Slashdot Mirror
Genetically-Modified Everything
BreadMan writes "The Economist has an interesting article about how the use of GM (genetically modified) plants extends well beyond the food industry. Altered trees that make better paper, insect-resistant cotton, potatoes that contain the right kinds of starches. An interesting read to see where the industry is going in light of problems with having GM foods on the dinner table. There's more industrial uses for agricultural products than you'd think of right away, so this may be a lucrative use for GM technology."
Just ask Gregor Mendel.
You misspelt 'hemp'
And here I thought GM plants only produced vehicles... I tell you what, I learn something new every day
I've always thought the ultimate use of genetic engineering would be to make puberty-free, Permacute puppies and kittens. Not only is it a lucrative market, there wouldn't be worries about the altered genes entering the natural ecosystem because of the sterility.
GM plants can be VERY beneficial if modified correctly. This crop can be used as a fuel source, replacing oil-based gasoline. Get the yield high enough my GM'ing, and it becomes a great replacement - less pollution, more energy independence on any country capable of producing crops, and an industry that may finally get agriculture off the government dime.
Back when I was a genetists (early 80's), I worked at Coors Biotech for a summer. The project was kind of interesting. Chickens that are sold in US stores had colorizers to turn the flesh pink. They were feed dafodils just prior to slaughter. We took the genes from the dafidils and splice it into algae. Worked great and I think that it was a fraction of the price of the flowers. I do not know if it is used today, but I do know that FDA did not regulate it. If it was not directly consumed by humans, it was off limits (per the reagan admin).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I'm a little concerned about how the goal of most GM projects, that I know of, is to modify something so that it most benefits humans. Isn't that a bad idea? I mean, I know we're at the top of the "food chain," and we're clever and everything, but the world works because of cycles -- life and death; mutual symbiosis in one capacity or another. What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct? I have a feeling that if scientists tried to figure how to make a given organism more beneficial to its entire environment, they would come up with no major alterations.
Hooray for modern medicine!
Some GM stuff in labs can perhaps be controlled, but once modified geness are released into the RealWorld they are very difficult to control. The risk of doing bad things is great. We already see the effects of cross contamination of crops etc.
If this goes more widespread (eg. GM trees for paper production) we can expect weird things happening (eg. say we remove some substance from trees to make them easier to process but that gene provides disease resistance etc. If that crosses into wild populations then we end up with sick forests etc).
Agriculture and food production are regulated and controlled (well to a degree anyway), industrial stuff less so. It concerns me that all the GM bads we see in agriculture will be far worse in the industrial sector.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I don't thing GM things are any more or LESS dangerous than nuclear research. If we allow corporations to do as they please, they will find the easiest way to maximum profits.
This did not used to be so bad. But today the shortsightedness, or rather the self centeredness of the modern executive can be very dangerous to the publics health and the publics wallet.
I'm not against GM products, on the contrary. As population pressures grow in a seemingly exponential way we are going to need these things to survive. The planet can only do so much on its own.
But it's bound to happen eventually. We just need to be aware of the risks and weigh them against the benefits.
Basically, the show says that the people against genetically modified food don't know the facts and say that it isn't monitored by government agencies, while it is infact monitored by the FDA and EPA. Furthermore, genetically modified foods are solving the problem of world hunger by producing more output per area and being more resilliant in harsh climates.
Personally, I believe genetically modified plants are required to sustain life on earth with our current population.
What color was the chicken flesh originally?
Forget about designer fruit...
There are bacteria that can generate small amounts of hydrogen gas. If genetic engineering can make these bacteria much better at this function, we will have very good renewable energy source.
Monsanto's GM canola has also crossbred with Canadian canola strains, making it impossible for Canadian farmers to guarentee that their canola crops are GM free, thus locking them out of the EU markets. Now, they want to do the same thing with wheat.
Leaving aside the fears and marketability problems surrounding GM plants, we still have the problem that patented plants are a huge threat to farmers. You can get in big, expensive trouble if you didn't license the genes that are growing in your field, even if you didn't plant them. If you save your own seed, and that seed gets contaminated by someone's patented, GM genes, you could loose a lifetime of work.
See what I've been reading.
Mark my words: once someone invents a way to have ordinary looking house plants produce your narcotic of choice, the drug war will finally be over.
Corn was originally a grass, with each kernel being very small. Through very careful breeding, the Aztecs managed to increase kernel size to its present state.
Dog breeds have been around for a long time as well.
The only difference between what the Aztecs did and what scientists do is whether or not you access the genes directly or through the natural "API" (aka breeding, Java programmers no doubt hate GM food).
(Waits for jokes about kernel size.)
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Shape mountains,
Create lakes,
Create 100% radioactive test envioronments
Observe radiated species mutations
Study human health.
Nukes are REALLY USEFUL THINGS. Industry's just chomping at the bit, looking for ways to make money off of em, too.
And just to get your children's thoughts rolling with the possibilities, we [of slashdot staff] will be hyping the uses of nuclear landscapes [for free].
Socially irresponsible? Inconsiderate? NOT AT ALL! We'll test it out in miniature scale, first, by giving sticks of radiated dynamite to monkeys, and releasing them in your city.
Thanks for the hype slashdot. No. I'm NOT disgusted.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
Catgirls.
Fah.
50 weeks out of the year they'll scratch you silly if you try to make a move on them, and when they *are* in heat you end up burned out and drooling while they go wandering around the neighborhood, yowling in frustration and dropping thong for anything with a Y chromosome.
Cleaning? Cooking?
Yeah, right.
Clean themselves, maybe, but you know who is going to be scraping the hair balls off the carpet, right?
And the way they run to your side and stare at you like you're God when you use the can opener, that's cute and gratifying at first, but after a few times you realize they're actually in awe of the can opener.
Do not expect Canada or the Nordic countries to be shortly covered with GM pines; commercial use of GM trees in Europe is at least ten years off. But it is on its way.
How is it on its way? Because some guys are researching it?
Now the I can't speak for the entire world, but I live in Sweden, I know a lot of people in the paper industry, and I've personally spoken with people belonging to senior management of several scandinavian paper companies.
And they all said the same thing: They currently have no interest whatsoever in GMO trees. They're not researching for it, they don't want it. The are interested in biotech, but only to the extent that it can give them insight into how to do traditional forestry better.
Why trust them? Well, the reasoning behind this is that this industry has been harshly critizied by environmentalists for a long time. Today, they've pretty much 'cleaned up their act' (in scandinavia), aiming for FSC acreditation and so on.
They are not about to throw all that work away.
That said.. I'm personally positive to biotech, and I think that we might very well see GMO trees out there. But not in ten years time. Not in the nordic countries anyway.
Point, set, match and game.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Other organisms alter their genes purposefully, and share this with their neighbors (bacteria), also others purposefully manipulate their own DNA (ants) just on this planet. As humanity delivers the seed of DNA to other stars and the cosmos it will be to the advantage of all of the creatures we take with us to be able to adapt rapidly to many different environments. Genetic Modification is necessary not only for the advancement of the human species, but for all life in the solar system as strive to expand our reach ever outward. Anyone who is opposed to Genetic Engineering does not see the entire picture.
How do they keep the new bioengineered products from cross pollenating with the standard food varieties.
GM "products" should be engineered to be sterile . . . it's not that hard to craft a triploid strain, or knock out a fertility factor. The crops are still clonable by traditional agriculture methods . . . but don't breed to make hybrids.
That, or we should be able to sue a company into oblivion for contaminating a nations agricultural products. Contaminating a nations food source, is bio-terrorism, and should be handled as such.
luckilly $$$ will keep broski off the backs of these corporations, and in the library watching what I read.
- The Law of Unintended Consequences when (not if) genetic freaks get loose and upset global ecosystems, forcing dependence upon the outcompeting freaks and counterfreaks.
- Greedy corporations like ADM and Monsanto who aim to OWN food production by claiming "IP" rights on genes.
- Frankenfood FUDsters who would throw the golden-rice baby out with the bathwater because of fear and romantic notions about old-fashioned organic food somehow being better for you, even if it's not sustainable.
GM was inevitable, but it would be very sad if we ended up destroying our natural ecosystems, or locking it up in IP monopolies, only a few decades before we developed the molecular nanotech needed to self-sufficiently manufacture food, without depending on Mother Nature and top-down distribution.--
Power to the Peaceful
I concur.
Furthermore, humans must eventually bring safe, effective GM to bear on the problems that we have inherited and inflicted on ourselves. Evolution has shaped humans into tool-using social creatures for protection and the societies spawned have radically changed the way our genes are selected for and against. No longer is it as imperative for humans to be in the height of physical fitness, nor have excellent genetic health in terms of hereditary afflictions and cancer defenses. Indeed, I believe the prominence of cancer today to be influenced by the tempering of natural selection in our collective gene pool. This is the threat we will continue to face and it will not go away.
I express these concerns with my consumer dollars. I do not buy organic because of the possibility that proceeds will go to political efforts fighting the progress of GM in any sphere. These political efforts are regressive and threaten the progress and (perhaps, if I am not being too dramatic) the continued well being of the human race.
By stifling this emerging GM market, such political efforts will retard the growth of more advanced, human oriented technologies and economies. Researchers will not be able to learn the necessary lessons to use this technology safely, now or in the future or it will not come to fruition until it is too late. I don't see how we have any choice but to develop these technologies before our own genes betray us. We must become what we are, users of tools, and move forward. For these reasons and more: Please don't buy organic.
I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM. Some GM stuff in labs can perhaps be controlled, but once modified geness are released into the RealWorld they are very difficult to control. The risk of doing bad things is great. We already see the effects of cross contamination of crops etc.
Funny how you say that they don't understand genetics, yet that is what they do for a living. I would venture a guess that they understand it just a wee bit better than YOU do. I also find the GM argument to be odd that people will say "You have to prove that it isn't harmful". To which scientists provide evidence that shows no harmful effects in studies. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be good enough. Sure, there is limited concern because for most of us, it is somewhat of an unknown. The idea of GM things are a little scary to us. But this is what they do. Your subject suggests that they don't understand their life's work. That is ridiculous.
You could almost liken it to the GPL. Don't release your software under the GPL, you don't know the ramifications of doing so. Don't treat GM products the way MS treats the GPL.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
...and that will cost someone money in coping with the resulting ecological changes.
There is one certainty in all of this: the genes spliced into GMOs will get loose in the world due to inter-breeding with non-GM organisms of the same species. This is as certain as losing in Vegas.
So how does this sound: I propose to release novel self-replicating entities into your environment, and I don't know what the consequences will be. I can be almost certain they won't lead to the end of the world as we know it, but on the other hand it isn't a great strech to imagine that my self-replicating entities are going to have a significant effect on the ecosystem you live in and depend upon.
Personally, I'd be very unhappy with someone making this proposal, and the comparisions that come to mind with existing activities, such as selective breeding for domestication, don't really hold water because a) the whole point of GMOs is that they contain genetic combinations that would not occur in nature and b) selective breeding for domestication has already been responsible for major environmental changes.
Domestic species both force out non-domestic ones (as happened with prairie grasses) and due to increased genetic homogeneity may also be more susceptible to disease. So comparing the GMO process to domestication is not entirely reassuring.
"Industrial biology" has been extremely good for us humans in the past hundred-odd years. We can feed ourselves, worldwide, better than at any time in history. But there have been costs, and I'd like to see a really compelling case made for adding to those costs with GMOs.
So far, that case has not been made, and many GMO proponents simply deny that there are going to be costs. Only when they admit to that will there be a meaningful debate. Of course, for that to happen, the "GMOs are the work of Satan" mantra from the other side would have to fall silent as well.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
GM foods have been controversial partly because of the power that patented foods would give to companies like Monsanto. I fear these other organisms would be the same way...
A prev. poster likened this to open source and closed source and in this regard he is completely right (though it was modded funny rather than insightful) but it is worse than closed source software because it is aimed at replacing vital commodities with intellectual property rights.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
..is that the wind will blow the GM plants pollen and/or seeds around and pretty soon these things show up everywhere.
There was already a case where Monsanto was growing plants across the road from a farmer and the farmer had to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars because their seeds blew over into his planting area. Seems to me that Monsanto should have been sued for polluting the farmer's planting area. Or to put that another way - GM plants should be treated like toxic waste sites. If the toxic waste contaminates the area around the site - it is the responsibility of the owner of the site to clean up their mess. Not the other way around.
Someone put a black hole in my pocket and now I'm broke.
Sorry for the unfinished post - darn enter key submits form badness.
I understand that it is easy to just write off these concerns as just more wacko technophobe hysteria, but look at how many problems we have created just by introducing non-native species into other habitats. These aren't genetically modified, or in many cases even bred by humans for specific traits. They are perfectly natural organisms that simply evolved in different places. And yet they have reeked havoc in their new habitat because the life forms in that habitat are not evolved to deal with them.
Nothing is evolved to deal with these new crops that we are introducing, and the primary motivation for the crops is that we want them make them more resilient against natural (and in some case human made - aka RoundUp) predators, so we can get better yields cheaper.
I am not opposed to GM in principle - I think it can and will have a wonderful positive impact on us and even the environment as a whole, as it will allow for more efficient and balanced use of the resources available to us. However, I think we need to be careful, and I think that it would be a good idea if the work was more driven by scientific curiosity then profit. In my opinion the best way to do achieve this is to declare GM work to be unpatentable. This will remove much of the profitability of GM research, while creating a more open scientific environment. Not to mention the philosophical questions of whether genes and biological processes should even be patentable. And if it also slows down progress some, that might even be a good thing in this case.
Please tell me this was a joke.
We on this planet really know so little about genetic crap...
Well, no, **YOU** really know so little.
Sadly, the case with GM is that it will be prevented by the hysterical uninformed and fearful ignorant masses. Just the same as with energy. We could have a world of efficient and modern nuclear power, but, no, everyone, even the supposed smart geek set, has to sit in their caves and wail at the moon and not open their eyes.
You all only listen to the whispers of agenda-driven boogeymen, and ignore the hard data of the truly informed. This is the shitpile world you deserve. I just wish I didn't have to deal with it as well.
I now return you to your dark, demon haunted world.
--- Ban humanity.
Lovely in theory, but the sole purpose of very first GM products on the market was to allow the manufacturer to sell more herbicide!
Not only that, but they then have the temerity to go and prosecute people who's fields have been contaminated by their products for patent infringement. They should be made responsible for clearing up gene flow. After all the bloody stuff is now immune to the conventional herbicides.
Deleted
Actually, Canola is differentiated from Rapeseed by having 2% Erucic Acid content, thus being safe for human consumption. Also, it stands for "CANadian Oil, Low Acid". Dammned yanks get the credit for everything...
If these GM-cats see the light someday, I would expect some kind of similar business model. And the DMCA being called to protect the producer from "counterfeit supercat food"
We have stockpiles of cases where new tech had unexpected side-effects causing irreversible damage.
What I am calling for is better controls over the damage, forseeable and unforseeable alike. Further, if there is more responsibility and liability placed on the shoulders of the decision-makers, then controls and responsible application are more likely to occur. As things stand now, we have a corporate culture that lacks morality and conscience. Those values need to be reconnected into our culture before these things can be considered safe for public consumption.
I have no doubt that any and all of these things can be made safe and profitable. But the problem is there is presently little incentive to make these companies act responsibly. Hell, it takes several acts of congress, continuous oversight and enormous treats to get even the most basic of environmental concerns addressed. And as can be shown even now, if the fines aren't big enough, they are simply factored in as the cost of doing business and they keep right on damaging the planet.
I'm far from advocating returning to the caves. But I see that advancement and profit should not cost us our habitable planet in the process.
GM plants are dangerous for many reasons.
Nature is a balance, and GM plants threaten that balance. One example is the so called insect resistant cotton. In a few generations, they expect the now insect resistant cotton to not be so insect resistant anymore. Why. Because they manage to kill all the weak pests, and leave the strong ones. Then the strong ones multiply rapidly, and you have a whole breed of pests which are more resistant to whatever schemes you concoct in the future. Us humans are making a pretty good job of accelerating the 'evolution' of new species of pests that give us trouble later.
Trouble also is, this stupid notion that a company can own IP on something people grow in their fields. Think the Microsoft of farms. Imagine a world where all the seed you have cannot be used again next season because it is someone's IP. It is easy for them to say, 'this is an opt in technology', but when they have succeeded in removing all 'natural' seed from the market, (Trust me, they can), this will not be a choice anymore. You will be forced to use what they give you.
I for one, think we are far from needing GM foods. Look at Europe. They routinely throw away food because they do not want to depress prices for farmers. We can produce more than enough to go round, and in some places especially like Africa, we could produce even more. We could produce less tobacco if need be to produce more food. There is no real argument in favour of GM plants from the perspective of adequacy for feeding the planet. Let us face the facts, the real reason some people are motivated to do this is to make more money, and that counts before anything else. I can take people competing to sell cars, but I think this might be an example of a failure of the free market system. In free markets, when abnormal profits have been wiped, people tend to try to unbalance the market by introducing an unneeded dependency, and that is one we can do without.
I, for one, welcome our new GM-plants overlords.
These techniques allow improving species with lower cost than gene modification methods. And because it avoids those methods, which are patented, they have less restrictive IP issues; and it has been developed in a collaborative environment. As a result, the Wired Article calls this "the agriculture version of open source"
Its analogous to proprietary software: you can't just buy the algorithm: you have to buy the whole package (and support and perhaps hardware too). In much of current GM technology you can't just buy the nifty new gene, you have to buy the whole potato (w/a limited selection of potato types if any choice at all) *and* you're just leasing the potato *and* you have to keep buying the upgrades each year.
Problems with the closed-source methods of GM tech include:
One problem with genetically modifying everything is that the modifications are done to solve a specific problem, or a relatively narrow set of problems. But do the modifiers thoroughly consider the far ranging consequences of their modifications? Eg, if a genetically modified butterfly flaps its wings in New York, does a typhoon still occur in Hong Kong, or is it a flood in Bangladesh? Is it even possible to discern what the unintended consequences may be five, ten, fifty years in the future? Nature spent thousands, millions of years evolving itself to a state of balance, and then we come along and start altering that balance willy-nilly to solve a few immediately pressing problems. I worry that we're taking an approach to GM similar to a very bad software development project - no overall plan, build features and modifications in response to isolated needs, and spend the rest of the project lifetime putting out fire after fire after fire. It's just that fires in software development are not quite as consequential as fires that affect the natural state of the world ecology.
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
Just for starters, GM techniques: - often place plant DNA in animals and vice-versa. Dangerous? Who knows?
DNA is DNA. The difference between a human and a cabbage is minimal. You may not like the idea of a fish gene in your strawberries, but that doesnt make it dangerous. It does however give the opportunity to move a specific and well characterised trait from one organism to another. No amount of breeding will make a frost tolerent strawberry because there is no natural trait *in strawberries*, but fish do... personally i think thats kind of cool
- involve the insertion of promoter sequences, which stimulate the expression of the desired sequence. What else do they stimulate? Again, no one really knows.
If it did something bad in the plant, then that plant wouldnt be desirable, and so it wouldnt be grown, sold, eaten etc. This is just FUD.
- also involve the insertion of a gene for antibiotic resistance, to help isolate those cells in which the gene transfer "takes". Dangerous? Hell yes! Horizontal gene transfer (between macro-organism and bacteria) is documented fact.
Oh boy, FUD, FUD, FUD, F U D, FUD. Not to mention just plain wrong and a popular mistruth recited by anti-GM bodies. Yes antibiotic resistance genes (and herbicide) are used, but has anyone bothered to check what those are used for? NOTHING. And in case you didnt stop to think, where did the resistance genes come from? From the environment. They are already out there. Pick up a handfull of soil and see how much antibiotic resistance genes there are out there *naturally* (i did this as a 1st year prac).
And why oh why would a bacterium even have any selective pressure to pick up a resistance gene from a plant (very difficult) when it can pop down to the local hospital and procreate with a nice slutty staph or E coli that is *actively* trying to spread its "geans of mass destruction".
Now for seconds, organic farming:
Uses the same bacterial toxin (Bt) on the surface of plants as the GM plants do. And did you know that Bt is closly related to anthrax! (just like a human is to a monkey)
Uses heavy metals in large quantities to control pests that do not bio-degrade and are toxic. (Mercury, copper, etc)
Dont test *any* new variety, breed, wild plant etc for health effects. A lot of the fashionable new plants have very high alkaloids and other toxins (cyanide-like etc), yet they are 'natural' and therefore outside the regulatory system. Peanuts would never be certified for consumption because too many people are allergic
Will *irraditate*/poision/mutate plants to produce desirable traits that are not characterised and completely unknown!
And (traditional, if not also organic) is in many cases quite inefficient, using more resources, spraying more toxic chemicals, with less yields than what can be achieved with a disease resistant/herbicide resistant/enhanced GM crop.
OK, long post, but take this message away, GM isnt bad because it is GM, and organic and natural doesnt mean it is 100% safe. No you shouldnt *have* to eat GM if you dont want too, but dont stop anyone from benefiting just because you read something on the internet saying it is wrong.
And if horizontal gene transfer is so natural and well documented, wouldnt that make GM crops practically organic? think about it.