PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Engineering



thewizeard
07-16-2003, 09:36 AM
First I will give you my opinion. I am against it because we can not see what the affects will be for our children and their chidren.. I also believe that when we buy our food, we should be aware of the ingredients used in its production. Some people might say, "No problem we will put it on the labels." This happens of course although one often needs a magnifying glas to read it. Another problem is contamination:

Greenpeace



Italian seeds contaminated with GE maize
Scandal highlights loopholes in new European legislation

Thu 10 July 2003
ITALY/Piemonte


Over 100 farmers in Northern Italy have discovered that non-genetically engineered (GE) maize seeds that they bought and planted, were in fact contaminated by GE maize. The fact that cases like this are happening on a regular basis, raises serious questions - such as how are the seeds getting contaminated in the first place? Is it part of a deliberate strategy by companies selling GE seeds?


The 400 hectares of GE contaminated maize will soon flower, so government officials and farmers leaders in the Piemonte region are meeting to work out what to do with the maize to stop further contamination.

The contamination came to light after routine seed tests by the Italian authorities - unfortunately conducted after the seeds had been planted. Although the exact details of what happened have yet to be made public, local reports and previous experience suggest that GE varieties produced by Monsanto may be the source of the contamination. Farmers reportedly bought the seeds from the company Pioneer Seeds that not only sells conventional non-GE seeds, but also acts as a sales agent for Monsanto's GE seeds in many countries.

A full investigation must be conducted not only of the contamination in Piemonte, but of what appears to be Monsanto's policy of deliberate contamination of non-GE seeds and farming.

Greenpeace spokesperson Federica Ferrario ask "With such cases happening on a regular basis the question has to be asked whether this is gross negligence or whether contamination of conventional seeds is part of a deliberate strategy of companies who sell GE seeds. In either case, legislation and legal action are required to make those responsible pay for the costs associated with their contamination and to prevent more such contamination in the future."

Coming less than one week after new EU legislation on labelling and traceability of GE food and animal feed, this case highlights two of the major loopholes still existing in European legislation and already acknowledged by many EU governments.

"It is one thing to have good labelling laws in place which make sure food products and animal feed are labelled if they do contain GE ingredients, but if Monsanto and its sales agents such as Pioneer Seeds are allowed to continually contaminate normal non-GE seeds, then that will make an absolute nonsense of the new legislation because it will entirely deny any choice for farmers or for consumers", added Ferrario.

Legislation is urgently needed to prevent seed contamination and ensure strict liability for the GE company responsible when contamination does occur.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a problem that I am sure is being repeated all over the world. No doubt in countries where the controls over the planting of GM plants are less stringent than
what we are used to. This highlights the fact that even in Europe controls are failing.

What is your opinion ?

ilw
07-16-2003, 09:43 AM
I'm all for genetic engineering, I don't really think the safeguards will stop the genes from spreading, but that doesn't bother me. I rather doubt that we'll create any wheat or weeds that will take over the world.

What about genetic engineering of humans? I'm all for that too once the tech gets a lot better, right now it would be pointless as we don't have a clue and the birth defect rate/ stillbirth rate is huge. Personally i reckon something has to be done because we've almost removed ourselves from natural selection and i don't think it will take toooo many generations for widespread problems to start creeping in. Then i personally feel its either genetic engineering or eugenics I don't much like the idea of relying too heaviliy on artificial implants etc.

MagicNakor
07-16-2003, 09:56 AM
What most people don't realize is that humans have been "genetically engineering" plants and animals for centuries. Ever grafted a tree? Ever seen a purebred dog? It's just no longer on such a base level.

:ninja:

ilw
07-16-2003, 10:36 AM
true look at killer bees, they're an example of the classic form of genetic engineering going wrong.

lynx
07-16-2003, 11:26 AM
That is not genetic engineering, it is selective breeding.

Yes, selective breeding can go wrong, but it isn't going to introduce pig genes into tomatoes. What do the islamic and jewish faiths think about that sort of thing - not able to eat tomatoes because of possible contaminition ?

There has not been time for sufficient evidence to be gathered as to whether GM foods are safe, so let's keep them separate for the time being.

We have the nonsense from the US about not being able to identify GM soya separately from the non-GM variety, which is one of the current beefs they have with the EU, who say they must. But at the same time food manufacturers proudly claim they can identifiy all ingredients they use even down to the fields they were grown in, and the time they were harvested to the nearest hour.

Who is kidding who ?

Edit: clarity

ilw
07-16-2003, 11:42 AM
selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering as u r selecting the genetic traits and therefore genes u want in an animal. Teh fact that pigs and tomatoes can't interbreed is trivial, viruses can carry genes between different species and any of the genes that u successfullly splice could occur naturally. IMO the danger at the current level of use is greatly outweighed by the knowledge gleaned from it.

lynx
07-16-2003, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by ilw@16 July 2003 - 12:42
selective breeding is a form of genetic engineering as u r selecting the genetic traits and therefore genes u want in an animal. Teh fact that pigs and tomatoes can't interbreed is trivial, viruses can carry genes between different species and any of the genes that u successfullly splice could occur naturally. IMO the danger at the current level of use is greatly outweighed by the knowledge gleaned from it.
Exactly, you are selecting traits, NOT genes.
In doing so you also sometimes get undesirable qualities, in which case the selection is considered to have failed, but because of the time involved these are spotted long before any harmful variations are 'let loose'.

Direct genetic modification on the other hand is a relatively rapid process so the undesirable qualities may not be spotted until it is way too late.

Genes carried by viruses from species to species generally result in unsustainable cells, so the corrupted gene pool is rarely propogated.

I am not against GM experimentation, I simply feel that there is too much of a rush.

Look at thalidomide - their are two varieties of this chemical, but they are mirror images of each other. Small scale production produced only one of these variants, and it is safe. Larger scale production produced significant quantities of the other variant and that variant as we know is most definitely unsafe (for it's then intended purpose).
But the manufacturers were unaware of these variations, and we know of the results. Let's not get into the same situation with GM foods by rushing into their use before we know all the facts.

Rat Faced
07-16-2003, 02:22 PM
We have the nonsense from the US about not being able to identify GM soya separately from the non-GM variety, which is one of the current beefs they have with the EU, who say they must.


If they cant tell the difference, why muck about with something safe and potentialy introduce dangerous side effects.

I think they recently done some experiments on Canadian GE crops in the UK, and the scientists concluded that there was no advatage to this Crop that had cost millions to develope....I can think of a lot of placs that money would be better spent.


I can agree with some GE; for example producing crops that will grow in places that it cant currently (parts of Africa for example)...but to GE a crop that is already thriving in an environment?

.....why?

lynx
07-16-2003, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 July 2003 - 15:22

We have the nonsense from the US about not being able to identify GM soya separately from the non-GM variety, which is one of the current beefs they have with the EU, who say they must.


If they cant tell the difference, why muck about with something safe and potentialy introduce dangerous side effects.

I think they recently done some experiments on Canadian GE crops in the UK, and the scientists concluded that there was no advatage to this Crop that had cost millions to develope....I can think of a lot of placs that money would be better spent.


I can agree with some GE; for example producing crops that will grow in places that it cant currently (parts of Africa for example)...but to GE a crop that is already thriving in an environment?

.....why?
Bad wording from me, before someone else replies.

I should have said that the US claim there is no way to prevent them being mixed, so we should accept all US soya, but the EU says if you (the US) can't keep them separate then we (the EU) will have none at all. I don't think it is that they can't identify the difference, just that they choose not to.

A very nasty marketing trick
I think someone has said it before, but the plants produced from GM grain are supposedly sterile. This is not quite accurate, since it is that very produce which is what is desired to be harvested. However, the second generation seed is not capable of producing another viable plant, so you have to go back and get new first generation seed. This means that once you have replaced all the old non-GM seed with GM seed, you have a captive market who must repeatedly come back to you for more seedstock.

The marketing trick gets nastier
Even more worrying, the GM plant still produces pollen, and if this is allowed to contaminate non-GM plants, they too may produce seed which cannot propogate a viable plant, so even those who try to resist GM crops may eventually be forced to look elsewhere for seedstock.

If at this stage we find that there is a problem with the GM product, it is too late, we have lost the original non-GM produce, and millions (billions ?) face the prospect of eating a faulty product or starvation.

Edit: typo

j2k4
07-16-2003, 04:26 PM
On this subject I have not yet run to ground a coherent viewpoint.

I am cautious, as G.E. is a life-altering science, much as the study of the atom was, and with an even greater potential upside, BUT-

I am reminded of a line from the movie "Jurassic Park", relative to G.E., and uttered by Jeff Goldblum, something to the effect of, "They (the genetic engineers) became so enamored of the fact they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should."

sArA
07-16-2003, 09:52 PM
Quite j2k....

and I have to put my oar in here....

It is not the idea of scorpion DNA in my veggies that is of concern to me but several other points....

1. That there appears to be some rush to introduce GM...almost to the point where I wonder....why??? Is there a problem 'they' haven't told us about?

and

2. The pressure from governments and the total disregard for public opinion. This riding rough shod over the citizens of supposedly democratic countries is concerning.

If 'they' are prepared to force this onto us then my concern is not so much about the problems of GM but rather the loss of democratic values, choice, freedom etc that this is symptomatic of.


Back to the original question and my thoughts are:

GM crops require much greater safety scrutiny before commercial introduction particularly in Europe. This is because Europe does not have the vast tracts of farm land that are available in the US, which helps to separate the crops. Further there must be guarantees that these sterile seeds will not be forced onto farmers in poor countries who cannot afford new seed each season.

The prospect of providing a global, high producing, disease free crop is fine providing that the cost of doing so both economically and environmentally is considered beyond the end of GM producers noses.

j2k4
07-17-2003, 04:45 AM
The only aspect of the crop issue I'm onto is the U.S.'s desire to export irradiated and/or G.E. crop technology to, for example, African nations which have difficulty feeding their people; this could be a boon for them.

Problems being:

1) People, in general, are still leery of the ultimate safety of eating the produce; fear of the unknown.

2) The E.U., by and large, still doesn't/won't buy the idea of irradiated or G.E.'d produce as they don't want their exports to be undercut price-or availablity-wise.
They look at the issue as "just another example of American capitalism run amok", costing the E.U. money.

As to the safety issue, much of the produce here in the U.S. is, and has been of the irradiated variety; we also have been eating some G.E.'d stuff, like tomatoes, too.

I can vouch for the tomatoes; they're excellent.

I don't believe safety is a concern, short- or long-term, but if you remember, for years, people were afraid of microwave ovens for similar reasons.

Anyway, I think it's a pretty piss-poor thing when the E.U. bad-mouths our efforts to advance the technologies of the African nations who could make critical progress by taking advantage of this.

denis123
07-17-2003, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 July 2003 - 16:26
On this subject I have not yet run to ground a coherent viewpoint.

I am cautious, as G.E. is a life-altering science, much as the study of the atom was, and with an even greater potential upside, BUT-

I am reminded of a line from the movie "Jurassic Park", relative to G.E., and uttered by Jeff Goldblum, something to the effect of, "They (the genetic engineers) became so enamored of the fact they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should."
j2k4

What you now say seems to be in coflict with your quote.

There is a strong lobby in Europe against anything that is "engineerd" and the politicians have to take notice. I am sure the products that are created, as far as taste is concerned, are equal to their natural brothers/sisters. That is not the point.

The point is we are playing "god" and have no idea what the effects will be on the coming generations. There is a saying "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" It might be ok, we just don't know ...yet.

America gives, I believe, by far the most aid to the developing countries than any other country. For this they should be applauded. But untill scientifically conducted experiments have proven that GE foods are safe then we should wait and not use these countries as laboratories to test these potentialy dangerous products.

Ron
07-17-2003, 06:25 AM
I think us humans should not play around with nature at this time.
We are so proud of what we know, but we haven't even begin to learn what we don't know.
How do we know GE isn't opening doors for virii that didn't have a chance to infect a particular plant upto now?
Nature spent millions of years evolving to what we have now. And here we are, changing all that in a couple of years.
Minor changes now, can lead to major changes in the future.
You can't really compare this to microwave ovens. We are dealing with living things here. Things that are part of the foodchain. Things that will keep evolving.

What if the GE plant just happens to be extra tasty for a certain insect or rodent? They would breed like crazy.
Or suppose, just for arguments sake, that a GE plant would hold 10% more water inside. That would be a disaster. Not because of one little plant, but if you look a the enormeousity of the American grainbelt, that could very possibly influence the weather all over the world. And as nature didn't have it's usual time to adjust to this situation, well, who knows what might happen?
I was (hopefully) exaggerating of course, but it does convey my worries.

But I also think it's too late to stop it now.
There's no way you can prevent GE plants from spreading. Birds and insects will spread the seeds and, no matter how far, eventually every field in the world will be contaminated with the GE variety.

ilw
07-17-2003, 07:55 AM
A very nasty marketing trick
Its not a marketing trick and u know its not, its because people (like i'm seeing in the previous few posts) worry almost permanently about what scientists are getting up to and infertile grain is a safety precaution. As has occured in India/Pakistan the grain can be made to be fertile and is doing very nicely.(if illegally)

Whatever people don't understand they worry about and feel they should be able to stop (thanks for the microwave example I reckon its a perfect example of people fearing the unknown)

2. The pressure from governments and the total disregard for public opinion. This riding rough shod over the citizens of supposedly democratic countries is concerning.

If 'they' are prepared to force this onto us then my concern is not so much about the problems of GM but rather the loss of democratic values, choice, freedom etc that this is symptomatic of. Personallly i am ecstatic that they don't listen to the public on these matters and that they instead listen to well thought out informed opinions from people who dedicated their lives to understanding these matters, the thought of giving the choice about genetic engineering to someone who doesn't know what an amino acid is makes me want to bang my head off the desk repeatedly.


But untill scientifically conducted experiments have proven that GE foods are safe then we should wait and not use these countries as laboratories to test these potentialy dangerous products.
Proving something takes an infinite amount of time, disproving something takes an instant. There is NO way they will ever prove that ge food is safe because the biological processes involved in reproduction are inherently random.

Sorry for the bluntness, personally I dislike democracy as a process for deciding complicated matters as people vote without ever understanding what they are voting for.

lynx
07-17-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 08:55
As has occured in India/Pakistan the grain can be made to be fertile and is doing very nicely.(if illegally)

You can bet the scientists at Monsanto (the ones that didn't get fired) are going to make sure THAT doesn't happen again - where would they make any money if second generation seed is fertile ?


(thanks for the microwave example I reckon its a perfect example of people fearing the unknown)
The microwave example is actually far better than you realise.
A microwave cooker with the shielding removed is a VERY dangerous piece of equipment. But in normal use, and assuming it isn't damaged (but still operative) it is very safe. If, however, the safety features failed so that the door could be opened while the oven was active, you would have a potential killer. In this situation, it is nothing to do with irrational fears.
Fortunately, there is a simple solution - you switch the thing off. Now I hope you can tell me where the off switch is located on GM products.


The E.U., by and large, still doesn't/won't buy the idea of irradiated or G.E.'d produce as they don't want their exports to be undercut price-or availablity-wise.
They look at the issue as "just another example of American capitalism run amok", costing the E.U. money.

You misrepresent the point of the E.U. actions.
It is all about LABELLING and giving the choice to the consumer. The E.U. is very tough on making sure that food is labelled correctly. GM food is only one example of where this is done, but ths US seems to want to take it as an issue against them. There is no embargo or anything like that, it doesn't cost you any more, all you have to do is label it correctly so that the consumer has the choice. We can only assume that the US doesn't want consumers to have that choice.

Years ago, before there were any commercial GM products, it was decided that this was one of the areas where there should be clear labelling. The US knew this, but decided that they would try to muddy the waters by mixing GM and non-GM products, even though they could have been kept completely separate (and still can). The E.U. rules were quite clear before, and they haven't changed, but the US now decides it wants to call 'foul'.

The US is shooting itself in the foot over this. It's insistence that we should accept GM produce WITHOUT proper labelling is making the consumer suspicious and is actually fuelling the fire it says it is trying to combat.

I didn't want to make this a EU vs US thing, but I feel that the facts should not be obscured by rhetoric,

ilw
07-17-2003, 11:03 AM
The microwave thing tho... people didn't understand that all it did was emit EM waves that resonate with water molecules, all they understood was that it irradiated their food. The thing i'm talking about is not the very real danger posed by unshielded microwaves, but the fear that existed nearer the time they were first released, namely that their food would become radioactive or could be mutated in some way.

Edit: And if anyone raises the point about not trusting Monsanto with genetic modification, then I completely agree with them, Monsanto are a very dodgy company with a poor track record.

lynx
07-17-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by ilw@17 July 2003 - 12:03
The microwave thing tho... people didn't understand that all it did was emit EM waves that resonate with water molecules, all they understood was that it irradiated their food. The thing i'm talking about is not the very real danger posed by unshielded microwaves, but the fear that existed nearer the time they were first released, namely that their food would become radioactive or could be mutated in some way.

Edit: And if anyone raises the point about not trusting Monsanto with genetic modification, then I completely agree with them, Monsanto are a very dodgy company with a poor track record.
Very true, a bit like the current irradiated produce thing taking place at the moment. Completely separate from GM, but gets lumped in with it.
I have no problem at all with irradiated food (I just typed irradiated fool - must be something freudian there), it should be labelled better so that I know it will last longer.
There's an example where proper labelling can help sell a product.

j2k4
07-17-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by denis123+17 July 2003 - 00:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (denis123 @ 17 July 2003 - 00:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 July 2003 - 16:26
On this subject I have not yet run to ground a coherent viewpoint.

I am cautious, as G.E. is a life-altering science, much as the study of the atom was, and with an even greater potential upside, BUT-

I am reminded of a line from the movie "Jurassic Park", relative to G.E., and uttered by Jeff Goldblum, something to the effect of, "They (the genetic engineers) became so enamored of the fact they could, they never stopped to consider whether or not they should."
j2k4

What you now say seems to be in coflict with your quote.

There is a strong lobby in Europe against anything that is "engineerd" and the politicians have to take notice. I am sure the products that are created, as far as taste is concerned, are equal to their natural brothers/sisters. That is not the point.

The point is we are playing "god" and have no idea what the effects will be on the coming generations. There is a saying "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" It might be ok, we just don&#39;t know ...yet.

America gives, I believe, by far the most aid to the developing countries than any other country. For this they should be applauded. But untill scientifically conducted experiments have proven that GE foods are safe then we should wait and not use these countries as laboratories to test these potentialy dangerous products. [/b][/quote]
denis123

Yes-you&#39;re right.

To clarify: I should say I&#39;m very leery of G.E. as it applies to any such adventures in the catagory of humans/cloning; that type of thing.

I am not concerned about produce to any great extent. :)