Slashdot Mirror
Biotech and the Environment
John Holkeboer writes: "Is biotech all that bad? The scourge celebre of environmentalists is gaining supporters right and left for nothing less than its environmental soundness. Genetically engineered corn requires less pesticide spray and is a renewable resource that could replace petroleum. For example, Dupont is developing "Sonora"- a stretch resistant fiber that can compete with polyester but isn't 100% petroleum-based. As one industry chemist points out, "Clearly, for the chemical industry, sustainable development is the future."" The Village Voice also has a good biotech article this week, talking about the genetically engineered bollworms that we mentioned a few months ago.
Okay, I can no longer hold back...
What, exactly, counts as "sufficient" testing?
After all, for all we know, perhaps certain varieties of the funky mutant grasses we call "corn" which were produced with old-school biotech (rather than controlled gene-splicing) might cause cancer in susceptible people. Has anybody tested this? How much testing would be "sufficient" to prove that it's "safe"?
Testing these effects is left up to the public. So they can sell them, cause everyone to get cancer, and then have the public pay for this.There are two really popular changes that are done to food plants now. One is to produce plants that make an insecticidal protein. The other is to produce plants that carry a version of an amino-acid producing gene that isn't affected by herbicides like "Roundup" that target it.
There is only one, narrow difference between either of these and the plants they were made from.
In the first case, the plant produces a protein that paralyzes the digestive system of a particular type of insect [presumably one that likes to eat the plant in question]. This is the same natural protein that organic farmers often simply spray on the plants. Either way, the protein HAS been tested, and is harmless to all but the group of insects that it affects.
Summary - It's been tested. It's safe.
In the other case, the "herbicide resistant" gene produces the same thing that the herbicide-vulnerable version of the gene does. The only way these genes could be harmful is if the original gene was also harmful.
Summary - What is there to test here, besides whether or not plants in general might give us cancer?
I can understand the concerns and fear of the fast pace of technology, but most of the real problems, to me, seem to be a matter of people (the way businesses operate, the way some activists and journalists spread fear, lack of education, etc.) and not the technologies involved...
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Oh, and the "natural" pesticide is still in the corn when you harvest it. Bummer.
Vik :v)
The problems I have with GM (genetically modified) crops and other goodies is that it is impossible to put the genie back in the bottle once it is out. Market and managerial pressures to get a product to consumers do not take into account that nobody really knows what kind of long term effect these modications will have.
My girlfriend has been working as a biotechnician since she graduated last year. She follows this kind of stuff with a great deal of interest, because it is a new field, and changes in regulation can play havoc with the job market. Both at her own job, and in the field of biotech in general, she has been stunned at times by the lack of foresight and sense that have gone into some projects. GM corn that was supposed to be in controlled outdoor testing has already found its way into other farmers' fields and into the general grain crop for consumption. On a more serious note, there is also a doctor in NY who has altered the DNA of human eggs to "correct a fertility problem inherited from the mothers". Yeah, and he did this in a way that those 12 children will pass those "corrected markers" onto any children they have as well - too bad we don't understand what else those markers may do, or if they were engineered correctly. (both of these from New Scientist).
For those IT geeks out there who need some perspective on this, think of all those shops you have been in where people have come up with spaghetti code, kludged barely working packages together, built and implemented poorly conceived of network designs, all at the behest of management who wants their damned bonus at all costs, that big push Push PUSH to get something (anything) into production. Think of the folks you have worked with who graduated from 4, 6 or 8 years of training, only to do the minimum to get by at their desk. Most of the folks doing GM work are absolutely no different in this regard. Difference is, there will be no "version 2.1b" in the wilds out there. You let it out, the chance for any kind of revision is small.
So, great, GM corn and babies...think of them as first generation products that you can NEVER upgrade. Even better, realize that some of those "easter eggs" that people innocently put into code today might end up very deadly later on.
mrgoat
'Hail Eris, baby, hail Eris...pfffffffttt.' *cough* 'Yeah.'
Flame away, mod down, see if I give a rat's ass!
I live out in San Diego where the Bio2001 conference is being held. Anti-BioTech protesters were promising a scene on the scale of the Seattle WTO mess. Instead, all they got were a few hundred people dressed up as carrots and such spouting quotes along the lines of "Ummm... genetimicully engineered corn is bad, m'kay?" Now they're bitching that they authorities were so intimidating that no one showed up. Right.
Hey, I'm all for being concerned about the environment, but the people we've seen here in San Diego are pretty much a bunch of luddites that are opposed to anything more modern than living in teepees and hunting with spears, and people who enjoy being concerned about something trendy. If there is a group out there with legitimate, researched, specific scientic concerns, they don't seem to be represented (but please reply if you know of any; I'd like to hear what they have to say). And don't even start with Greenpeace - their big super-surprise media event was to go into a grocery store and slap a few demeaning stickers on genetically altered foodstuffs while having their pictures taken.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Sorry to post fast without reading a lot, but if it hasn't been mentioned yet, Greenpeace was apparently going around grocery stores in San Diego putting labels on foods that were using genetically altered soy and corn. A representative was grilled on a stupid talk show (okay, I was listening, but it was hard), and her points included the fact that genetically-engineered plants may mean MORE pesticides in some instances if you consider that some farmers are palavering over so-called 'RoundUp-Ready' crops that are engineered to survive severe applications of herbicide so that farmers can hose the land with green death and only the soy plants will remain. So there is that issue.
The thing that chafes my hide is that our government claims to be a free-market advocate, but tilts the playing field by not allowing consumers the choice between GE and non-GE food through proper labeling. For that matter, think if you were faced with a decision to buy meat from cannibal cows or meat from grain-only cows. NOW how much would you pay? I'd pay $10/lb for grain-only beef. My point is that proper labeling IS in the interests of a free market. Especially when you consider that 93% of all consumers (quoth the Greenpeacer on the show) prefer labelling of GE products, and 57% would not buy GE food if they could avoid it. In as much as the jury is still out on whether or not there are allergens associated with GE products, I think it would be prudent of our government to submit to the will of the people in this instance and require labelling.
I still prefer to get my milk at Trader Joe's where they proudly proclaim it to be rBST-free! That is the free market folks! Create an industry that is centered around providing healthier food by requiring the manipulators of food to 'fess up!
Gotta fly...
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
You really don't get the point of the argument, do you?
It's an analogy about how, in chaos theory, small perturbations to a system can lead to great changes due to basic instabilities inherent within the system. No one is stupid enough to say that butterflies can ship up a whirlwind, that is just ludicrous.
I think you're taking it too literally. You must think about this. Introduction of rabbits into Australia started as a small thing; maybe a dozen rabbits... but in the absence of predators there was no balance to counteract their rapid reproduction rate. Now there's billions of rabbits in Australia. There are many many examples: kudzu, Africanized honeybees... I'm sure this isn't lost on you, now is it?
Now go back in the corner and color.
SDMI: Finally! Music that won't rip or burn! Brought to you by the fine folks at RIAA.
While I'm a strong advocate of biotech in fields like cancer research and ecologically sound fibers or other materials, I find the subject of biologically engineered foodstffs quite frightening. Not only because of the possible health problems which we cannot predict, but also because of the potential for big companies (Dupont, Monsanto) to use thir patents ON the food too ill ends. Already the engineered corn on the market needs MORE care, not less, than regular corn. Unfortunately for farmers, the chemicals needed to help the plants cannot be found...oh, wait, they can. The producing companies are more than happy to sell the farmers specialized fertilizer. My family is full of farmers. They used to be able to farm fresh cow pies and horse droppings (among other waste) an use it to help fertilize thier fields...and save money. That is no longer an option. Could they switch to old style corn? Sure. But then they would have a lower yield making it hard to compete because of the neccessary increase in price. Farmers become caught in a terrible trap, they either shell out loads of cash to biotech companies, or face losing their wherewithall to live comfortably. Then of course, there is the problem of engineered crops that do not produce viable seeds. Also, the fast growing crops take more nutrients from the top soil, adding to the catastrophic trend becomming apparent in places like California an the plains, in which soil that used to be rich and good for farming is rapidly becomming barren, forcing the farmers to use more chemical fertilizer that is absorbed into food. These problems persist in developed countries...they can only have more disastrous effects in the 3rd world where farmers are uneducated as to the dangers or engineered crops. I saw an ad the other day promoting biotech, saying that engineered rice ("golden rice") can help erase childhood blindness in under-developed countries. The children are going blind because of malnutrition caused by the corrupt global food supply chain...not because of an deficiencies in crops. Growing "golden rice" won't help the kids if they don't have access to it. Or will this magic rice also magically shirk the reigns or corporate agribusiness and become cheaply available to poor children? These kids can also be helped by feeding them...oh, what are those things called? Oh yeah, carrots. Let's not even mention the problem of biodiversity. "Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a homicidal maniac." --Einstein
Can someone please enlighten me as to what "scourge celebre" is?
IW(as)AB(iologist) before I made the jump into BioInformatics - but still, I spent a lot of time working with plant genetics. You drink beer? There is a very good chance it is one of a few barley variants out there breed specifically for brewing. Granted, most of it was old school statistical / cross-breeding work, but the same ideas apply. Way to many hours on my knees counting individual stalks before pounding the data on a Fortran boxen. Never go back...
Anyhow, one of the real risks here is the modified plant cross-pollinates with something out in the wild. Same idea as some of the bugs you can pick up in a hospital - resistant to things that should smack them normally.
I am less worried about changing the ecosystem. Nature abhors a vacuum - a species gets wiped out, something else ALWAYS takes its place. It may not be pretty, but that is the way things work in the real world. You cover an area with toxic sludge (like wood treatment use to do), and I'll be damned if you don't find some bacteria feeding off the stuff. Its not like we have a fixed set of genetic resources - {hum along} lose an owl and xxxx number of unique genetic structures on the wall. Something will adapt to fill the empty space - always.
That is not to say we should blacktop the forests, wipe yippy poodles, or otherwise horking with things just for the sake of screwing with them. There is a balance. Guess I am just trying to say the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. The long view is we need to be careful not to add us to the extinct list.
Where did I put that beer again...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Not particularly logical.
You say that testing of genetically engineered producs is unwarranted because we "don't eat genes" then you go on to point out the obvious flaw in that argument : we do eat what those genes express.
This is not an exact science we're talking about. No one can tell you that they know precisely 1. how an exogenous gene will express itself in a host and 2. the long-term effects of genetic changes on a wild population. They can't even tell you that they pretty much know. If someone says different, look at who's writing their checks.
The point is that the particular effects of genetic modifications on an organism cannot be accurately predicted, they must be discovered. I'd vastly prefer that they be discovered in some controlled test rather than on a supermarket shelf.
What I don't understand is the resistance to testing and labelling. Why would anyone (who wasn't making money off releasing untested foodstuffs) think that testing them, and knowing when you're eating them, are bad ideas?
See, you guys need to think more broadly. There are ways of geneticly engineering crops that don't involve turing them into biological toxin factories. Who ever decided that pestiside production was a beneficial trait for plants to have needs to have his head examined. At least as far as plants I'm planing on eating goes.
Now then, on to genetic engineering. First off let me point out that human beings have been geneticly engineering plants for something like 100,000 years. Of course, we didn't always do it with viruses and protein introduction. Example. Almonds. Ever eaten a handfull of wild almonds? I doubt it. Three wild almonds have enought cyanide to drop a 200lb man in less than an hour. Of course, almonds are available in little baggies in damn near ever supermarket. Why? Because humans have selected the almond trees that don't kill us, and planted and nurtured those trees. We've created a new strain of almond that dosn't produce deadly nerve toxins.
It's true of almost everything you eat. Oranges have thicker peals to keep them from bruising in shipping. Corn is a notable one. Did you know that corn, in it's natural state has an ear no longer than 2 inches? That it's almost inedible and typicaly has only one ear per stalk?
Genetic engineering is going to happen. We can't avoid it. Even our preferences as to what constitutes a "good" crop will result in genetic drift. The problem is that now that we're engineering these things more directly we're trying to build in more direct defences against the things that damage the crops. This is a mistake. The answer is passive defences. Don't have the corn produce pesticides, but make the husk harder for bugs to tunnel through. Make the stalk tougher.
Not that it really matters. We'll be living on blue green algae in a few more centuries anyway.
This has been another useless post from....
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
On the other hand, pesticides are a real problem. Whether they are hormone mimics or neurotoxins or what, they are always worrisome. Worse, the pests typically evolve defenses and move right along, creating a need for more, newer and better pesticides.
Having the plant grow its own pesticide is another dilemma. You can be sure that the stuff isn't going into the water and poisoning the fish, but you can't wash something off if it's part of the plant. Whatcha gonna do?
I suppose there are things with little or no downside. Golden rice engineered to add carotene is one of them. Unless it makes the crop more nutritionally complete for pests too (another nightmare!) I can't see how it could possibly hurt.
--
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
Intelligent fruit have already had their own presidential candidates. If I recall correctly, their names were "Bush" and "Gore".
Invisible Agent
Invisible Agent
This post is a mirror; when a monkey stares in, no hacker gazes out.
If you want to know the truth about GM food, read Trust Us, We're Experts. Monsanto spends 100's of millions of dollars on PR getting "scientists" to place articles in scholarly publications advocating the safety of their food. That said, GM food does NOT have a perfect safety record. A genetically modified bacteria used to manufacture a dietary supplement in large quantities introduced a new impurity when spliced incorrectly, introducing partial paralysis and death in close to 1000 people. If you want more details, read the book. Read about the mice who grew up eating pesticide-producing potatoes and developed abnormal organ growth.
GM foods are untested, experimental, and have killed before.
But the biggest argument against them is that causing them to produce organic pesticides causes the insect communities to develop a resistance to organic pesticides, making it impossible to organically farm, making all farmers dependent on pesticide manufacturers.
But don't listen to me. In fact, don't listen to any pontificating slashdot idiot. READ THE BOOK.
you'll end up buying organic. i do.
(well other than anti-drug hysteria, that is :)
The main worry I and many others have is the effect of bio-engineered foodstuffs: we DO NOT have any long-term data as to their effects on humans. For industrial usage? Hey, go for it, if you can ABSOLUTLEY MAKE SURE that the products will not make it into the foodstream, of either animals or humans. Until then proceed with extreme caution.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Essentially, the company who made the corn took a pesticide thats been in use for two centuries (It was discovered by the ancient chinese), and have robbed the "value" from it, because all these bugs the pesticide was effective against will develope a resistance, and the pesticide used for 2000 years will be worthless ...
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
The problem with this argument is that the farm on which the plants are growing is nothing like a natural ecosystem anymore. We've already trashed the ecosystem by cutting down all of the plants and driving away most of the animals that would naturally live there and replacing them with a synthetic monoculture. Switching from a conventional strain of a plant to a GMO strain is a minor change compared to switching to a whole new species of plant. But people switch from growing, say, corn to sunflowers all the time without anyone bleating about how it's going to disrupt the fragile ecosystem.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Okay, IANAB(iologist), but neither side of the biotech debate seems to be getting things quite right. Reactionaries against GMOs use ignorant slogans like "Get your DNA out of my food". Biotech pushers use questionable logic like "Well, you've eaten it for this long, it can't be bad for you!" Here's the thing: Mutated DNA is not going to screw you up if you eat it. Short-term effects are negligable, unless you start introducting pesticide-producing capabilities, which we'll leave aside for the moment.
The problem with bio-engineering is this: The action of changing an organism in an ecosystem affects the entire ecosystem. It's the same as the analogy of the ol' butterfly flapping its wings in SoCal and causing tsunamis in Japan. Genetically modifying a plant that has natural predators will induce the predators to adapt or die. If they die, then their predators are forced to adapt or die, and so on.
In short (too late!), we must take the long view on this issue, not be afraid of the progress of science, nor over-confident in her abilities to predict the future.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.