Slashdot Mirror
GMOs Perfected Down to the Chromosome Level
Roland Piquepaille writes "If don't like the concept of 'Frankenfoods,' I have bad news for you. U.S. researchers have developed an artificial chromosome for corn plants. The Chicago Tribune reports that researchers can now make chromosomes to order. These artificial chromosomes are accepted as natural by the plants and passed through generations. As the Monsanto Company bought rights to use this mini-chromosome stacking technology in corn, cotton, soybeans, and canola, I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?)."
I'm not even going to read TFA because of Roland's reputation for spamming Slashdot with links to his blogs/sites/whatevers.
I do like the idea of the Natalie Portman carrot cross though.
Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
Well, I'm happy that here in Europe the companies have to do lots of testing and prove there are no adverse effects.
And *THEN* even so, any food products containing GMO or GMO-derived ingredients have to state it on the packaging - so those who wise to can decide just not to buy products containing GMOs.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
don't get me wrong I'm not a luddite as far as GM is concerned - I want to see cool new organisms for us to use - I just think we should be really really carefull and require enormous amounts of testing - maybe generations (in human time) of testing
I am no plant expert and have only had a few standard biology courses (recently) that covered DNA splicing / modification. But to compare the traditional hybrid process to manipulation at the genetic level is totally mis-leading statement. Genetic manipulation (and its long term effects )is something we barely understand - and its power to alter specific genes (and thus gene expression) is very powerful.
.... ready or not.
And this is compounded by the fact that unlike other genetic experiments (using mice - animals - cells) plants produce pollen - if that pollen escapes your "test plots" it will mix with "natural" crops and now your modification is in the wild
And what happens when company XYZ's modified tomato genes (via pollen) mix with company ABC's modified genes ??? ect ect.
I believe much good will come out of genetic research - but putting profits ahead of prudent (long term research) is a recipe for indigestion
Its not the years, its the mileage
I guess we'll soon eat food made from permanently genetically modified organisms (PGMOs?).
I'm not sure how a PGMO differs from today's GMOs which, I believe, can pass genetic modifications to offspring (they are present in the germline). The article summary contains a bias that GMOs are somehow inherently bad. Look, lots of things in our food contains risky things, and people seem to want blame GMOs for many ills. At some level of intake everything is risky. There are tons of studies outlining why some foods are bad for you. Alcohol is bad for you. Marijuana is bad for you. BBQ is bad for you (polyaromatic hydrocarbons, other bad things in charred foods). French fries apparently contain acrylimide. Saturated fats are associated with obesity, the development of heart disease. Sugar is associated with the progression of diabetes. Salt is associated with high blood pressure, heart disease. Acidic foods (ie diet coke) are bad for your digestive system. You get the point.
How many of these do you overindulge in occasionally? Similarly, assuming all GMOs are bad for health reasons is short sighted (although they may be bad for political reasons -- that is another matter). Many foods we eat are engineered in some way, usually with a sledge hammer by classical means, no one seems to complain about that. We already use pesticides on crops, perhaps resistant GMOs might reduce pesticide use? Perhaps GMOs might have better nutritional components than their non engineered counterparts? Perhaps GMOs can be developed that make some of the risky foods in the previous paragraph less risky? GMOs should be evaluated like everything else, carefully. While I understand their fears, I wish the GMO protest community would spend a little less time worrying about GMOs and more time worrying about very real food risks (see above), heavy metals in imported goods (including foods) and the things around us that are really worth our concern.
"Everything else I ate in the 72 hours before I got so sick, I've eaten again with no problem," she said. "Frankly, I don't trust the tests."
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE2/StarLink-Cleared-AllergiesCDC.htm
Anyone remember this? Some people don't have the necessary enzyme to properly metabolize the Cry9c protein in genetically engineered corn.
Also, "In September 2006, PUBPAT filed formal requests with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke four patents owned by Monsanto Company that the agricultural giant is using to harass, intimidate, sue - and in many cases bankrupt - American farmers."
http://www.pubpat.org/monsantovfarmers.htm
'I'm sure that since this will all be patented, then the ability to grow it will be subject to various fees and "subscriptions" eventually. I wouldn't be surprised if eventually ou would need to buy a special chemical, without which, the wheat or whatever crop will not grow.'
Pretty similar things are happening already. See this for a sample:
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/crop_protection/roundup_rewards.asp
'Roundup Ready' plants are GMOs modified to confer resistance to a herbicide sold (of course) by the same company. And yes, there's an annual license and an anonymous hotline to report violators (PDF):
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/ag_products/pdf/stewardship/stewardship.pdf
The wheat you eat is already a man made chromosomic monster, it's hexaploid!
\u262D = \u5350
Researchers have been doing this stuff for over a decade. And there are REAL Intellectual Property issues here.
Genetically Engineered DNA sequences in many cases can be treated just like programming code.
I remember a true story from one of my Genetics Professors, Dr. Ron Van Den Bussche ( http://cas.okstate.edu/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=71 )
He told our class about a genetically altered cotton strain of which he was integral in its development.
Apparently, a giant agri-industrial competitor to the giant agri-industrial company who funded the strain of cotton Dr. VDB developed,
surreptitiously obtained a reproduceable/cloneable live specimen and subsequently cloned it and used it in gross quantities for their own unlicensed use.
(I think the new strain could tolerate saltier soils and drier conditions and it grew a larger puffier bowl of cotton, oh yes, and it was Patented/Copyrighted also.)
-->Here's the really funny part, Dr. VDB and his team were expert witnesses in the intellectual property infringement lawsuit/trail against the competitor who allegedly stole the strain. (sorry, can't remember what state)
The defendants had claimed they developed the new genetic strain of cotton themselves.
This was proven blatantly false by the prosecution when Dr. VDB revealed he had spliced unique identification DNA sequences into their genetically-engineered cotton strains from a VERY Very Rare Bat species.
(which happened to be an endangered species that ONLY inhabits a single remote cave system in Texas).
Sure enough, forensic DNA testing was completed on the allegedly stolen cotton strain and it was, in fact, found to be stolen.
-Many, many, Million$ of dollars were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff.
first: both my parents do research for Monsanto and i am proud of them and the work they do, not of the company itself though
next, i think people who talk about 'Frankenfoods' are poorly informed about what contemporary GM is and isn't.
For most GM modifications you take a gene that you know serves a certain purpose from one organism (plant for example) and transplant it into another.
There is nothing new, it is the same thing you could archive with normal breeding but it would take centuries and would only work with closely related species.
You see, 1+1 = 2, 1+1 != flesh eating monster
Of course this is in stark contrast to the practice of 'accelerated breeding by random mutations through irradiation' that nobody ever complained about and where most results are far less then desirable and you really have no clue on what else might have changed.
Also, any current GM Crops inherit their traits and are therefore just as 'permanent' as any created using engineered chromosomes.
Oh, and 'permanent' is of course also incorrect, crossbreeding with non-modified crops will of course weaken (and over time could eliminate) the traits and this is the same for the old and this new approach.
Of course Monstante did develop a way to prevent genetic traits to be inherited, but they ineptly name it 'terminator gene' and the whole world screamed in horror until the released it into the public domain and promised to never ever use it.
And now people complain about GM's being too 'permanent'!
In any case, the chromosomes are simply a neat way to package desired genes and it makes the 'injection' much more reliably.
And no worries, GM Plants created using such chromosomes still won't turn into monsters that eat people, really!
It's pretty bewildering to me how the population of /., which seems to be at least above-average in technological literacy in most areas, is so ignorant regarding biotech.
Germplasm/genetic construct patents expire after 20 years, just like any other patents. Also, many universities around the world maintain banks of public domain germplasm. Until Monsanto can destroy all public seed banks (hint: not going to happen), they can't even begin to hope to control all cultivars.