Slashdot Mirror
Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya
Anonymous Cowdog writes "Google News turned up a scary item today: Apparently, genetically altered corn, designed not to repel pests or withstand bad weather, but rather to grow pharmecuticals (for diabetes and diarrhea) has been accidentally mixed with soy plants in the field, resulting in 500,000 bushels of contaminated soybeans being quarantined by the US FDA. Ooops. Here's the story, and here's another story about the same case. The company who brought us this nice event is called ProdiGene. Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!) Now, I was thinking, will our government protect us from doom-by-hand-me-down-genes? and on a hunch (honest!) I did this google search for keywords ProdiGene and "george w bush". Result? A not so reassuring article."
'Mistakes' like this are common. The average journalist (or person in general - including /. readers) doesn't know enough about science to know that genes can't "jump species" as diverse as corn to soybean.
See, this is getting ridiculous. Posting process on slashdot:
1. Slashdotter finds distuirbing article.
2. Slashdotter doesn't read it closely.
3. Slashdotter makes gross oversimplifications, including specifically some sort of doomsday scenario.
4. Slashdotter assumes there must be some GW Bush conspiracy going on.
The sad thing is that there is potential for harm here, but the overstated claims and conspiracy theories really hurt the credibility of the posted story, which itself was good.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Monsanto has a known history of misplacing toxic waste. If someone firebombs the wrong facility, they could irreversible contaminate the environment for hundreds of thousands of people. It is a good idea to first know what you are firebombing before the actual commision of the act.
I'm very split over this end of biotech. On the one hand, using gen-tech plants (and possibly animals) to produce drugs and vaccines is one of the most exciting and potentially revolutionary applications of genetic engineering technology. It's much more efficient to produce big organic molecules in suitable organic systems than it is in test tubes... It seems to me to be a much more worthy application of the technology than using it to increase profit margins and control farmers behaviour.
On the other hand, producing biologically active compounds - which, one would hope, drugs and vaccines are - raises the stakes on control of seeds and pollen, and the need for safety assurance,sky high.
So what do we do? Cover acres with air-conditionned glass-houses? Give up on the huge potential benefits just in case something goes wrong? Can we trust the biotech companies given how snuggly in bed they seem to be with most of the governments of the Western world...?
"Whatever happened to 'amber mutations' for this sort of genetically engineered 'drugs factory'? An amber mutation is one which will not kill the plant/animal with it, provided it gets some substance not commonly available in the environment. But if the susbtance is not provided then the organism simply dies."
Obviously this requires the release of "some substance not commonly available" in large quantities into the environment. Apart from being expensive, this would potentially be highly polluting.
Phil
I grew up farming corn and beans. Soybeans are a broadleaf plant. Corn is a grass. Grass killer sprayed on soybeans will kill the corn plants that come up.
Also, corn grows about four feet taller than soybeans. Picking out the corn should be no problem.
Really though, GM stuff should be grown in totally separate fields and the fields kept separate.
So he appointed somebody that knows all about agriculture to a board of agriculture. Would you rather he appoint someone that knows nothing of agriculture?
Like they get on bush for having all these oil guys in the energy meetings. Better them than people who know nothing of energy production... but I digress
Really, how could you possibly lay blame on Bush for this?!
seems like just another case of typical conservative bashing... no objective independant thought shown on the part of the article submitter
Last I checked Corn and Soybean plants can't cross-pollinate. Nor do they have any other means to transfer their genes from one species to another.
I highly doubt that the Corn stalks were 'gettin it on' with the Soybean plants, spreading free love and pollen accross the species barrier. This would be like a pig mating with an elephant, and is thus merely the stuff of dreams and fantasies in a biologist's world.
It's highly likely that what actually happened was wrongly interpreted, and a totally misinformed journalist created a hyped up headline that didn't even begin to convey what actually happened. Most likely the farmers that grew the genetically altered corn used harvesting equipment (combines) which like nearly all combines are unable to be 100% effecient in gathering the crops, and as such allow some of the corn to fall back to the earth and become seed. Next year the farmer goes back in, tills up the land, plants his soybean crops in the same field, and soon enough a couple of corn stalks crop up. You'll see this in many soybean fields in the midwest, a couple of stalks of corn standing up in a vast field of what is otherwise soybeans. Even if there are few to no weeds, you'll still usually see some corn, because the herbicides are designed not to kill corn and soybeans, but everything else. When the soybeans were harvested, a couple of corn stalks were harvested along with it, even though a bean head on a combine is not designed to harvest corn, it usually is able to pull a few kernels off the cobb when plowing through the beans. Low and behold, some genetically altered 2nd generation corn gets into the soybeans. Big deal.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
The article says that an inspector first became suspicious because he noticed corn plants among the harvested soybeans. IANAF (I am not a farmer), but I would imagine that it doesn't take too much intelligence to discern corn from soybeans and any mixing of the plants can be quickly dealt with at a processing plant.
Also, given that only a few corn plants were present among tons of soybeans, what is the real danger of poisoning someone? Since soybeans are processed into edible and non-edible products, is there a REAL, measurable danger?
Vaccines and pharmaceutical drugs generally help a lot more people than they hurt. Are we going to ban GE foods because a few people might have a problem with them? Why not ban the peanut plant, since peanuts DO cause allergic reactions in some people?
5. Slashdotter submits oversimplified misinterpretation of would-be conspiracy for publishing.
6. Slashdot editor press "Publish" button without even thinking twice.
You bring up a good point; I think some people must think that if they eat a tomato with penguin genes (who knows?) they'll somehow absorb the genes and become more penguin-y, which is not what going to happen.
But, to answer your question... I think there are several reasonable concerns that need to be carefully addressed in any GM product:
(1) Is this product going to interact in unpredictable and possibly bad ways with natural flora/fauna? You might be able to eat a crop of GM wheat that unintentionally sterilizes non-GM wheat crops, but only the GM-wheat producing company is going to rejoice as wheat crops everywhere fail. And, there any number of chain-reaction doomsday scenarios you can think up... not that any of them are likely, but the thing is, I don't think we've spent enough time researching GM crops in general to be confident in every outcome.
One of my favourite profs was from the pharmaceutical industry (yes, yes, but he *did* leave for academia, so he can't be all bad) and he had a very insighful comment about research. Do all the phase 1/2/3 trials you want. The only way to know for certain what a drug does in a population after 50 years is to see what happens after 50 years. Of course, when you're talking about life-saving drugs, there's good reasons for not waiting through 50 years of testing before releasing it to the general public (and you get the occasional medical blunder as a result). But, I haven't heard any convincing evidence that we need to be acting quickly to bring GM foods to market.
(2) There's poison and there's poison. Maybe a company shows that its GM food looks chemically safe and the test subjects haven't died from it. Great! Chances are people will be able to eat it. But, two concerns: First, maybe there are unforseen allergic reactions by some portion of the population. The callous can say "too bad, they're defective" Fine. But second, going back to my prof again - maybe the food seems fine at first but has unforseen medical consequences over the long term.
I'm not meaning to GM-bash here. But, I think that we should be cautious about the research. There is no reason to hurry, and the results of error could be painful and tragic. I'm not saying they have to be, I'd just like the companies researching GM to demonstrate that they've learned from the mistakes of medical pioneers.
If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.
While I tend to agree with that assessment, I am still troubled by the amount of resources these same food/drug companies spent in order to defeat bills that would have required mandatory labelling of any products containing GM products.
If GM foods are *so* safe, why do they not want us to know when they are being consumed? It's sad that the last line of defense is the threat of massive class-action lawsuits in the event that GM foods are not quite as safe as their purveyors would have us believe!
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Regarding the risks to the world's food supply due to genetically mod. crops let loose in the wild go here: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021028&s=sc hapiro
The public at large (through PR campaigns) is getting flim-flammed into thinking technical 'progress' like this is good for them. I can't think too many scenarios scarier than the worlds food supply being controlled by a few corporations. And where are the regulators to protect us? It's amazing how regulatory agency key positions are being stacked with industry shills.
They used to have to lobby government, now they ARE the government.
http://www.purefood.org/Monsanto/revolvedoor.cfm
And I forget where I read it, but I recall an author with a very interesting observation:
These companies claim that these products (not refering to the Pharm. Foods, just GM foods like round-up ready canola) are not substaintially different from natural foods thus avoiding FDA problems, but then turn around and proclaim their distinctiveness to the US patent office.
Bacteria can "steal" genes quite easily. They have been known to acquire antibiotic resistance genes, for instance. Why not drug synthetizing ones ? So may be genes cannet jump from one plant to another one, but you still end up with uncontrolled species using that gene.
JMA
Actually if you lived in europe you'd have heard plenty of screaming about GM food. Any food products containing GM material MUST (by law) say so, and many stores have stopped selling GM products at all because of consumer unease.
/.rs know about RIAA and their pet senators, but how many pet senators does Monsanto have and why do they need them if the food is so safe?
You say "no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern", but many would say you were insane for making such a dangerous and naive assumption.
The big biotech companies have spent vast amounts of money on developing these new products. Do you really believe that they would be beyond "selecting" scientific data that supports claims that they are safe? All
Well one reason they need the senators is obvious actually. They need them to force the US government to persuade the WTO, UN etc that GM food is safe, so that any country which blocks the sale of US food goods is in breach of WTO rules, and so is any country that refuses GM food aid.
Just another example of US corporate imperialism by proxy.
You can't win Darth. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
This is just plain false, unless you know how to selectively breed a fish with a corn plant. It's ISN'T the same, and common sense should tell you so.
Using GM foods is a mistake for the simple reason that it narrows the gene pool of our food supply. When(not if) a blight attacks a weakness of the GM plants, if they are a majority of our supply, we're screwed, because the crop is homogenous. See: This article for a comprehensive article on the danger of GM crops being released in to the environment.
The big deal to me is that the GM strains are 'owned' by the companies that make them. The companies that make these strains (which are probably healthy and harmless) have every legal right to enforce ownership of their Intellectual Property. The IP in this case is a plant that has an unnatural advantage over competitors AND is grown alongside them. What happens when Monsanto sends you a cease-and-desist for growing corn you never planted, or never wanted? What realistic recourse do you have when a multi-billion dollar company with close political connections clamps down on you for violating IP laws? See Napster for an example, all they did was tell us where to get the songs.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
Caution is right. The genes didn't jump anywhere.
Both "news" stories are from an agenda-driven web site and read more like propaganda press releases than real news stores. Hemos was either asleep at the switch or has an axe to grind. Regardless, this is just nonsense.
I don't really understand the "I did this google search..." part of the post. Who was Bush supposed to appoint, some retard that can't read, spell, or understand simple plant cultivation? If there's a job with those requirements, "Anonymous Cowdog" should submit his resume & you could be his travelling secretary.
You can't say that anyone knows that genes can't jump species as diverse as corn to soybean. It may not have been observed, yet, which isn't suprising, since it would probably be a rare occurance, but that doesn't mean it can't happen. Of course, most people on slashdot don't know enough to make such distincitons.
In fact, I think there is every reason to think that they can, especially when we are dealing with genetically modified organisms. One method of inserting genes into genomes uses sequences that are known to be associated with the mobility of DNA sequences. Given the low level this is working at, I would expect a transposable sequence from one species to work equally well for getting a sequence into the genome of another species.
The issue then becomes, how likely is this comingling of DNA between species outside the lab. It is probably relatively rare, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Especially when you consider the scale at which crops are grown.
What these companies are doing is so different from "traditional cross-breeding" that it's not even comparable. You can cross-breed all you want and you're not going to get corn that produces a specific drug.
The danger here is very real. For example, imagine corn that manufactures a human contraceptive managing to cross-polinate itself into ordinary corn. Imagine that corn being inadvertently used as a seed crop.
Nobody here is against scientific inquiry, so relax the anti-luddite rhetoric already. Are you going to let the 13-year-old next door experiment with radioactive isotopes? No? But just think of the scientific progress he might achieve!
My objection is to companies that run slipshod operations, are discovered by the USDA, and get away with a slap on the wrist. The second article describes how ProdiGene is negotiating for permission to resell the contaiminated soybeans as biodeisel fuel. Clever solution, but IMHO there should have been punitive damages that put ProdiGene out of business.
Please stop the FUD man.
When was the last time a farmer cross-pollinated a tomato with corn to stop insects?
Or when did cross-breeding allow corn to produce human proteins and drugs?
Their do NOT completely understand the consequences of their actions. Taking genetic sequences from a horse and inserting it into a dog is not analogus to cross-breeding a german shepard with a cocker spaniel.
The adverse reaction to genetically altered foods comes from a populace that has been repeatedly lied to by government and industry. "Harmless" nuclear tests in the Nevada desert are now estimated to have caused 70,000 cancer deaths. The use of "Harmless" PCB-contaminated waste oil donated by GE to tar roads in the Northeast has resulted in cancer rates 250% higher in towns that accepted it over the last 30 years. Cost cutting and consolidation in the meatpacking industry has resulted in hundreds of people being sickened or killed by contaminated meat.
Maybe bioengineered products should get a good, hard look in open tests before being let loose on the world.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
Maybe it's because people have a history of overhyping 'bad' products so that people have a fear of them out of proportion to the risks.
That's a pretty poor excuse for suppressing information.
Why include nutrition information?
Why list ingredients at all?
People have a right to know what they put into their bodies, and then to make up their own minds, whether or not their decisions are based on logic or emotions.
Some people have an extreme allergic reaction to a substance in peanuts.
What happens if the gene that makes this substance is transplanted into corn?
(OK, this particular allergen is well known, so it's unlikely that this would happen in this particular case, but there are many, many allergens out there, in many different plants and animals.)
In addition, some people do not eat various types of plants or animals for ethical or religious reasons.
What happens when a pig gene is transplanted into other plants/animals?
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
The article reads more like an Opinion piece than a scientific article. The paper contains no "proof", only scary statements and unprovable assertions. For example, the author writes: "...false assurances were made that "humans were not at risk."" Is the author accusing someone of lying? What proof is there? How does the author know? Statements such as "I was not surprised...", are found throughout. the article concludes with "All the risks...far outweigh any potential benefits." I'm glad Dr. Ho took the time to perform a full non-biased cost/benefit analysis. Or perhaps he's just stating an opinion here.
Additionally, more than half of the citations are written by the author of the paper. These citations are ones with obviously biased titles such as: "GM maize approved on bad science in the UK". Let me cite myself, and I could "prove" anything too!
Ah yes, I remember well the time that grand-pappy taught me the wonders of cross-breeding. You see we had this tomato and this sturgeon. We wanted some of the traits of the sturgeon in the tomato crops so we...or maybe not...Maybe you are over generalizing and out-right lying about the issue in order to support your own view point? Maybe this is what every-one concerned is doin? Wow, I'm shocked and dismayed to learn that people tend to have biased viewpoints on controversial subjects!
Methinks that your knee-jerk defense of the technology does not help in piercing the clouds of misunderstanding. You have fallen into the all too common logical trap of excluding the middle option(s) and viewing the issue as black and white. Your entire post sounded idiotic with your comparing laboratory based gene manipulation to cross-pollenation and selective breeding. Yes, you make good points about the possible benefits of this technology and the irresponsible nature of many of its opponents. Why did you feel it necesary to invalidate these points by resorting to hyberbole and misinformation? Why must you defend the biotech companies because the technology that makes their business profitable has positive implications?
"I think we should tax people who stand in water! " - Mr. Gumby