G.M. Crops: A Question

Jackie laughlin

What is the difference between a seed resulting from modern GM and one resulting from selected breeding/cultivation over a long period? Surely both are man made, genetically modified?

McSandwich

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What is the difference between a seed resulting from modern GM and one resulting from selected breeding/cultivation over a long period? Surely both are man made, genetically modified?

Selective breeding encourages a characteristic which already exists within a species or cross breeds related species. For example, a farmer might seed next years crop from the plants which produced the highest yields this year. GM can involve the introduction of genetic material from other unrelated plant species and even animals.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

What is the difference between a seed resulting from modern GM and one resulting from selected breeding/cultivation over a long period? Surely both are man made, genetically modified?

possibble patenting and termination implanted into them...
and cus most of what is used now is a type of seed that is combined with a a pesticide so you have to buy both the seed and the pesticide combo.

cavedave

GMO's are not necessarily bad for the environment. for instance if you develop a crop that needs less pesticide that would seem to be better then spraying DDT everywhere.

There are however risks with any technology and the effects of swapping genes between species (something that anything more complex then an ameoba does not tend to do) could be bad.

CJhaughey

If you look at how the scientists are splicing genes into plants it is pretty scary, apparently the use of agents like Ebola are used to break the cells walls down and allow the new sequence to be inserted into the host cell...
I am sure that in 1000yrs of breeding the natural gardener will never developed a glow in the dark potato plant by selective breeding.

McSandwich

cavedave wrote:

GMO's are not necessarily bad for the environment. for instance if you develop a crop that needs less pesticide that would seem to be better then spraying DDT everywhere.

However, if a resistant crop escaped to the wild it could take over as non resistant indigenous species would not be able to compete.

It's also possible that the pests might adapt, making them stronger and more resistant to pesticide - similar to how overuse of anti-biotics lead to MRSA.

Jackie laughlin

While I'm impressed by the new ability to achieve these ends, I am struggling to find anything radical (no pun intended) or particularly risky in GM.

I understand that plants have been "crossbred" for a very long time. OK, the possibility on introducing non-plant genes is new. However, its strangeness is more related perhaps to a fixation with the animal-vegetable-mineral fundamental classification. There's nothing fundamentally wrong that I can see.

It is surely the case that any stonger plant - GM or not - has a greater chance of populating the countryside? Lots of introduced plant species have become pests over the years. There is no panic over rhodedendrons which are not native and are a plague in some areas.

Many cultivars are sterile. It should be relatively easy and profitable to introduce genetic material which would prevent 2nd generation seeds from germinating.

Making a plant genetically resistant to pests seems more sensible than spraying pesticide all over the place. Sure, the pests could -probably would - develop their own resistance but this is true of chemical spraying too.

Finally, I saw a TV prog. recently in which scientists were working to modify tobacco plants so that the plants would grow quantities of now expensive drugs. Tobacco grows like a weed in warm climes and this would be a boon to poor tropical countries.

In short, I fail to see what the fuss is over GM. Is there some commercial or career interest in scaring people over GM. I'm so calm about it, I feel I must be missing something. I can't believe that we are about to make Ireland a GM-free island.

Capt'n Midnight

cavedave wrote:

GMO's are not necessarily bad for the environment. for instance if you develop a crop that needs less pesticide that would seem to be better then spraying DDT everywhere.

There are however risks with any technology and the effects of swapping genes between species (something that anything more complex then an ameoba does not tend to do) could be bad.

What actually happened is monsato developed plants that have a higher tolerance to pesticide. They can sell more pesticide and the consumer and environment get it too.

Also you can patent a GMO, no one else can use it. If you sell normal seed then the farmer can grow his own next year. If a GMO escapes into your garden then technically speaking it's not your plant !

The technology has wonderful uses, growing hormones in beans and all that but the overwelming amount of money spent has been to increase profit and lockin rather than benefit humans. There isn't a food shortage at the moment. In the extrememly unlikely event that nitrogen fixing bacteria get wiped out by a GMO then that may change.

It's a bit like nuclear power, it could be safe if done properly, but thus far big business hasn't shown it can be trusted. There are lots of essential uses for nuclear industry - radioisotopes for xray / radiotherapy / sterilising of non-edible items but like the transgenic research these worthy areas are only a side line on the balance sheet

Jackie laughlin

Capt'n,
I can understand the suspect busines practices and there might be a political campaign to boycott GM food. My difficulty is that there seems to be a view abroad that GM is terribly dangerous and that we must do the devil and all to keep Ireland GM free. Who is causing this panic and why?

McSandwich

Who is causing this panic and why?

From what I've read, there are many groups/ individuals with fears about GM including:

Fear that genetic modifications might have unforeseen side effects (e.g. increased cancer risk, death of honey bees, etc.)
http://www.robedwards.com/2002/12/gm_expert_warns.html
http://www.biotech-info.net/cancer_risk.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,473166,00.html
http://www.celsias.com/blog/2007/03/29/european-bees-taking-a-nosedive/


Fear that GM crops could cross pollinate with other non gm crops and weeds
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=568
http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/new_study_highlights_gm_fe_29112004.html

Splicing crops with human genes = canibalism.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/25/wgm25.xml

Fear that scientists/ research companies are playing God and unethically patenting life.
http://cellbank.nibio.go.jp/information/ethics/uk_nuf/gm_crops_preface.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3007573.stm


Of all these, the main concern seems to be that our understanding of DNA and genetic code is still extremely limited and so genetic modification is equivalent to a child flicking switches in a nuclear power station. In other words, we should be more cautious until we know exactly what we're doing.

cavedave

Of all these, the main concern seems to be that our understanding of DNA and genetic code is still extremely limited and so genetic modification is equivalent to a child flicking switches in a nuclear power station. In other words, we should be more cautious until we know exactly what we're doing.

I think all of these concerns are valid. However it is worth noting that every advancement since Promethius stole fire from the gods has been greeted with "it is playing god, it will kill us all, the sky is falling on our heads".

Suing farmers because your crops pollinated their crops is wrong. Many of the concerns are valid but in the past in these circumstances many of the concerns have turned out not to be.

McSandwich

cavedave wrote:

I think all of these concerns are valid. However it is worth noting that every advancement since Promethius stole fire from the gods has been greeted with "it is playing god, it will kill us all, the sky is falling on our heads".

True, but I think it's just human nature to fear all things new and/ or different - for good or bad.

Suing farmers because your crops pollinated their crops is wrong. Many of the concerns are valid but in the past in these circumstances many of the concerns have turned out not to be.

This highlights the need for laws and a code of ethics to be put into place to deal with issues such as this which may arise. Yet again, technology is progressing much faster than law allowing greedy corporations to take advantage regardless of the consequences (which includes giving GM a bad name).

As for the past, the closest example that I can think of which might serve to warn of the possible negative effects of GM is the introduction of foreign species to Australia. These included rabbits, pigs, cattle, domestic cats, and many plants. None of these species have natural competitors and/or predators in Australia and so they, and their diseases, spread like wildfire with disastrous consequences for the native species many of which are now endangered.

McSandwich

Of all these, the main concern seems to be that our understanding of DNA and genetic code is still extremely limited and so genetic modification is equivalent to a child flicking switches in a nuclear power station. In other words, we should be more cautious until we know exactly what we're doing.

Just found this article, titled "Why 'junk DNA' may be useful after all." Just shows how much we really know...

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/mg19526121.500-why-junk-dna-may-be-useful-after-all.html

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Capt'n,
I can understand the suspect busines practices and there might be a political campaign to boycott GM food. My difficulty is that there seems to be a view abroad that GM is terribly dangerous and that we must do the devil and all to keep Ireland GM free. Who is causing this panic and why?

because4 te business are exagerating the claims of the plants and trying to monopolise markets, that is bad and people want to stop it.

Jackie laughlin

Lost,
Opposition to monopoly or profiteering is rational but someone for some reason is stoking not opposition to crooked business but fear which has no foundation.

Mc,
Thank you for the refs. but failed to access New Scientist. Will try again.

Many of the possible dangers can be eliminated by genetic engineering itself. The fears are pretty far-fetched.

There's no need to go to Australia for examples of invading flora and fauna. Here's a short list from Ireland: rhodedendrons, grey squirrels, mink, rudd ...


No, I'm sorry but fear on this level is not generated by other advances with comparably slight risks.

lostexpectation

the answer you looking for then JL is tabloids nobody stokes fear better...

Jackie laughlin

Lost,
OK, but why? Media certainly have an interest in scare stories for the purpose of grabbing an audience but they usually have a political/economic purpose as well.

The Irish Green Party have swallowed this one. Why?

McSandwich

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Lost,
OK, but why? Media certainly have an interest in scare stories for the purpose of grabbing an audience but they usually have a political/economic purpose as well.

The Irish Green Party have swallowed this one. Why?

These 'scare stories' while often exaggerated in order to sell newspapers, are often based on real concerns..

For example, allergenicity which scientists accept is a valid concern.

A person, with an allergy to nuts will know to check the ingredients as their life may depend on it. However that person may consume another food product which does not contain nuts but has been genetically modified with nut genes.

Under EU law, products containing GM foodstuffs must be labelled accordingly (before this law, labelling was voluntary and may still be elsewhere), but this might be difficult to check in a restaurant or for a child to verify.

BTW, I know the same issues could arise if food was cooked in peanut oil but this is just an example of peoples (valid) fears about GM which may extend beyond just the allergenicity issue.

Human health risks -
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/biotechnology/gmfood/labelling_en.htm

Capt'n Midnight

saying GMO food is safe is a distraction, of course it's fairly safe, they couldn't sell it otherwise :rolleyes:

The problem is not the processed food - it's a minor issue.
The problem is the organism out in the wild.
The problem is the dodgy ethics of the companies.
The problem is the release of genes into species that didn't have them before.
The problem is the pesticides sprayed on the crops that are more tolerant of it.

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Lost,
OK, but why? Media certainly have an interest in scare stories for the purpose of grabbing an audience but they usually have a political/economic purpose as well.

The Irish Green Party have swallowed this one. Why?

well in england I'd put it down to little Englander (poor farmers chewing straw like it used to be in the good old days), xenophobia, right wing anti-globalisation. not that right its because they think it appeals to the saw young mother income group as they hit with peadophilia scares.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The Irish Green Party have swallowed this one. Why?

the irish green party havn't swallowed anything, they are not only campaigning against a change to GMO but are also campaign to clean up 'conventional' industrialised farming and go towards organic as the ideal.

They are campaigning against GMO on political, economic, social and scientific reasons...

Jackie laughlin

This last point gets the problem in summary. I must admit that I don't take the Green Party at all seriously; I find them utterly populist. They may simply be behaving in a populist manner on GM but that leaves the question of who scared the populace and why?

The Irish Greens want to ban GM in Ireland. However, a ban based on socio-political and economic reasons would be an inconsistent "picking on" GM. There is no move e.g. to ban Nike trainers. On the scientific side, there is no reason why GM crops cannot be made incapable of breeding; many cultivars fall into this category. There is nothing inherently wrong in a species having a gene that it didn't previously have. If this were the basis of the objection, in order to be consistent many other scientific endeavours in Ireland would have to be banned. Plants becoming resistant to pesticide is not new.

Warning people that a food is GM can be justified on right-to-be-informed grounds but it suggests that there is reason to be afraid.

Mc,
Thank you for the references but they tend to support my growing (pun intended) feeling that this is a contrived panic and that there are business or green political (in the bad sense of the word) interests behind it

lostexpectation

Jackie laughlin wrote:

This last point gets the problem in summary. I must admit that I don't take the Green Party at all seriously; I find them utterly populist. They may simply be behaving in a populist manner on GM but that leaves the question of who scared the populace and why?

The Irish Greens want to ban GM in Ireland. However, a ban based on socio-political and economic reasons would be an inconsistent "picking on" GM. There is no move e.g. to ban Nike trainers. On the scientific side, there is no reason why GM crops cannot be made incapable of breeding; many cultivars fall into this category. There is nothing inherently wrong in a species having a gene that it didn't previously have. If this were the basis of the objection, in order to be consistent many other scientific endeavours in Ireland would have to be banned. Plants becoming resistant to pesticide is not new.

Warning people that a food is GM can be justified on right-to-be-informed grounds but it suggests that there is reason to be afraid.

Mc,
Thank you for the references but they tend to support my growing (pun intended) feeling that this is a contrived panic and that there are business or green political (in the bad sense of the word) interests behind it

greens are not populist, your confusing the tabloid mainstream view of greens with reality. deadend gmseeds are not what the greens want either.

nike trainers?

large market shares of plants that need pesticide gnentically from only one company is bad. (I was just reading about the ecoli outbreak in America all the spinach/cabbage etc coming from one valley in california is a bad idea, do you not get that)

its the lack of regulation that is the problem, the companies are just ploughing ahead pushing the stuff on the market and laughing at the politicians when its too late. the meps in the eu just voted not to pass a new gm potatoe now the unelected eu commission will force it through.

any scientific innovation without even a little regulation would be bad you don't want cowboys selling snakeoil would you.

'its science', what does that mean?

gm crops is not soley a scientific endevaour its business one too

do you not believe the green people are genuinely interested in organic, they may then go on to set up an trendy organic shop but you don't believe theres absolutley no prinicipal politics behind it, that they only see climate change as business opportunity. if you don't then there no point having this conversation anymore.

http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955&Itemid=5811

Annan rules out use of GMOs in the war on hunger in Africa
Allan Odhiambo
Business Daily (Kenya), 17-July-2007
http://www.bdafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1955&Itemid=5811

In what is bound to stir controversy in agriculture and scientific circles, former UN secretary general Kofi Annan has ruled out the use of Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs) in the battle against food insecurity and poverty in Africa.

"We in the alliance will not incorporate GMOs in our programmes. We shall work with farmers using traditional seeds known to them," he said. Mr Annan said poor pricing of commodities, and not type of seeds, keeps African growers away from their farmlands despite spiralling food insecurity and poverty on the continent.

oooh look somebody else who isn't swallowing it

Jackie laughlin

LostEx,
I may not be making my point clearly. As a socialist, I am very concerned about the ways in which capitalism will exploit GM (and other technologies) and of course I agree that regulation is essential.

The Green Party have gone for an outright ban. Now, if their concerns were about exploitation (in the broadest sense) they would be advancing socialist arguments and policies. They tend not to do this. I assume they fear the tag "socialist" will be apllied and they may alienate their neo-liberal voters. A worse interpretation of their motives is that they have no real problem with big business. My guess is that they can see the scare and a ban will make them look good. That's pretty cynical and highly populist. That's straight out of the FF manual!!

(If you consider the Greens are serious rather than populist, ask yourself why they have no policy on air travel?)

My overall point however is that there is a scare not about any socio economic objection but about GM actually being dangerous. I can see no reason for fear.

There is an excellent piece in the New York Review of Books of July 19th 2007: "Our Biotech Future" by Freeman Dyson. It puts GM in context - a small part of the emerging biotechnology which is set to dominate the 21st century.

Now, if Ireland is scared/tricked into declaring itself GM free, I wonder which countries and businesses will dominate the research and the future? I dunno but I'm concerned enough to wonder about who gains from this artificially induced panic.