ChatterBank1 min 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.
123everton, I have never said that you are not entitled to an opinion. Of course you are, just as I am entitled to challenge that opinion. And I am at a loss to see where I have sneered. I don't need to sneer when I can use reason.
My point was not lurid, but perfectly sensible. You gave a clear answer about yourself: that you would rather die than accept pig tissue (though you don't say why). So it is reasonable to ask whether you would allow your prejudice to cover others as well. Of course you would consult the mother if it were your child, but how would you assess the "safety of the procedure" if the alternative (as I specified) would be the child's death? And what if it were your decision alone?
A little more clarity of thought required here, everton, as with your treatment of the rest of the subject.
For example, you say that "we don't know what the consequences would be" but you can't see why that is a very good reason for carrying out experiments and tests to discover what those consequences actually are and how we should tackle them if they are undesirable.
My point was not lurid, but perfectly sensible. You gave a clear answer about yourself: that you would rather die than accept pig tissue (though you don't say why). So it is reasonable to ask whether you would allow your prejudice to cover others as well. Of course you would consult the mother if it were your child, but how would you assess the "safety of the procedure" if the alternative (as I specified) would be the child's death? And what if it were your decision alone?
A little more clarity of thought required here, everton, as with your treatment of the rest of the subject.
For example, you say that "we don't know what the consequences would be" but you can't see why that is a very good reason for carrying out experiments and tests to discover what those consequences actually are and how we should tackle them if they are undesirable.
With regard to testing plants, I'm fine with it, in a labaratory, not a field.
You ask me what tabloids I read, as though my opinions are formed by the red tops, they're not.
I already told you my objection to animal organs (by tissue I assume you mean skin) is the risk of the mutation of animal diseases mutating to affect humans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, organisms can mutate by their own accord so if an animal disease is undetected in the donor, there is a possibility that it could mutate and infect people.
You ask me what tabloids I read, as though my opinions are formed by the red tops, they're not.
I already told you my objection to animal organs (by tissue I assume you mean skin) is the risk of the mutation of animal diseases mutating to affect humans.
Correct me if I'm wrong, organisms can mutate by their own accord so if an animal disease is undetected in the donor, there is a possibility that it could mutate and infect people.
OK, you've answered some of my questions. I mentioned redtops because it was one of them that invented the silly expression "Frankenstein foods", that's all.
I was hoping for more interest in this topic. naomi said that she'd like to join in but she's away at the moment. Now let me guess... I reckon she'll be anti-GM with reservations. We'll see whether I'm right.
I was hoping for more interest in this topic. naomi said that she'd like to join in but she's away at the moment. Now let me guess... I reckon she'll be anti-GM with reservations. We'll see whether I'm right.
Well, fancy seeing you here! As you rightly said, I am away from home and only have time to join in for short periods at the moment,.
I’m not sure you’re entirely right Chakka. I wouldn’t say I’m anti-GM, but I do have serious reservations with regard to the fundamental purpose of the experiments, which I suspect are largely financially and commercially motivated, and with that in mind, the extent of the testing procedures before something is declared ‘safe’, and the acceptable failure margins, are my biggest concern.
The anti-nature aspect worries me to a degree, but your example of the smallpox vaccine took my thoughts in another direction. Who’s to say that something perceived initially as ‘anti-nature’ cannot sometimes produce unexpectedly positive results? For example, we might find that the genetically modified potatoes you mention, when eaten and hence combined with other chemicals, produce some sort of change to the human body that induces a totally alien environment to cancer cells. On the other hand, it might produce a veritable hot bed for cancer cells to develop. Anything is possible. We just don’t know, but I don’t think science should be afraid of, or deterred by ‘what ifs’. If no one had ever asked questions and had the courage to experiment, the world would still be entrenched in the superstition of the dark ages, so we need to find out - but only if our purpose is genuinely to benefit humanity.
Continued……
I’m not sure you’re entirely right Chakka. I wouldn’t say I’m anti-GM, but I do have serious reservations with regard to the fundamental purpose of the experiments, which I suspect are largely financially and commercially motivated, and with that in mind, the extent of the testing procedures before something is declared ‘safe’, and the acceptable failure margins, are my biggest concern.
The anti-nature aspect worries me to a degree, but your example of the smallpox vaccine took my thoughts in another direction. Who’s to say that something perceived initially as ‘anti-nature’ cannot sometimes produce unexpectedly positive results? For example, we might find that the genetically modified potatoes you mention, when eaten and hence combined with other chemicals, produce some sort of change to the human body that induces a totally alien environment to cancer cells. On the other hand, it might produce a veritable hot bed for cancer cells to develop. Anything is possible. We just don’t know, but I don’t think science should be afraid of, or deterred by ‘what ifs’. If no one had ever asked questions and had the courage to experiment, the world would still be entrenched in the superstition of the dark ages, so we need to find out - but only if our purpose is genuinely to benefit humanity.
Continued……
…….Continued
As for transplanting animal organs, if it were a choice of die now of one disease, or die in 20 years time of a disease related to the transplanted organ, I’m sure I would accept it - and I would make the same choice for a family member. We all have to die sometime - but personally I’d rather go a bit later than right now, and if I have to rely on a pig to make that happen, then so be it.
As for transplanting animal organs, if it were a choice of die now of one disease, or die in 20 years time of a disease related to the transplanted organ, I’m sure I would accept it - and I would make the same choice for a family member. We all have to die sometime - but personally I’d rather go a bit later than right now, and if I have to rely on a pig to make that happen, then so be it.
Yes, we all have to die of something, but the point I'm trying to make is that there are diseases that affect animals very badly but to which human's are immune.
An animal organ may have an infection undetected within it, if it mutates (as I understand it can be liable to do) it can then become infectious to people.
It's not the matter of whether you die of this new ifection in 20 years time, it's whether you can kill people around you by spreading the new disease that is my concern.
An animal organ may have an infection undetected within it, if it mutates (as I understand it can be liable to do) it can then become infectious to people.
It's not the matter of whether you die of this new ifection in 20 years time, it's whether you can kill people around you by spreading the new disease that is my concern.
Good stuff, naomi, my only objection being to the sweeping statement "Anything can happen".
Our knowledge of how genes behave does not mean that we know for certain everything but we're getting there (due to research that the anti-GM people would stop) - and we certainly know of the many things that just can't happen, due to the nature of genes and cells, including cancerous cells.
everton, why should an infection remain undetected? We know that infections are caused by bacteria or viruses which certainly can be detected.
Our knowledge of how genes behave does not mean that we know for certain everything but we're getting there (due to research that the anti-GM people would stop) - and we certainly know of the many things that just can't happen, due to the nature of genes and cells, including cancerous cells.
everton, why should an infection remain undetected? We know that infections are caused by bacteria or viruses which certainly can be detected.
Look at it this way, folks:-
GM research will continue whether UK takes any part in it or not. We can close up as Luddites or play our own responsible part in it.
If our government were to fund and support such research then its results would belong to the nation. The intellectual property would be ours and we could use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account regarding the use of it.
If our government takes notice of one, plainly-mad, jury which decided that the trashing of the experiments is not criminal damage and doesn't pursue the legal situation further... if it is also influenced by the nonsensical propaganda of the anti-GM brigade with their weird monsters (see the Sunday Times magazine yesterday) then the research will be carried out, and the copyright held, by private companies. And you cannot blame them for using their expensively-researched knowledge to make a profit.
I know which I prefer.
GM research will continue whether UK takes any part in it or not. We can close up as Luddites or play our own responsible part in it.
If our government were to fund and support such research then its results would belong to the nation. The intellectual property would be ours and we could use the democratic process to hold our politicians to account regarding the use of it.
If our government takes notice of one, plainly-mad, jury which decided that the trashing of the experiments is not criminal damage and doesn't pursue the legal situation further... if it is also influenced by the nonsensical propaganda of the anti-GM brigade with their weird monsters (see the Sunday Times magazine yesterday) then the research will be carried out, and the copyright held, by private companies. And you cannot blame them for using their expensively-researched knowledge to make a profit.
I know which I prefer.
Show me how a squid naturally cross fertilises with a mushroom and I'll believe you. Commerce should not play fast & loose with the one world we have to live on in some unnecessary speculative chase for riches. It's not their world to mess up.
Insulting folk such as calling them Luddites when they have expressed genuine concerns, is simply a refuge for those who know they have failed to make any case.
Insulting folk such as calling them Luddites when they have expressed genuine concerns, is simply a refuge for those who know they have failed to make any case.
Whatever the merits of GM the over-riding factor may be the dominance of US companies like Monsanto. To be in hoc to a foreign company for all future supplies when they could be readily supplied in house. The way this could be overcome would be to sell the patents and then the problem should not arise.
Chaka I'm not a scientist and have never laid claim to be, if you want an analylitical answer to this question rather than a discursive one then you should've posted the question in the section marked "science."
Lacking as I admittedly am in this subject, I can only go on my own rather limited knowledge of biology etc. that I've picked up as I've wended my merry way through life.
Mutations are "rare" but not uncommon as I understand it, if an environment is changed and changed consistently then new possibilities can arise for the organism to mutate.
Could it not be that the rarity of mutation amongst these organisms is due to the stability of the genetic host it normally inhabits, if there is a change in the constuction of this genetic host and the disease survives (say because of poor standards due to cost cutting to increase profit) then the disease has a whole new way in which to thrive and survive, or am I being naieve?
Lacking as I admittedly am in this subject, I can only go on my own rather limited knowledge of biology etc. that I've picked up as I've wended my merry way through life.
Mutations are "rare" but not uncommon as I understand it, if an environment is changed and changed consistently then new possibilities can arise for the organism to mutate.
Could it not be that the rarity of mutation amongst these organisms is due to the stability of the genetic host it normally inhabits, if there is a change in the constuction of this genetic host and the disease survives (say because of poor standards due to cost cutting to increase profit) then the disease has a whole new way in which to thrive and survive, or am I being naieve?
Old Geezer, your octopus/mushroom gag is just rhetoric. And what do you mean by ‘believe you’? I am not offering a belief, merely reason.
I have already answered the question about commerce in two ways: (a) it is a separate one from that of pure research and should be tackled as such (b) if we leave the research to commercial companies by abandoning it ourselves what do you expect?
What risks? What ‘mess up’? You don’t know. I don’t know. I’m genuinely puzzled that you cannot see that the whole point of testing is to determine whether there are risks and, if so, what those risks are. Are you also against the testing of new drugs and medical procedures to discover the risks, if any?
If you are claiming that the action of those vandals is not criminal damage then we talk a different language. And what were they trying to prevent? Again, you don’t know.
123everton, I posted it on this site because I wanted everyday views not a scientific discourse; I can get that from the literature.
Sorry to be a pedant but how can mutations be rare but not uncommon? And nothing at all contributes to the appearance of mutations: they are a random mistake in the passing on of the genetic code. I wouldn’t say you were being naïve, but possibly not as knowledgeable about mutations as you should be before introducing them into a discussion where they have no place that I can see.
naomi, I am still trying to work out the difference and have failed so far. You’ll have to enlighten me. In either case my point still applies.
Just one more word to Old G and everton: can’t you see that so far you have revealed nothing but prejudice? Can you not give us some idea of what you think these risks are which you are so certain exist?
I have already answered the question about commerce in two ways: (a) it is a separate one from that of pure research and should be tackled as such (b) if we leave the research to commercial companies by abandoning it ourselves what do you expect?
What risks? What ‘mess up’? You don’t know. I don’t know. I’m genuinely puzzled that you cannot see that the whole point of testing is to determine whether there are risks and, if so, what those risks are. Are you also against the testing of new drugs and medical procedures to discover the risks, if any?
If you are claiming that the action of those vandals is not criminal damage then we talk a different language. And what were they trying to prevent? Again, you don’t know.
123everton, I posted it on this site because I wanted everyday views not a scientific discourse; I can get that from the literature.
Sorry to be a pedant but how can mutations be rare but not uncommon? And nothing at all contributes to the appearance of mutations: they are a random mistake in the passing on of the genetic code. I wouldn’t say you were being naïve, but possibly not as knowledgeable about mutations as you should be before introducing them into a discussion where they have no place that I can see.
naomi, I am still trying to work out the difference and have failed so far. You’ll have to enlighten me. In either case my point still applies.
Just one more word to Old G and everton: can’t you see that so far you have revealed nothing but prejudice? Can you not give us some idea of what you think these risks are which you are so certain exist?
An organism can mutate merely because it can, yes?
My understanding of evoloution is that an organism can change to best suit the environment it is in, the one that changes the most effectively will increase in population, is that about right?
If you have a disease that functions effectively in a pig, but not so in a person, with that crossing of species the disease is offered a way in to a new host at the genetic level, yes or no?
My objection to it is simple, and I'll repeat it for you, animal borne diseases adapting to affect humans.
My understanding of evoloution is that an organism can change to best suit the environment it is in, the one that changes the most effectively will increase in population, is that about right?
If you have a disease that functions effectively in a pig, but not so in a person, with that crossing of species the disease is offered a way in to a new host at the genetic level, yes or no?
My objection to it is simple, and I'll repeat it for you, animal borne diseases adapting to affect humans.
In that case, everton, you misunderstand evolution.
Mutations are random, accidental flaws in the genetic code as it is passed on. What effect that mutation has on its parent organism depends on how that mutaton fits into the environment it meets. It does not occur to "best suit" anything; it has no plan or aim; it is random. As I may have said before, you need to learn more about the basics of evolution.
Certainly a disease which may not flourish in one animal might be lethal in another. But diseases, if any, are checked for before the transplant is done. Which is why no adverse effects have been found in the pig/human transplants that have taken place.
naomi, "possible" means capable of happening. So if anything is possible, anything is capable of happening i.e. can happen.
Mutations are random, accidental flaws in the genetic code as it is passed on. What effect that mutation has on its parent organism depends on how that mutaton fits into the environment it meets. It does not occur to "best suit" anything; it has no plan or aim; it is random. As I may have said before, you need to learn more about the basics of evolution.
Certainly a disease which may not flourish in one animal might be lethal in another. But diseases, if any, are checked for before the transplant is done. Which is why no adverse effects have been found in the pig/human transplants that have taken place.
naomi, "possible" means capable of happening. So if anything is possible, anything is capable of happening i.e. can happen.
