Genetically engineered food

[Matra et Alpine]

Obviously you can have safe nuclear power, but you have to regulate it carefully- look at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

and lets not forget 3-mile Island in the US or Windscale in the UK ( which the gov changed the name to Sellafield to reduce the scare-factor and then gave up trying to be "smart" about PR after Sellafield had another release )

[Matra et Alpine]

Define “natural”?

Allowing normal natural selection which DNA has used and tried for billions of years. So MUC more "testing" than the "unnatural" method of gene-splicing. IF we actually understood the genome fully then the risk would clearly be low. BUT we have no clue what most of it does, or how it may interact and attach or mutate !!

Do/did breeders understand what they were really doing when mutating animals by cross breeding cows or sheep or dogs, or grain etc?

They were only taking steps to test and direct the natural steps the DNA had performed for billions of years. Gene splicing isn't. AND as I keep saying we don't understand the functions and so are unaware of the risks we MAY create in a seventh or eighth generation even if we test it in millions of cases of a few geneartions.

How can it interact?

Once released in the normal way birds, bees and plants have for billions of years. JUST now there is a rogue unknown put in the mix. NOW don't get me wrong there may have been MANY such rogues in the past that caused devastation to the eco system. BUT we don't have recorded history AND as we don't fully understand the genome then we have no way of which parts may be the key that blocks such rogues --- which would have occurred via natural selection.

Like?

Well now you are open to imagination. BUT what if a GM seed variant that was drought resistant also picked up that it trapped Salts in it's roots along with nitrates ? THEN you kill the soil over time.
It IS THE UNKNOWN but imaginable and the real nay-sayers on GM have identified some of these already, google finds them

Many scientific breakthroughs have occurred as such.

yes, but few with such potential impact.
I give you one example and try to imagine it wider and uncontrolled.
After Curie 'discovered' radioactivity and they could see short term impact of irradiation there was a MASSIVE surge in the selling of radioactive potions, poultices and equipment. THEN they realised everyone who were "cured" of an ailment died of radiation poisoning. So it was stopped. NOW imagine something similar which was NOT under control of man, ie a plant/animal in the wild. HOW do you do the equivalent of stopping radium being sold ?

Unfortunately that will be a ethical or special interest football kicked around forever. The scientific pro group wishing to forge ahead while the conservative “what if” group providing endless argument of the fear of the unknown.

As alreadu noted, POTENTIAL IMPACT is the real thing to be scared of and why it needs to be OUT of the control of financially motivated "scientific pro group" who are only putting short term benefit in hand. OTHERS promote it's use BUT with much higher controls than the Monsanto group for example run !! It is the MONEY that is driving the real push. Already posted a graphic pointing out ways to feed the impoverished if we reduced the excess of the other 10% of the planet
[quote]The problem with anti biotics is that viruses have mutated to be able to be immune. It is a different thing. The anti biotic are not risky in themselves, merely useless. [quote]
NO , trying too hard to miss the point I think
Come at it from the other side .... it's NOT the antibiotic , it's the belief that nature is under control. So as we see mutation so antibiotics become useless how can we feek confident that mutations of unnatural genetic structure will not reach the same path of run out of options ?

How exactly would this unknown manifest itself?

Think already covered, but worth repeating.
Replication takes two DNA strands and through recombination generates a "new" DNA with parts of each genome. SO we understand TINY parts of this string and of the value specific strings in order in specific sections. We do NOT understand how a slightly different string in once place alters other sections fully. They try it, test it but there is NO WAY to determine other than testing in isolation how future recombinations will act with the slightly different string sequence in once place and it's neighbours.

I repeat, We know so little we should NOT be messing with it.
Analogy would be knowing how a battery in a car works and using that knowledge modify parts of the ECU

I am still not exactly sure what kind of mutations could really pose a catastrophic threat to humanity though.

"According to the National Human Genome Institute, most all disease have some sort of genetic factor. These disorders can be caused by a mutation in a single gene, multiple gene mutations, combined gene mutation and environmental factors, or by chromosome mutation or damage. "
So do you want to risk adding diseases we may not be able to control ?
Pick the disease, it came from a "Mutation" .... eg bird-flu.
NOW imagine a plant mutation that led to a designed protection from say one pest to also then kill/dissuade insects that pollinated it.
What are the chances ??? NOBODY KNOWS WITH CERTAINTY

I look forward to this discussion. It is controversial without being political or religious (yet )

For many (sadly) GM has become "religious" ... mainly because those promoting it are doing so based on a FAITH that there little understanding of the genetic structure and functioning is enough. NOBODY can prove GM is truly safe and is akin to the Ford petrol tank analysis

[Kitdy]

crisis, you seem to speak from more a position of certainty, and Matra that of uncertainty and skepticism (and also more knowledge on the subject, though details would have to be discussed at the PhD level in agronomy conferences; luckily, I have a friend in plant genetics doing his PhD). I see Matra's POV as more cautionary, and less certain. When discussing almost any matter, especially science (and maybe more so biology!), the skeptical path is the best.

These are very complex issues. A statement such as this:

The problem with anti biotics is that viruses have mutated to be able to be immune. It is a different thing. The anti biotic are not risky in themselves, merely useless.

made even by the most informed and intelligent plant geneticist in the world to me would be slightly absurd. Claiming to understand something as insanely complex as genetics to that extent at this level in human development would not be the best idea. Said geneticist would also likely have many in that field of academia make very strong claims against such a satetement.

None of us here are really qualified to make a stake as to whether not GM is "good" or "bad." The precautionary principle is fairly useful in this instance though.

To be fair, GMO may well in some respects be very good. If we can help increase yield and feed those in most need whilst keeping farmers happy, then good... Even if there are huge risks (Matra, I have evolved to become pro-nuclear now). That being said, I do not know enough about this topic to say for sure either way!

[clutch-monkey]

"The problem with anti biotics is that viruses have mutated to be able to be immune. It is a different thing. The anti biotic are not risky in themselves, merely useless. "
These are very complex issues. A statement such as this: made even by the most informed and intelligent plant geneticist in the world to me would be slightly absurd. Claiming to understand something as insanely complex as genetics to that extent at this level in human development would not be the best idea. Said geneticist would also likely have many in that field of academia make very strong claims against such a satetement.

the boldled statement is provably correct. antibiotics are really of no inherent risk directly hence their widespread adoption (almost blanket use), which however has indirectly led to their ineffectiveness and put pressure for a potential 'superbug'.

that exact same selection pressure is placed on plants, but at a much slower rate. a couple of generations a year versus near exponential growth from viruses and bacteria.
using a GMO is simply leaping many (very many, in plants) generations of selection we would normally go through 'naturally' when selectively breeding.
even this 'jump' is arguably a fundamental risk because the rest of the ecology has not also adapted to keep up (hence why a new subtype of influenza can be devastating).

in terms of drug resistance the refugia concept is quite important, especially as resistance can actually come at a price for some organisms - thus the resistant strain is only allowed to become dominant because of the persistent use of pharmaceuticals on the organism's population, it normally would not be viable.

[crisis]

I won’t profess to have detailed knowledge about how much we do know about genetic engineering but from what I do I simply don’t have the same fear. The fact that they isolate the genetic material that is known to perform a certain function exhibits to me a fair understanding. If they can then insert this materiel into another organism and make it perform in a particular way I think they are onto something. I can of course only imagine the process is a long one and involves substantial testing. And the testing including checking whatever is done does not have other effects. I think that is pretty basic science actually.
I suppose the fear that it is all driven by economics is a fair one but no more than pharmaceutical companies producing new medicines.
As cross breeding and introduction of species have caused problems historically I believe there is a greater scrutiny of how research is done and what is allowed to be finally produced or introduced. At our current level of genetic engineering I can’t see a problem. The pro engineers have to be questioned and monitored and I think the anti engineers also need to come up with something a bit more substantial that “what if?”
I will say that one concern is the ramifications of GM organisms being subject to intellectual property law. That an organization can own the rights to a living organism as such…

[Matra et Alpine]

clutch, you've missed the point that the "natural" process of DNA combination has underlying it a process that has been billions of years in the making to lead to a stable (ish) situation.

By gene-splicing we are randomly making changes in areas wo do not understand.
The geneticist can identify a gene sequence as offering a feature and then cuts and inserts it into another gene sequence to gain the same. BUT we have NO UNDERSTANDING of the impact of the missing gene sequence that was deleted nor of the interaction at the atomic level during recombination to it's impact.

It's like knowing a 6 speed gearbox is better than a 5 speed and then putting it in a 900hp vehicle and THEN realisign it was actually a train and whilst it worked then alter on when the train had to pull a mile of carriages it fails.

I stick with my mantra.... we do NOT fully comprehend the genome and thus are playing with fire by modifying <1% of it and blindly hoping that it won't have impact

[crisis]

clutch, you've missed the point that the "natural" process of DNA combination has underlying it a process that has been billions of years in the making to lead to a stable (ish) situation.

By gene-splicing we are randomly making changes in areas wo do not understand.
The geneticist can identify a gene sequence as offering a feature and then cuts and inserts it into another gene sequence to gain the same. BUT we have NO UNDERSTANDING of the impact of the missing gene sequence that was deleted nor of the interaction at the atomic level during recombination to it's impact.

The creation of a “monster” seems to me to be far to sci fi. The outcome of the modification will be able to be monitored and observed. And I think the changes that are being made are exactly in the areas we do understand. They have to be otherwise we wouldn’t be bothered tampering. I suppose again I am not convinced we are blundering quite as blindly as you do.

[clutch-monkey]

corporate greed is an unintentional control net.. the crops are sterile and new seeds have to be purchased each season from monsanto etc.
means farmers are totally dependant on them, but at least the crops can't spread wildly..

[NSXType-R]

corporate greed is an unintentional control net.. the crops are sterile and new seeds have to be purchased each season from monsanto etc.
means farmers are totally dependant on them, but at least the crops can't spread wildly..

Again- to reiterate the point that Matra and I are trying to emphasize- there is no telling where they can spread.

There is this one GM corn that produces its own pesticide. It was found to cause allergic reactions to people and then regulated to just animal feed and biofuels.

After the change the GM corn was found in taco shells, causing the factory to issue a recall.

The brand of corn was from StarLink and it was from the year 2000.

Here is the article I found that info from.

Genetically Altered Crop in Oregon No Surprise - NYTimes.com

Wheat is a type of grass and if these sorts of GM traits get transferred into wild type grasses, you could end up having pesticide producing grasses where you wouldn't want them at all.

I'm not saying ban all GM crops, I'm saying we need to be very careful with them.

[Matra et Alpine]

The creation of a “monster” seems to me to be far to sci fi.

Definitely, I am NEVER worried at the idea of some hybrid "monster".

I am MUCH more worried of an innocuous variation being introduced without us spotting it and leading to the death of a species ( if plant or animal ).

If we're LUCKY then it wont make much difference, if we are UNLUCKY and it is a species that has a key function in the food or oxygen chain then we're stuffed.

Look at how female hormones have reached the food chain and introduced problems. Imagine if something reached the plankton in the seas.

It's not eh big that we can observe that worries me it's the tiniest.

Or even just the mods to our own environment/foodchain/human genome.

I repeat my mantra ... we DO NOT understand all of the genome so possibly by the time we realised there was a change it would be too late to reverse it even if by then we had worked out how to.

And I think the changes that are being made are exactly in the areas we do understand. They have to be otherwise we wouldn’t be bothered tampering. I suppose again I am not convinced we are blundering quite as blindly as you do.

I agree we are NOT "blundering" in the area we understand.
So for less than 1% of 1% of the genetic code of life on this planet we understand we are not blundering. HOWEVER, we do NOT know what it can mean to the rest and so we ar not only blundering, but we are blundering blindly with a sharp knife in a field with large holes. Chose which way you want to die