding just two genes to the 60,000 the potato already has. What possible danger can that cause to anyone or anything?
This is NOT a challenge, but a genuine search for objections that can be explained and justified.
I fail to understand why GM by these long-winded hit-and-miss methods was OK but the same procedures done more quickly and accurately by isolating and moving just the right genes is considered by some to be sinister, at least dangerous or at very least dubious.
Take the latest example, the trials on introducing blight-resistant genes into Maris Piper potatoes – adding just two genes to the 60,000 the potato already has. What possible danger can that cause to anyone or anything?
This is NOT a challenge, but a genuine search for objections that can be explained and justified.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
GM means direct genetic manipulation between species.
If you want to change the colour of a rose you can breed natural variations providing that those variations are there to start with.
You cannot breed a rose that will glow in the dark because the gene is just not there to start with.
GM however means that you can take a gene from one species and insert it into a very different species.
This means that rapid genetic variation can be achieved.
There is always a risk in introduction of new species into environments where they have not evolved naturally - Australia is full of examples from rats to cane toads.
The use of GM means introduces a higher risk of such accidents
If the benefits outweigh that risk then that is allright but from what I see most benefits are there for the supermarkets and large agricultural industries.
The consumer, you and I, is being asked to shoulder the risk without getting the benefit
If you want to change the colour of a rose you can breed natural variations providing that those variations are there to start with.
You cannot breed a rose that will glow in the dark because the gene is just not there to start with.
GM however means that you can take a gene from one species and insert it into a very different species.
This means that rapid genetic variation can be achieved.
There is always a risk in introduction of new species into environments where they have not evolved naturally - Australia is full of examples from rats to cane toads.
The use of GM means introduces a higher risk of such accidents
If the benefits outweigh that risk then that is allright but from what I see most benefits are there for the supermarkets and large agricultural industries.
The consumer, you and I, is being asked to shoulder the risk without getting the benefit
The comparison of GM and cane toads is completely ridiculous. The GM plant or animal is still the same species while a cane toad is a wholly introduced organism.
Adding the genes by cross breeding is at least as likey to introduce new traits that could lead offspring to dominate an environment as is plausible with direct genetic manipulation.
Indeed the "natural" way where seeds collected from various places and interbred is far more likely to cause an accident. The proteins formed by the specific genes being added are precisely known. The plant is otherwise unchanged. Cross breeding introduces random combinations of unknown other genes.
Adding the genes by cross breeding is at least as likey to introduce new traits that could lead offspring to dominate an environment as is plausible with direct genetic manipulation.
Indeed the "natural" way where seeds collected from various places and interbred is far more likely to cause an accident. The proteins formed by the specific genes being added are precisely known. The plant is otherwise unchanged. Cross breeding introduces random combinations of unknown other genes.
One GM product is the introduction of the gene that gives daffodils their yellow colour into rice. That yellow is Vitamin A and has the potential to save the sight of millions who would loose their vision through vitamin deficiencies.
I invite you to tell me what is wrong with this GM organism. What are the risks and how do they compare to the benefits?
I invite you to tell me what is wrong with this GM organism. What are the risks and how do they compare to the benefits?
I disagree beso
Adding genes from one organism that exists in one environment into an organism that exists in another environment is analagous to the cane toads scenario.
Lets take a hypothetical example
Imagine a gene for salt tolerance that's found in say a deep water seaweed and is introduced into a rice and then widely distributed.
Suppose it's then discovered that either
a) the genetic sequence used encompasses other functions such as the creation of a toxin that turns out to be poisonous to bees
b) the genetic sequence affects other genes from the rice - that there is an unsuspected genetic interplay
The idea that introducing a single gene into a species isn't enough to upset the ecosystem is rather silly
If you don't think so perhaps we should introduce the cobra venom gene into house mice!
Don't get me wrong there is probably nothing wrong with current projects - I'm sure they are getting plenty of testing - but as time goes by and budgets get cut that testing will be reduced and eventually there will be an accident.
This technology is not without risk but then what is?
what is important is to balance that risk to its benefit - and it's that balance that I'm unconvinced about right now
Adding genes from one organism that exists in one environment into an organism that exists in another environment is analagous to the cane toads scenario.
Lets take a hypothetical example
Imagine a gene for salt tolerance that's found in say a deep water seaweed and is introduced into a rice and then widely distributed.
Suppose it's then discovered that either
a) the genetic sequence used encompasses other functions such as the creation of a toxin that turns out to be poisonous to bees
b) the genetic sequence affects other genes from the rice - that there is an unsuspected genetic interplay
The idea that introducing a single gene into a species isn't enough to upset the ecosystem is rather silly
If you don't think so perhaps we should introduce the cobra venom gene into house mice!
Don't get me wrong there is probably nothing wrong with current projects - I'm sure they are getting plenty of testing - but as time goes by and budgets get cut that testing will be reduced and eventually there will be an accident.
This technology is not without risk but then what is?
what is important is to balance that risk to its benefit - and it's that balance that I'm unconvinced about right now
With regards to your specific example.
Introducing vitamin A into rice.
I think I've already outlined the risk in terms of unintended consequences.
We also have to ask who are the beneficaries.
I'm betting that this rice is not destined for Tescos shelves but is meant for Asia.
This is a technology that is not free, the genes will be patented and I'd be pretty certain that the rice is infertile otherwise repeat sales will be difficult.
You then get into a situation where some of the world's poorest farmers can no longer reserve their crop for next year but must buy it from someone like Monsanto each year
And what is the problem that this is solving? distribution of vitamin supplements?
Sledgehammer and nut?
Introducing vitamin A into rice.
I think I've already outlined the risk in terms of unintended consequences.
We also have to ask who are the beneficaries.
I'm betting that this rice is not destined for Tescos shelves but is meant for Asia.
This is a technology that is not free, the genes will be patented and I'd be pretty certain that the rice is infertile otherwise repeat sales will be difficult.
You then get into a situation where some of the world's poorest farmers can no longer reserve their crop for next year but must buy it from someone like Monsanto each year
And what is the problem that this is solving? distribution of vitamin supplements?
Sledgehammer and nut?
I agree with you Jake esp the patent part and in relation to profit - who are the beneficiaries and who the losers?
Also the natural ecosystem can be at risk, there is a possibility of soil contamination and the new species then developing further resistance (sugar beet strain example) which makes it harder and more costly to control.
Also the natural ecosystem can be at risk, there is a possibility of soil contamination and the new species then developing further resistance (sugar beet strain example) which makes it harder and more costly to control.
I don't like G.M foods, as the other dissenters have said above the idea of crossing plants with animals can't happen in nature as far as I'm aware.
What I do find strange though is that there's a huge ground swell of opposition to G.M foods, but not G.M organs.
We object to Frankenstein foods, but not Frankenstein people it would seem.
What I do find strange though is that there's a huge ground swell of opposition to G.M foods, but not G.M organs.
We object to Frankenstein foods, but not Frankenstein people it would seem.
Plant breeding is not the same as genetic modification. GM is very specific, it is to do with messing about with the genetic code directly, adding bits that would not normally be there in the hope that only the intended effect will be present. It is a risk that simply isn't necessary and so insane to take, regardless as to whether it result in disaster or turns out to be ok after all. If they wish to learn about genetics it should stay in the lab. anything else is totally irresponsible.
You don't need to search the Net for long to see a whole list of genuine objections from making weeds weed-killer proof to unknown long term consequences of consumption. Try Google.
You don't need to search the Net for long to see a whole list of genuine objections from making weeds weed-killer proof to unknown long term consequences of consumption. Try Google.
I must say that I expected more of a response. Perhaps the subject, to the sage contributors to this site at least, is not as controversial as I thought. To the points made:
‘GM’ is genetic modification, jake, and it is not only between species. Since the latest tests on Maris Piper potatoes are using anti-blight genes from wild potatoes, that’s presumably OK. Alas though, they have still had to build stout barriers to keep out the mindless vandals (who last time managed to persuaded an apparently half-witted jury that breaking into a farmer’s field and trashing all his crops was not criminal damage!) who will not care about such reasoning.
The risks you mention, jake, might be there, but they are only speculative. That’s why we have to test crops, to find out what those risks are. But the very people who say that the risks are unacceptable are the very ones who try to stop the tests that will show whether they are or not! Where do we get such prats?
beso is right in that controlled handling of genes is surely less risky than the hit-and-miss methods of cross-fertilisation and –breeding, though I acknowledge that they can’t involve interspecies GM.
The possible exploitation of the products by unscrupulous organisations is a different matter which needs different action. But such considerations can never hold up scientific progress, otherwise Jenner might have abandoned his vaccination idea in case people patented the vaccines and held sick people to ransom.
‘GM’ is genetic modification, jake, and it is not only between species. Since the latest tests on Maris Piper potatoes are using anti-blight genes from wild potatoes, that’s presumably OK. Alas though, they have still had to build stout barriers to keep out the mindless vandals (who last time managed to persuaded an apparently half-witted jury that breaking into a farmer’s field and trashing all his crops was not criminal damage!) who will not care about such reasoning.
The risks you mention, jake, might be there, but they are only speculative. That’s why we have to test crops, to find out what those risks are. But the very people who say that the risks are unacceptable are the very ones who try to stop the tests that will show whether they are or not! Where do we get such prats?
beso is right in that controlled handling of genes is surely less risky than the hit-and-miss methods of cross-fertilisation and –breeding, though I acknowledge that they can’t involve interspecies GM.
The possible exploitation of the products by unscrupulous organisations is a different matter which needs different action. But such considerations can never hold up scientific progress, otherwise Jenner might have abandoned his vaccination idea in case people patented the vaccines and held sick people to ransom.
...(cont'd)
123everton – Frankenstein foods indeed! What tabloid rubbish do you read? As for trans-species organ transplants (which is not GM) if I were dying of a heart problem and they said that a valve from a pig would save me I’d say ‘go ahead’ with great eagerness. I presume you would prefer to die. But what if such a device could save loved one? Would you let him or her die too?
(It seems that it wouldn't post because it was too long, even though it was wellwithin the AB limits, which is why I have had to split it.)
123everton – Frankenstein foods indeed! What tabloid rubbish do you read? As for trans-species organ transplants (which is not GM) if I were dying of a heart problem and they said that a valve from a pig would save me I’d say ‘go ahead’ with great eagerness. I presume you would prefer to die. But what if such a device could save loved one? Would you let him or her die too?
(It seems that it wouldn't post because it was too long, even though it was wellwithin the AB limits, which is why I have had to split it.)
Old Geezer, your description starting with "messing about with the code" (leaving out "directly") and continuing "adding bits that would not normally be there in the hope that the intended effect will be present" is a perfect definition of cross-fertilisation and cross-breeding. GM takes the coin-tossing out of it and targets the intended effect.
Disagree - the risks are not speculative they are real
They haven't been realised yet - but the risk of them is very real.
Yes in can be between species - and there are already blight resistant potatoes - this is clearly a low risk category.
The reason that people are trying to stop the tests is that they believe that the risks in the actual tests are unacceptable.
I disagree with that but I'd certainly not call them prats I think it's a supportable point of view depending on your risk tolerance.
I think though that you are absolutely wrong in saying that direct genetic manipulation is less risky than cross fertillisation methods.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you almost seem to be under the misapprehension that every gene of these organisms and the way that they interact is known and fully understood.
Remember we are setting the bar here for the future
Is 1,000:1 an acceptible risk? How many of these organisms will we develop? in the next 10 years if the brakes are taken off now?
10,000 ?
How many accidents are we willing to put up with?
What's the worst that can happen?
I don't see these questions being properly answered and I think that they should be
Especially when the pay-off is blight-free potatoes and super-size salmon.
I want to see much better benefits than that in return for taking poorly quantified risks
They haven't been realised yet - but the risk of them is very real.
Yes in can be between species - and there are already blight resistant potatoes - this is clearly a low risk category.
The reason that people are trying to stop the tests is that they believe that the risks in the actual tests are unacceptable.
I disagree with that but I'd certainly not call them prats I think it's a supportable point of view depending on your risk tolerance.
I think though that you are absolutely wrong in saying that direct genetic manipulation is less risky than cross fertillisation methods.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but you almost seem to be under the misapprehension that every gene of these organisms and the way that they interact is known and fully understood.
Remember we are setting the bar here for the future
Is 1,000:1 an acceptible risk? How many of these organisms will we develop? in the next 10 years if the brakes are taken off now?
10,000 ?
How many accidents are we willing to put up with?
What's the worst that can happen?
I don't see these questions being properly answered and I think that they should be
Especially when the pay-off is blight-free potatoes and super-size salmon.
I want to see much better benefits than that in return for taking poorly quantified risks
I believe that there is only one blight-free potato at the moment and it is not a well-known one, which is why they want to make the most popular potato, Maris Piper, blight free.
We obviously have different ideas of what a prat is. A chap tells us that GM crops are dangerous but he can't tell us why because he doesn't know enough. We tell him that we don't know enough either so we'd like to conduct tests to find out what the risks are.
He says no, I don't want you even to conduct tests; it is best that we never know. Just take my word for it that there are risks. Not just a prat but an arrogant one.
This is not a completely new subject, an unknown area into which we are treading, possibly recklessly.
First of all, thousands of acres of land are given over to GM crops in various other countries, who are therefore learning at a far faster rate than we are, who are growing only small test areas if the mindless vandals let us.
Secondly, with each new day we learn more and more about the genomes of plants and other organisms, which means we are not operating blind.
Let the anti-GMites give us something to work on. Let's take the idea of isolating the genes that protect Arctic fish from the cold and inserting them into tomatoes. What risks do you see there? What tests or precautions should we take?
We obviously have different ideas of what a prat is. A chap tells us that GM crops are dangerous but he can't tell us why because he doesn't know enough. We tell him that we don't know enough either so we'd like to conduct tests to find out what the risks are.
He says no, I don't want you even to conduct tests; it is best that we never know. Just take my word for it that there are risks. Not just a prat but an arrogant one.
This is not a completely new subject, an unknown area into which we are treading, possibly recklessly.
First of all, thousands of acres of land are given over to GM crops in various other countries, who are therefore learning at a far faster rate than we are, who are growing only small test areas if the mindless vandals let us.
Secondly, with each new day we learn more and more about the genomes of plants and other organisms, which means we are not operating blind.
Let the anti-GMites give us something to work on. Let's take the idea of isolating the genes that protect Arctic fish from the cold and inserting them into tomatoes. What risks do you see there? What tests or precautions should we take?
Chaka, the Frankenstein reference was just a colourful metaphor, lost on you sadly.
I don't read the tabloids, a pig (as I understand it) is genetically different to a human, pig organs are not transplantable to humans (as I understand it), therefore (as I understand it) it would have to be genetically modified, this incurs a risk.
Namely pig borne viruses and diseases that do not affect humans, which if they mutate would not neccessarily have a known or effective cure.
I'll be blunt, I would be loathe to accept a valve from from a modified pig, and would prefer to face death, that's how highly I view the risk.
There are better ways of farming to solve the problems (we've plenty of food if only we'd share it), we've plenty of organs, if we assumed consent with an opt out.
These (to me) are better solutions, scientists (to my mind) should be more gainfully employed finding out new treatments for diseases or better pesticides etc, more money it and less investment too I'd wager.
A field is an odd place for labarotory conditions, perhaps that's why they dissent.
I don't read the tabloids, a pig (as I understand it) is genetically different to a human, pig organs are not transplantable to humans (as I understand it), therefore (as I understand it) it would have to be genetically modified, this incurs a risk.
Namely pig borne viruses and diseases that do not affect humans, which if they mutate would not neccessarily have a known or effective cure.
I'll be blunt, I would be loathe to accept a valve from from a modified pig, and would prefer to face death, that's how highly I view the risk.
There are better ways of farming to solve the problems (we've plenty of food if only we'd share it), we've plenty of organs, if we assumed consent with an opt out.
These (to me) are better solutions, scientists (to my mind) should be more gainfully employed finding out new treatments for diseases or better pesticides etc, more money it and less investment too I'd wager.
A field is an odd place for labarotory conditions, perhaps that's why they dissent.
To your points, 123everton:
Silly to say that the Frankenstein ref is lost on me; it was coined by one of the dafter tabloids years ago and is trotted out every time the subject comes up. And it is not a metaphor: Frankenstein made a human out of human parts; GM didn’t come into it.
Last time I checked about 160 people have been given living pig tissue over the last 12 years. The viruses you mention were well screened for and not one adverse effect has come up. I accept that you would rather die; that is your choice. I expect that when vaccination first emerged there were those who said they’d rather die of smallpox than receive injections of fluids from a sick cow. Happily, countless millions are alive today because they thought differently. And you don’t tell us whether you would allow a loved-one, for whom you had responsibility, to die rather than be saved by pig tissue.
The rest of your post is too vague to comment on and hardly shows a serious study of the subject. And I don’t understand your last sentence.
What about the question in my last: what risks do you see in inserting anti-cold genes from fish into tomatoes? And what test should we do?
Silly to say that the Frankenstein ref is lost on me; it was coined by one of the dafter tabloids years ago and is trotted out every time the subject comes up. And it is not a metaphor: Frankenstein made a human out of human parts; GM didn’t come into it.
Last time I checked about 160 people have been given living pig tissue over the last 12 years. The viruses you mention were well screened for and not one adverse effect has come up. I accept that you would rather die; that is your choice. I expect that when vaccination first emerged there were those who said they’d rather die of smallpox than receive injections of fluids from a sick cow. Happily, countless millions are alive today because they thought differently. And you don’t tell us whether you would allow a loved-one, for whom you had responsibility, to die rather than be saved by pig tissue.
The rest of your post is too vague to comment on and hardly shows a serious study of the subject. And I don’t understand your last sentence.
What about the question in my last: what risks do you see in inserting anti-cold genes from fish into tomatoes? And what test should we do?
I accept that I haven't done a huge amount of research into it, 'm not a scientist does that disbar me from an opinion, or should I just trust you and take your word for it?
Sneering derision won't win me over to your point of view.
A labaratory should be as clinical an environment as possible, a field is open to the elements so cross pollenation is an issue (especially for organic farmers as I understand), as to the problems of injecting the cold virus into a tomato, I don't know what the consequences could be, nobody does, that's the issue with G.M food.
We CAN farm more efficiently globally, that's a better solution to my mind.
Why always with the lurid depictions of dying family members to try and make a point?
If the patient were an adult I'd seek their views before they were too ill to decide, if it were my child I'd speak to the mother and together we'd make a decision.
I would need a lot of convincing by the Drs as to the safety of the proceedure.
The problem with such proceedures, is that as it becomes more common, practices tend to become more lackse, a generic manufacturer somewhere banging it out cheaply may cut a corner and who knows what then.
Sneering derision won't win me over to your point of view.
A labaratory should be as clinical an environment as possible, a field is open to the elements so cross pollenation is an issue (especially for organic farmers as I understand), as to the problems of injecting the cold virus into a tomato, I don't know what the consequences could be, nobody does, that's the issue with G.M food.
We CAN farm more efficiently globally, that's a better solution to my mind.
Why always with the lurid depictions of dying family members to try and make a point?
If the patient were an adult I'd seek their views before they were too ill to decide, if it were my child I'd speak to the mother and together we'd make a decision.
I would need a lot of convincing by the Drs as to the safety of the proceedure.
The problem with such proceedures, is that as it becomes more common, practices tend to become more lackse, a generic manufacturer somewhere banging it out cheaply may cut a corner and who knows what then.
