Slashdot Mirror


Dodging the Negative Reaction To GE Crops

BINC writes "Wired has an article up today entitled 'Selective Breeding Gets Modern.'" From the article: "Genetically modified food has gotten a chilly reception from consumers, especially in Europe and Asia. Just last week, Japan suspended imports of American long-grain rice after authorities discovered that a genetically modified variety had accidentally mixed with conventional rice. To skirt such problems altogether, biotech companies are creating superior plants using genetics technology that is advanced but which falls short of grafting genes from one organism into another."

10 of 349 comments (clear)

  1. Someone remind me... by goldspider · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...what the problem is with technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce?

    --
    "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    1. Re:Someone remind me... by DesireCampbell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      GE foods available for purchace are never harmful to humans. They are tested extensivly before release. That said, we almost lost the Monarch butterfly because of GE wheat a few years ago (I can't remember what exactly it was, something missing in the wheat... I dunno).

      So, while GE foods could pose health risks (both to humans and the enviroment), they usually don't.

      --
      Whoo, signature!
      DesireCampbell.com
    2. Re:Someone remind me... by debilo · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Also, this eliminates the problem of cross-pollination with non-GM crops.

      Yes, that's what GE companies have always promised. However, read this:

      Since the mid-1990s, it has sued some 150 US farmers for patent infringement in connection with its GE seed. The usual claim involves violation of a technology agreement that prohibits farmers from saving seed from one season's crop to plant the next. One farmer received an eight-month prison sentence, in addition to having to pay damages, when a Monsanto case turned into a criminal prosecution. Monsanto reports that it pursues approximately 500 cases of suspected infringement annually.
    3. Re:Someone remind me... by shawb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe one of the more legitimate concerns with transgenic engineering is the possibility of introducing an allergenic agent into a food that traditionally does not have it. People that are allergic to, say, shrimp and peanuts know to avoid them. They have to read labels, ask at restaurants if those ingredients are used, etc. Transgenic products are generally not labeled as such, and even if they were WHICH organism the genes were taken from is generally not advertised. If a section of DNA is taken from a plant that encodes a protein which a person is allergic to, any product that gene is put into becomes dangerous, possibly even fatal to the allergic person.

      I'm not saying it is LIKELY that someone will die from this, but the possibility does exist. Knowing which chemicals to avoid due to allergy potential gets very tricky when you start putting in genes from organisms not usually used for food. If the genes you are introducing to the new plant encode for some variety of insect or bacterial resistance, it becomes more likely that the encoded protein is biologically active in organisms other than the targetted pest. And these new crops do not have to undergo FDA testing to ensure safety. It is possible for something to slip through that is flat out toxic (long term low dose exposure risks are very tricky to weed out,) but the possibility of a group of people being unusually sensitive or allergic to the new compounds is very real (although not necesarilly very high) with very serious public health consequences.

      That, and many other countries have little reason to trust that giant U.S. corporations will perform the due dilligence required to ensure that their products are safe. Especially on food crops targetted for export.

      Genetic engineering has the potential to be an extremely powerful tool to increase the standard of living for everyone on the planet, through better food, medicine and even better clothing, building materials and eventually even cheaper fuel if biofuels ever take hold. But I don't think that companies such as Monsanto and Archer Daniels Midland have ever shown that they care for much besides their bottom line.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Someone remind me... by Chas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How much empirical data do you have that a straight-pollinated cross-breed of two strains of a particular plant are safe to eat?

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    5. Re:Someone remind me... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Funny you should mention food allergies. I know someone personally who's allergic to Brazil nuts. A Brazil nut gene was spliced into something completely different -- I don't remember what it was -- but it triggered a near-fatal allergic reaction.

      The big difference is, we can't check the ingredients list for genes. If we take a salmon gene and use it on potatoes, at what point can people no longer be vegetarians? The only way I know of to avoid GE food is either to pay very close attention to what is GE, or to use entirely organic food, which makes little sense to me -- I don't want GE, but I don't mind pesticides, which also aren't allowed in organic food.

      Oh, and the companies behind this -- take Monsanto. It makes Microsoft look like a "Don't be evil" Google. I don't remember the details, but I know a lot of small farmers in Canada were sued for patent infringement -- or was it copyright? -- for growing their particular strain of roundup-ready Canola. The catch? The farmers didn't know they were doing that. From Monsanto's disputed Wikipedia page, "Essentially, a part of Schmeiser's canola crop, grown from seed he had bred over many decades, was accidentally contaminated with Monsanto's GE canola, likely by seed escaping from passing trucks." For a software analogy, imagine a worm author suing you for copyright infringement for running his worm without permission.

      They've pulled similarly slimy tactics with RBGH -- many small dairies have been pressured into removing labels from their products which say "Our cows not treated with RBGH." I think the legal premise was that it implies RBGH is bad. Gee, I guess C&H should be suing all these products with "Sugar-Free" labels! What about "Fat-Free" or "Low Sodium"?

      I mean, I can understand what you're saying, and it's valid. Another software analogy -- the only truly secure computer is one that's not plugged in. But since we have to choose a computer, if your sole motivation is security, why would you choose Windows over Linux or BSD? Similarly, if you're concerned about the safety of your food, why would you choose frankenfoods over ordinary food? The only reason now is organic is more expensive...

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  2. Finally, scientists appear to "get it". by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A process which takes the best of the natural world and the best of our scientific processes and gives natural selection a helping hand.

    Because the desirable features all come from varieties of natural crops, the chances of three headed luminous offspring appear unlikely.

    When they were first talking about skin colour of wild plants I thought it was a waste (because you can see the fruit colour), but they are sequencing the saplings of these plants before they have grown enough to bear fruit. It allows them to tell within days which of the crop has the desired features.

    I just wonder how many samples it take to identify a marker though - you can't use a single sample and must really DNA test an entire range of pre-categorised samples.
    I wonder if any of the seed banks will allow their stock to be tested?

    This is in effect similar to the genetic testing of embryos for certain high risk hereditary diseases, but goes to show just how cheap and "normal" DNA testing has become.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
  3. I'm not so afraid of "golden corn"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Which has more vitamin A than normal corn. I'm more afraid of the government and corporations getting together and adding antibiotics and antidepressants into things like corn, whey, and rice and seeding them in farms next to the real deal.

    That's why I dislike anything that's synthetically engineered.

  4. Actually, the problem is Intellectual Property by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The real problem is Intellectual Property. The stuff is patented. It's entirely possible to contaminate a crop with patented seeds. You are then guilty of patent infringement unless you buy a license to grow the stuff.

    As for the grandparent post "technology that can produce vast amounts of nutritious food that can feed people who may otherwise not have access to such a resoruce"

    Naive bollocks. The current GM crops which are around are designed to sell extra weed killer. They are designed to marginally reduce the costs of producing the crop.

    There is no problem growing conventional crops, we can grow the stuff easily. The problem is stopping western farmers dumping their products on third world markets at far below cost. Destroying the local market for locally produced food, thereby driving local farmers out of business and off the land. The famines, are caused by US and EU farming subsidies.

    --
    Deleted
  5. Africa by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I remember correctly, a few years ago there was an African country which had hunger-epidemic going on and the US offered to help them, the help was refused because american help was GE-food.

    It was Zimbabwe. President Robert Mugabe refused the aid unless the corn was first milled because he thought people would actually try to grow corn from the seeds. He would of accepted the aid if it had been ground or milled. And people are still starving in Zimbabwe, which is his fault. Zimbabwe used to be the breadbasket of southern Africa, they were able to grow enough produce to feed everyone as well as export a lot, agriculture was their main export. But when he came to power Mugabe drove many farmers, most were white, off their farms then he gave his cronies the farms. And most of them didn't know anything about farming.

    Falcon