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?)."
Not that it will be tested enough before it is grown and distributed. It wont be long before people all over the world are breathing clouds of genetically engineered pollen. Is this bad? Maybe. But is bothers me a little.
You mean like the hybrids we've been creating since the agricultural revolution?
Is there anything that company can't do? I associate that name with all things that make me nervous or irritated by this point in my life.
Nothing hides evidence like a stew. -Gus Pratt
Five years from release of a few of these new plant lines. Turns out the tomato causes cancer due to some unforseen chemical combo that's being manufactured. They decide to pull them all from the market. Hey, it turns out that 80% of all tomatos in the world are now this new version. But which ones? You have to test each and every plant, or just get rid of them all. And we know how hard it is to get rid of 100% of a certain type of plant. Good luck with your new cancertomatos.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
I had this idea yesterday (alcohol may have been involved).
You could take the genes from geckos/skinks that makes their tails fall off when they are frightened and put it into grass.
Then you could have a lawn that you could mow by going outside and shouting Bang!.
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
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.
It's not like mistakes ever happen with this stuff either. Look at Australia with it's toad and rabbit control problems, when a species is introduced out of its normal environment. What if the GM crop wildely displaces the natural crops by "accident". The company can give the growth chemical for free at first or for a nominal fee - but later on...
This should be boycotted at all costs - Food should always have the option to be grown for free, in your backyard. Yes I think I sound a little survivalist, but this can be a slippery slope, and it's easy to fall downit.
..........FULL STOP.
The article summary is deceptive. Inserting a gene into the current genome of crop is just as permanent a change as added a new mini-chromosome. In either change the changes will be inherited by the offspring of the individual plant.
The main difference between this technology and currect methods on inserting genes is that more than one gene can be added as easily as a single gene, whereas in the previous system "stacking" multiple genes required much more effort than a single gene, since each had to be inserted individually and then combined using conventional breeding.
I for one think this technology is a step in the right direction, as it will make it easier to create artificial species barriers, which require two-five genes to be inserted, but would prevent GM crops from crossbreeding with traditional varieties in the field. THIS IS NOT TERMINATOR TECHNOLOGY! The plants would still be fertile, just only with others carried the added chromosome.
But couldn't they have found someone besides Monsanto to implement it?
is that what was once a commodity market (food) could become an intellectual property driven market.
Piracy will include growing unauthorized crops. This is not good for anyone except for companies like Monsanto.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Can we start splicing chromosomes with humans please? I want my catgirl, dammit. What use is bringing food to the masses when I don't have my fucking catgirl?
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
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
Consider that mankind really hasn't been around that long: Especially in comparison to plant-life.
Consider that mankind is 100% dependent on plant-life to survive.
Altering the genetic structure of our food may seem like a great idea in the short term for many positive reasons, including the elimination of famine.
The problem is we simply do not have the foresight to know what will happen thousands of generations after the epoch of our genetic manipulations: Not only to the plants, but to those who consume them.
Genetic diversity is good, it is necessary for survival. What happens to that diversity when a super-plant is created that dominates all the species around it? Including those that consume it? Will the only thing we can eat a thousand years from now be corn?
Most of the miracles of medicine have been gifts from nature and much of what has been discovered was right in front of us the whole time. Gee that's weird...I ate that piece of moldy bread because I was starving and now I feel better! I thought that mold was going to make me sick.
What if I wasn't starving? What if I had an abundance of bread, because that bread was genetically engineered to resist blight. Since there is no blight, I'm not hungry enough to eat moldy bread, but there isn't even any mold on the bread because mold can't grow on the genectically resistant grain it was made from.
So the whole population becomes fat and happy until a super-bug comes along and knocks out 99% and I die because I didn't eat my moldy bread.I for one would at least like to have a choice, but presently there are no incentives or laws (that I know of) motivating companies to inform you, that they have completely screwed you over, by screwing up the genetic code of what you are eating, just so they can add a few percentage points to their profits, so that the stock price will go up, so that Daddy CEO can retire next year; and that they really don't know what will happen ten years from now, but your generation seems like the perfect guinna pig.
It's important to know that I forgot what I thought I knew when I thought I knew it all:Now I don't even know whatIknow.
The problems they're attempting to solve are:
1) Plants that are resistant to pesticides.
2) Plants that are more resistant to insects.
3) Plants that are more resistant to fungus.
4) Plants that are more resistant to droughts.
5) Plants that have additional nutrients in them.
6) Plants that have higher yield.
Assuming no possibility for cross breeding (which they test the hell out of, just so that their modifications don't get out into the wild), I see no issue with these goals.
Nephilium
The real danger is that this will only help Monsanto increase the number of plants they sell that are unable to produce viable seeds.
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!
The case is nowhere near as straightforward as most people seem to believe. If you research the details, he bought massive quantities of Round-Up, which was basically the first smoking gun in Monsanto's case[1].
The quantity of Round-Up be bought exceeded the amount that could be applied to his non-crop acreage, ruling out the possibility that it was purchased solely for border weed control etc. This was a very strong indication that he not only knew he was growing RR Canola, but that he was actively selecting for it by spraying his fields.
The other smoking gun was the fact that his crop was 95-98% RR canola[2]. That level of 'contamination' indicates very aggressive, active selection for the target genotype. You do not get that from the trace contamination due to windblown seed or accidental cross-pollination.
I don't doubt that the first few plants were accidental, either through unintentional cross-pollination or stray seed, but once he found that they were round-up resistant, he actively worked to integrate the rr the genotype into his own populations. He probably just didn't feel like he was doing anything wrong.
Small-time seed producers have done exactly the same sort thing with non-GMO germplasm from, e.g., Pioneer Hi-Bred for decades. They'd buy and plant a bag of hybrid seed, and look through the field for accidental selfs (plants produced by accidental self-pollination due to incomplete detasseling during hybrid production) to steal their inbreds from their female heterotic lines. That is just as illegal as what Schmeiser did, but you don't really hear about those guys being busted and completely ruined because Pioneer isn't run by the same type of raging pricks as the guys at Monsanto.
[1] http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=gm-54 - "Monsanto argues that in spite of Schmeiser's claims that he did not use Roundup on his crops in 1998, there is no evidence that he used Muster and Assure herbicides as claimed. Furthermore, Monsanto provides evidence that Schmeiser purchased 720 liters of Roundup in 1998."
[2] http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html - Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. ... The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop."