Slashdot Mirror
Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice?
Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the scoop on a new type of rice that was just approved for production by a narrow vote. 'Ventria believes growing drugs that produce proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme in rice could be a cheaper way to develop drugs than building and maintaining expensive manufacturing plants... Opponents say growing the crops in open fields endangers organic and conventional crops, as well as human health...'" Update: 03/30 23:15 GMT by T : That should probably read "growing rice that produces proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme."
of cross pollenization should be important in determining what plants and drugs should be used. While protein enhancements spreading to other plants or fields could be beneficial, other drugs such as the human growth hormone would have a definite risk.
The story sounds humorous, but it also raises serious issues. Is it really a good idea to start growing lactoferrin-enriched rice in the open?
Anyone who has bought bulk rice is familiar with the fact that harvested rice is contaminated with bits of debris and wild rice. Speaking in a practical sense, it is clearly inevitable that this GM rice will get mixed in with the food supply.
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops. Do we really want to risk our young daughters eating abnormal quantities of lactoferrin and risking a higher rate of gigantomastia and breast cancer?
Ever tried to put 50 acres under a roof? How about 1,000 acres? Then ther are all those other minor details that are required for sustaining life under a roof, sun light, temperature and humidity control, water, minerals and ferilizers.
There's a fair bit more to large-scale hot-house or hydroponic farming than you have had to deal with when you grew a little pot in your closet.
yep, Monsanto are the SCO of the pharmaceutical industry, and manage to be even more evil.
SCO "only" demand massive payments for something they don't own. Monsanto destroy what you already have, then demand massive payments.
First, you ask: Maybe I'm really naive, but why can't they grow this sort of crop indoors?
Then you say: I know that it would probably cost a lot more
Ding! That's it in one. After all, if one company is growing it the expensive way, and another one (in another country if necessary) is doing it the cheap one... guess who wins? Especially in the current environment of trying to get drug prices as low as possible... Yup, its the cheap one. Go figure. So as long as growing it the cheap way is possible, that's the way that commercial entities will do it.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
With all this genetically modified food being pushed forward for the betterment of mankind, has anyone ever questioned what would happen to the immune system if we are so hellbent on preventing disease from food sources. Everyone is so cleanliness obsessed that they disinfect everything, but as a child, your immune system has to be built up to defend itself against diseases, with these GM foods being created to basically prevent disease, does that not weaken our immune system, and wouldnt this make us more susceptible to diseases such as the common cold? Fair enough these chemicals are good at for us, and are needed in prevention of certain diseases, but to actually battle the disease and win, our immune system must be up to the task.
The biggest concern I have with GE/GM is that too many people think that genetic material can be contained and controlled. Pollen carries genetic material and can easily be blown around the world (let alone over the road into the neighbours crops). Furthermore, viable pollen has been found that is hundreds of years old. So folks, do we really want to let these kinds of things out of the lab?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Nobody could adequately test the consequences for genetically modified crops in a time frame that would suit the corporate farming interests like Monsanto that push this stuff.
The consequences of growing these types of crops and the impact on their surroundings may not be measureable or manifest themselves for years.
This is why genetically modified crops are such a gamble. Scientists just *don't* know what will really happen, they are hoping for the best based on a shallow dataset of information.
The thing is, there really is no reason to modify foods genetically in this manner. It's one thing to cross one tomato with another tomato strain to get a redder, juicier tomato, it's quite another to put drugs in them, or make them glow in the dark, or somesuch nonsense.
If one needs drugs, they should take a pill. Leave the drugs out of the food supply for those of us who don't want it them in our food.
I hate to bring up the "slippery slope" but given the current state of environmental policy in this country (and worldwide) I choose to *always* default to caution. Destroying, modifying, genetic diversity should be undertaken with *extreme* caution.
The problem is that it is large corporations with no regard for the environment, or even the best interests of other people, who are railroading this stuff through in the court of public opinion and in government hearings. Anyone who dissents is "against science" or a "luddite" according to them.
These corporations will tell you that they are doing it to feed poor people in starving nations. This is crap. There is *no* food shortage. There are food distribution problems caused by political or economical concerns.
If these companies were really concerned about creating nutritious and helpful foods they would learn soil conservation techniques. By and large the vegetables that you eat today are not nearly as good for you as the ones that your grandparents ate because soil depletion and crappy farming techniques have robbed them of their minerals and nutrients.
I am not a luddite, I am an environmentalist. There is lots of room for scientists to come up with clever plans to increase crop yields and preserve soil *without* putting manmade chemicals and drugs in them.
Using technology to simply coverup and put a bandaid over mismanaged farming policies is a bad use of said technology and a cheap grab for a buck by people that have no concern what happens to your children.
There is an equal risk that the patent holders will attempt to extort payments from the farmers who's seed stocks have become contaminated with thier "intellectual property".
Monsanto has already done this. I'm sure that this will not be the last lawsuit of this type, and I'm also sure that the biotech companies are calculating this type of enforcement as an essential part of their income.
Read, L
Even eating organic rice will not save you, since small amounts of rice seeds will surely drift on the winds and contaminate all crops. Do we really want to risk our young daughters eating abnormal quantities of lactoferrin and risking a higher rate of gigantomastia and breast cancer?
..
Just a couple of questions of the kind that often get overlooked
Since when was rice eaten raw?
Since when did cooked (i.e., denatured) proteins retain the hormonal/enzyme activities of the native protein?
There's a whole lot of wild imagination going into the stories of these so-called risks.
-wb-
I don't have any problem at all with genetically modified foods. We've been genetically modifying food crops for thousands of years; we've just gotten better at it lately.
But these aren't genetically modified foods--they are food crops modified to produce drugs. Granted, they seem like fairly benign substances, but I don't understand why they need to use food crops. Surely there are plants that could be used for drug manufacture that are not normally cultivated for human consumption, obviating concerns that pharmaceutical crop seeds will get mistakenly mixed in with food crop seeds, or that pharmaceutical crops with cross-pollinate food crops.
it makes far more sense to simply make sure babies get real, complete breast milk, and anything that might be seen to undermine that (hello, Nestle) is going to garner negative press.
There are cases where breast milk is not an option:
- Some mothers cannot produce milk at all or cannot produce sufficient milk to feed their baby.
- A mother who has to take certain drugs for her own health and well-being may not be able to breastfeed because of the risks those drugs present to the baby.
- Sometimes mom isn't available to breastfeed at all. Women still do occasionally die in childbirth, or more commonly, give their baby up for adoption at birth.
- Newborns can have several different disorders that make all milk products, including those from mom, anywhere from very uncomfortable to severely damaging to them. Phenylketonuria, severe lactose intolerance, etc.
So, for several reasons, it's a good idea to improve infant formula as much as possible. We'll probably never be able to get it as good as breast milk (since mom's body can adapt the formulation to environmental factors, such as passing on antibodies to whatever cold is going around), but it's not necessarily a bad idea.
Interesting that these can also serve as food preservatives, though. You may very well be right about the "true" motivations for this product.
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
One of the things that we've seen happening in Canada is that a huge corporation (ie: Monsanto) will sell its genetically modified seed to farmers and charge them an annual licensing fee. The problem arises when some of the seed blows onto neighbouring farmers' fields and starts to merge with their crops. In turn, Monsanto takes legal action against the farmers.
Here's a link to a good, comprehensive story.
Basically, the issue at hand is that even before considering the ethical implications of lacing crops with drugs, we should be thinking about the leverage such enhancements will give to corporate heavyweights like Monsanto in their ongoing struggle to preserve "their" intellectual property.
--
...Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter.
Churchill
I see this problem at two levels, the specific issue, and a larger systemic problem...
The first and obvious one, being that the production of crops which have been bioengineered to produce biologically active chemicals and drugs needs to be strickly managed. They must be kept away from other plants, and for that matter, need to be kept away from bateria which can take genetic material and communicate it to wild species (cross species genetic communication is not commonly considered and is a real issue when dealing with novel or unprecedented genetic application.)
Thalidamide looked like a great idea until deformed babies began to happen. Having a genetically altered crop, speading a gene into wild plant species that might have a significant impact on human health and reproduction, or simply further threaten the viability of endangered environments, is a potential disaster just waiting to happen. We need to place care, and responsiblity ahead of the bottom line, or we might just greedy ourselves to death.
The second, is an administration that has ramrodded through the various dept. of government, the agenda "Rubberstamp Anything Big Business Wants". Just today, the EPA was forced to push through new business practices which may cause a 700% increase in mercury in the fish we eat over the next 10 years. This is in an environment where the mercury levels are already high enough to warm pregnant women "That eating top tier ocean caught fish more than once a week poses a significant risk for birth defect".
I'm a firm believer in capitalism, I believe we need to support business, and create a strong and sustainable economy. However, that strength must not come at the cost of social disaster. Our government has become a machine designed to force all resistance including sanity, aside to promote the wishes of large multinational powers. Time and time again the track record is clear. The public is at risk, every single time our welfare come to a head against some D.C. connected industry's profit margin. It's vital that we not try to reduce this to a Republican/Democratic, Conservative/Liberal issue. These are issues involving the fact that our elected officials are too easily bought and sold for the price of funding future election campaigns. We need to change the system, and waiting for the people who benefit from that system, to change it, is clearly pointless. The people need to stand up and mandate a change from the ground up. The quality and longevity of our lives demands it.
Genda