Do you Approve of Genetic Engineering?

[dichotomy]

Yes, but only with the proper precautions.

 

And, yes if GM product is proven to be –

1. Non threatening to human health

2. Water efficient/drought tolerant

3. nutrient efficient

4. pest/disease resistant

5. provides at least as much nutritional value as existing crops

 

If it can’t be all of these, it should at minimum be nos. 1 and 5, before it comes out of 'THE LAB'.

[Rev Blair]

Define "non-threatening to human health," though.

 

I've had GM crops...the same ones I've seeded on the farm...take over my vegetable garden. My guess is they blew in from a truck on the highway. They able out to out-compete the usual weeds and ended up choking out the vegetables I planted.

 

I know the plants themselves were non-threatening...if they were threatening, I'd be dead by now, but they wiped out my garden and my neighbour's garden, and reduced yield in at least three other gardens.

 

It didn't really matter much...we can all afford to buy veggies around here. Transfer that same scenario to a region or country in the developing world though, say 1/5 of secondary crops lost to invasion by GM crops, and you are looking at a huge disaster.

 

We need to be very careful with this stuff, and so far we haven't been.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

Can you be more specific about which crops took over your garden?

 

If it was glyphosate resistant canola, why did they take over? Do you rely on glyphosate for weed control? Can you not dig them out, or use an alternative herbicide?

[dichotomy]

Define "non-threatening to human health," though.

 

but they wiped out my garden and my neighbour's garden, and reduced yield in at least three other gardens.

 

I'd define a reduction in yield as threatening.

Anything that causes an uncontrollable reduction in available nutrients/water to humans is threatening to human health.

[Mr Skeptic]

To dichotomy

 

What about humans who have become dependent on some of the properties of GM crops? For example, the resistance to glyphosphate. If weeds become resistant to glyphosphate, these people may need a new GM crop that is resistant to another herbicide, and people might then starve if similar crops were not available.

 

I'd say that the various attributes affecting productivity can be more important than just nutritional value. Of course, nutritional value is of great importance if it can be supplied too.

[dichotomy]

To dichotomy

 

What about humans who have become dependent on some of the properties of GM crops? For example, the resistance to glyphosphate. If weeds become resistant to glyphosphate, these people may need a new GM crop that is resistant to another herbicide, and people might then starve if similar crops were not available.

 

I'm all for the greater good. If something just beifits the few at the potential detriment of the many, then it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So, bottom line is, if it doesn't effect the average health of the majority, then it's fine. If there are unknowns there is always a risk. The starving would be more safely fed by the wealthy nations. Super weeds may just keep getting 'super', afterall, weeds aren't called weeds for no reason, they are incredibly robust. And super crops can potentially become super weeds themselves.

 

I'd say that the various attributes affecting productivity can be more important than just nutritional value. Of course, nutritional value is of great importance if it can be supplied too.

Yes, but you would want some minimum standard of nutritional value, or all the productivity in the world becomes useless. I think you know this very well?

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, but you would want some minimum standard of nutritional value, or all the productivity in the world becomes useless. I think you know this very well?

 

Sort of. Lots of our grain gets used for corn syrup or ethanol, in which case, the starch content is what is relevant. Or it might be fed to cattle, which is one of the major uses. If I'm going to eat it directly, I'd be more picky about the nutritional content. I guess what I'm getting at is that is that there will be some use for it even if it loses some nutritional content.

 

Of course, GM could be used to add additional nutrients to food like with the golden rice.

[Russia]

Well coming from a school that focuses on these things, I'm definitely more for it. ;

 

In it's current stage I don't trust it to be used on humans but definitely in the near future I'm sure it will be immensely helpful in curing the many diseases thousands die from. (But of course that goes into the ethical issue of which is more important and should be focused on more...but I digress.)

Well in a primitive way it has already been used on food. (Corn and tomatoes anyone?) But food with added nutrients and better taste/quality is definitely something to look forward to!

Also, IMO, people shouldn't be opposed to it as some are. The purpose of genetic engineering is for the betterment of our lives and our future.

 

Though there are downsides. (Science of course isn't perfect and much can go wrong.)

But the benefits outweigh the disadvantages overall

 

My BioGenetics teacher better be proud of me for sticking up for this

[Rev Blair]

Can you be more specific about which crops took over your garden?

 

If it was glyphosate resistant canola, why did they take over? Do you rely on glyphosate for weed control? Can you not dig them out, or use an alternative herbicide?

 

It was Canola. Monsanto has a place not far from here, we live in a windy city, and I assume it blew out of a truck.

 

I, and my neighbour, were both away when the canola sprouted, which is why we lost our gardens completely. Those who suffered losses were home though. They were simply overwhelmed by the amount of canola that sprung up and, because of the timing, couldn't remove it completely from the rows without harming their garden plants.

 

I was using Round Up (glyphosate) for spring and fall weed control at the time...garden vegetables are not resistant. Most, maybe all, of those affected did or still do the same. We aren't people with some moral objection to using the stuff, and it is useful in controlling weeds.

 

I also know farmers who have lost a significant amount of wheat in similar scenarios.

 

I no longer use Round Up in my garden because I was noticing an increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds. I'm in a prime area for that...glyphosates are over-used in agriculture here, have been for a couple of decades, and there are a lot of areas between arable fields that get minor doses from over-spray etc. Farmers here regularly use tank mixes to deal with the problem, but that's not really practical...or even possible...for a kitchen garden.

 

Instead I'm switching to smaller raised beds, mulch (mostly grass clippings) and deep tillage. That's all pretty easy when growing veggies for two people and the food bank (if you have the room, ask your local food bank if they have a "grow a row" program...poor people need fresh vegetables), but is not practical for larger operations.

 

I'd define a reduction in yield as threatening.

Anything that causes an uncontrollable reduction in available nutrients/water to humans is threatening to human health.

 

Then I'd say we are facing a threat. It's pretty hard to deal with though because, again, it's not a direct threat from GM crops. I know cereal grain farmers who have faced similar problems with GM canola as I did with my garden. I know non-GM canola farmers who have run into similar problems (Google Percy Schmeiser for an idea about that, although I don't him).

 

It's not really a problem with genetic engineering though, it's more a political problem and one of regulation. Mostly I'd say that it's a problem with massive ignorance on all sides.

[dichotomy]

Sort of. Lots of our grain gets used for corn syrup or ethanol, in which case, the starch content is what is relevant. Or it might be fed to cattle, which is one of the major uses.

 

"In terms of human nutrition, starch is by far the most consumed polysaccharide in the human diet. It constitutes more than half of the carbohydrates even in many affluent diets, and much more in poorer diets." - wikip

 

Starch is still an important nutrient. But I think you are saying that food crops can be grown for non-human consumption reasons. I don't see a problem with this, unless it negatively impacts directly, or, indirectly on the existing average human health level. Oh, and we do eat cattle you know, so I'd like to be assured of the safety of what the cattle are eating. Moo, Moo...

 

Then I'd say we are facing a threat.

 

Then the engineering should really be confined to a lab until proven at least as safe as existing non-GM crops.

 

Mostly I'd say that it's a problem with massive ignorance on all sides.

 

So, whats changed from the year dot?

[Rev Blair]

So, whats changed from the year dot?

 

Not a heck of a lot, except that are a lot more of us to feed and our actions have a much more widespread impact.

[dichotomy]

If GM is mostly fuelled by population pressures, which I’d guess it is, then what’s easier to tackle? Population growth, or, developing non-harmful GM product? I know what my answer is. Although the whole scientific discovery/ unravelling thing with GM is still highly worthy, IMO.

[SkepticLance]

To dichotomy.

GM is currently fuelled mostly by economic pressures, worse luck! There are people who are out to make the world a better place by producing GM crops that are of benefit to everyone. Golden rice was a result of the work of Swiss researchers who wanted to make a gift of it to the world. Sadly, they lack the economic power of the big companies, and cannot resist the pressure of the anti-GM people. Thus, Golden rice is not available to those who need it.

 

Here is a recent report on the use of genetic engineering to the betterment of human health.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18320254

 

GM potatoes rich in zeaxanthin are beneficial to protecting and improving human eyesight.

[Rev Blair]

If GM is mostly fuelled by population pressures, which I’d guess it is, then what’s easier to tackle? Population growth, or, developing non-harmful GM product? I know what my answer is. Although the whole scientific discovery/ unravelling thing with GM is still highly worthy, IMO.

 

GM is mostly fueled by money though, not population pressures. That's why so many of the concerns with it are not directly related to the GM crops, but the use of chemicals, who owns the seeds, the development of monocultures and so on.

 

Even if we were addressing the population problem, the same problems would exist.

 

GM potatoes rich in zeaxanthin are beneficial to protecting and improving human eyesight.

 

The world has already seen one potato famine though. It was caused by a monoculture...they only grew one or two types of taters in Ireland. When a fungus attacked those types, there were no strains available that were resistant available, even though resistant taters existed.

[stingray78]

Check the expert talking about this subject:

http://www.tubepolis.com/play.php?q=genetic%20eingeeneiring&title=Future%2Bof%2Bgenetic%2Bengineering%2B-%2Bby%2BFuturist%2BDr%2BPatrick%2BDixon&id=P_UoReSgz84&img=http%253A%252F%252Fi.ytimg.com%252Fvi%252FP_UoReSgz84%252Fdefault.jpg

[SkepticLance]

Rev said

 

"The world has already seen one potato famine though. It was caused by a monoculture...they only grew one or two types of taters in Ireland. When a fungus attacked those types, there were no strains available that were resistant available, even though resistant taters existed."

 

The world moves on, and we learn from our mistakes. There are literally thousands of types of potatoes, and many are now being introduced as breeding stock. In addition, GM now provides an extra tool to fight potato disease. The Irish potato blight was caused by Phytophthera infestans, a fungus-like micro-organism that can be devastating in its effects. There is already a gene available for insertion into potatoes to give resistance to this disease.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/EP1334979.html

 

Of course, there are a lot more diseases and pests of potatoes than just Phytophthera. A Bt version already exists, resistant to insect pests. Further development will make potatoes much less dependent on sprays.

 

This is the International Year of the Potato. This is a recognition of the future importance of this crop. Potatoes produce more calories for human nutrition per acre than any other crop. This means that the humble spud will become one of the world's most vital crops, and may supplant rice, wheat, and maize as the number one crop. We had better develop it well!

[Rev Blair]

You can't plan for everything though, SkepticLance. Various diseases, blights etc. will always pop up. In the case of the Irish Potato Famine, resistant potatoes were available back in the Americas. There weren't any in Ireland though.

 

GE crops lead to monocultures, and monocultures are susceptible to attack by unthought of pests, diseases, etc. Considering that there is now a bacteria that specializes in eating nylon...a material that didn't exist less than a century ago...and the various strains of antibiotic resistant diseases that keep popping up, the idea that we can stay ahead of the various bugs is not supported by the evidence.

 

Nature does provide us with protections though. Indigenous people in the Andes have been growing different types of potatoes at different elevations since well before Columbus. The variety provides them protection from shifting growing conditions and a variety of blights and diseases.

 

It isn't economically efficient for the companies that create GE crops to make a wide variety of a single species though. They make one or two varieties, mostly with the same attributes.

 

We have to very careful to preserve other strains of these crops so that we are protected. Efforts are being made to that end right now with heritage seeds, but the numbers are so low that it would take years to rebuild after a blight or disease caused a crop failure.

[SkepticLance]

Rev

 

There will always be problems. We cannot expect to anticipate everything and solve all problems before they arise. Humans must simply do the best we can, and respond to new challenges with alacrity.

 

As I pointed out, there is a new form of wheat stem rust spreading from Africa to Asia (just reached Pakistan) with the potential to cause catastrophe. The world is not responding with enough research money, and the heroes who develop new breeds and new GM forms of wheat are handicapped.

 

President Bush has decided not to spend too much on this problem. When the disease reaches the USA, he will learn of his folly.

 

We must learn to dedicate funds to such emergencies, and find solutions before the disaster becomes too acute. There is no perfect approach, but humans are capable of performing near-miracles if we so choose.

[Rev Blair]

There will always be problems, SkepticLance. The point is that nature has built in ways of addressing those problems through genetic diversity. Evolution is a powerful force.

 

GE crops lack that diversity though, and it takes years to develop and test new GE strains.

[Mr Skeptic]

There will always be problems, SkepticLance. The point is that nature has built in ways of addressing those problems through genetic diversity. Evolution is a powerful force.

 

GE crops lack that diversity though, and it takes years to develop and test new GE strains.

 

Yes, variety is vial to adaptability. However, artificial selection is what reduces variability -- it intentionally reduces the gene pool. Genetic engineering is not incompatible with with sexual selection, even if it is usually used on specially bred crops with a small gene pool. However, I think that the lack of variability is due to the specialized strains, not with GM. The Irish potato problem was caused by monoculture, well before the time of GM (unless you count artificial selection as GM, in which case all crops are GM crops).

[SkepticLance]

Well said, Mr. Skeptic!

[dichotomy]

So it seems like GM is fine, as long as natural genetic diversity is maintained to a sensible level globally? Whatever ‘sensible level’ might constitute? And economics and politics are the biggest factors inhibiting sensible levels of diversity?

[Mr Skeptic]

So it seems like GM is fine, as long as natural genetic diversity is maintained to a sensible level globally? Whatever ‘sensible level’ might constitute? And economics and politics are the biggest factors inhibiting sensible levels of diversity?

 

Well, considering how many species are going exinct and how many more will go extinct due to current human activities (habitat destruction, poaching, pollution, global warming, ...), it seems that to preserve the earth's current genetic diversity we will need to actively go and collect samples before they go exinct. Not just for the warm fuzzy feeling, either -- the diversity represents evolution's work over billions of years, and the value of this data to GM is tremendous.

 

I know that you were talking about crops, and those are the most important to retain. However, there are already many seed bank projects aimed at preserving their diversity, if not in the wild at least in the lab.

[Rev Blair]

Saying that GM crops don't lead to a monoculture is like saying that guns don't kill, bullets do. It's technically correct, but ignores the reality.

 

It's the same with blaming economics and/or politics for the way GM crops are developed and used. Hey, economics and politics are the sharp end of the stick. You can't ignore their impact if you intend to allow anything outside of the lab.

 

GM crops carry some very real economic and political problems with them. If had different systems of politics and economics, they would carry other problems with them. Pure science quits being pure the second it even considers heading out of the lab door.

 

Those problems also may or may not be specific to GM crops, but to just shrug and say that the problems exist in other areas as well is to ignore the lessons of history.

 

Are monocultures a problem? Yes. Do GM crops tend to lead to monocultures? Yes. So either Monsanto et al can find a way to address, or at least mitigate, that problem, or their product can remain in the lab. They aren't saviours or some gift from from heaven, they are corporations in search of a profit.

 

Which brings us to patent rights, I suppose. Percy Schmeiser got his ass kicked for saving seeds he grew himself. Terminator technology puts farmers, especially those in the developing world, of having to eat or sell what should be their seed every year. A few years ago, Monsanto tried to keep farmers from making their own tank mixes...an attempt to make them pay Monsanto.

 

Is all of that mostly political? You bet. Is it all related to GM crops? Yup.

 

That, of course, brings up the issue of food security. I'm not sure how comfortable you are with having a few rich guys control what you eat and how much you pay for it, but that's another reality of GM crops.

 

Regarding the heritage seed projects: They are worthwhile projects, and I fully support them, but there aren't enough seeds in those projects to supply food to even a small population for a short while. Instead there are enough seeds to restart a breeding population of plants. It would take 5 to 10 years to produce enough seed from that to produce a viable food crop.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

Your concerns appear to be more centred on monocultures than on GM. The business of copyright on seed well precedes GM. Companies like Pioneer were developing superior seed for farmers decades before GM came on the scene. These seeds were copyrighted and farmers had to buy new seed each season. I see no problem with that. The seed companies spent megabucks developing the superior seed, and a farmer who simply saved the seed to replant was 'stealing' the work of the seed company.

 

Percy Schmeisser gets no sympathy from me. He knew the rules. He broke the rules by knowingly saving seed and replanting it, and in that way was 'stealing' from Monsanto. He got caught. He got punished.

 

If you do not like the copyrighting of seeds, then that is an issue for changing the law, not breaking it. If you feel the need for a change, start a lobby group. The law is always wrong, and can always be improved. However, improving it is done by working with the law makers, not law breakers.