I don't follow. Are you saying that it's OK for us (or our distant descendants) to be wiped out from a meteorite impact because our unfortunate descendants will "technically" be a different species? I would prefer that humanity survive long enough for that to happen.
If you don't want to share anything publicly, don't share anything publicly. Then it doesn't matter if someone adds you to their circles, because they won't see your posts and there's nothing to influence their search results. If you choose to share something publicly, is it a problem if people can find that information when they search for it? If so, why are you sharing it publicly?
Are you talking about exploration, or colonization? I agree that it's silly to send humans to explore, but colonization helps protect against extinction. We sort of have all of our eggs on one basket at the moment.
in the hopes that you will use their products (The OS for MS, Google app for Google) instead of their competition
That tells me you misunderstand Google's goals with respect to Chrome. Why do you believe that increased usage of Chrome implies increased usage of (any) Google property?
To put this another way, it is not necessary for other web browsers to "fail" or lose market share to Chrome for Chrome to be a success for Google. Once you understand why that is, you will understand why drawing a parallel to IE is a flawed exercise.
So you'd prefer that all innovation be done by committee?
There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then, and if you really believe that these situations are similar, I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.
I don't want to stop GE because of what I don't know about it, I want to stop it because of what I do know.
You're essentially admitting that you know little about how genetic engineering works, but you know about history, and "technology", and pollution, and somehow you think that means you can take an educated stance on genetic engineering. I disagree, sorry, and that's really the heart of my point. There is a strong correlation between those that fear GM foods and those that lack education in genetics, and that correlation is important.
But in order for that to be true he would have had to only collect the seed with the trait somehow
He did. He identified the seed with the trait and segregated that seed from the rest of his (unmodified) seed. Please actually read about the case before you call out others' arguments as "bogus".
You didn't actually answer my question. You say you've "worked in labs", which I presume to mean you've worked in the field of gene splicing, so you should be able to tell me (a) why splicing a gene from one wheat varietal into another wheat varietal is dangerous (and more specifically, why it's more dangerous than plant breeding), or if it's not, (b) how dissimilar the source plant has to be from the modified plant before it becomes dangerous, and what the actual danger is.
So far nobody's that's anti-GM has been able to give me a straight answer to this question. It's all boiled down to "I understand how plant breeding works, but gene splicing is black magic and should be feared." But since you say you've "worked in labs", that's almost certainly not the case for you, so I'm really interested in understanding, from a scientific perspective, why these forms of gene splicing are dangerous.
I would not trust "mega farming corporations" to perform scientific studies either, just like I wouldn't trust some random homeless guy on the street to do an appendectomy. But I would not automatically distrust the results from a reputable science lab every time their results end up in the best interests of the company paying them to do the study either. It doesn't even strike me as surprising that you'd find a general correlation between the results of these studies and the interests of the company writing the check, because companies do not tend to fund studies that they suspect will not turn out in their favor, right? So even if all labs were guaranteed to be unbiased, you'd still expect to see a bias in their results because there's frequently a bias in the decision to make the request in the first place.
I don't understand where you got from my post to concerns on regulation of the 'organic' label. Just because regulation exists doesn't mean that the minimum requirements for the 'organic' label aren't dubious. We could create a labeling requirement for "DHMO-free" that states "must contain less than 0.1% by mass of dihydrogen monoxide", and effectively police the use of that label, but that doesn't mean that "DHMO-free" is "better" (but I'm sure if such a label existed, people would think that must mean it's better).
I think you misunderstood. When I say "plant breeding", I'm referring to people stepping in and intentionally crossing two plants with desirable traits to keep that trait going into the plant's offspring. It works by identifying genes by identifying the traits expressed by those genes, and observing when those traits are passed on to the plant's offspring, effectively manipulating the genome of the plants, just by less direct means. The means shouldn't matter, though, right? It's the fact that we have a new plant that has a "designer" genome, so as to express traits that we want. We get that from plant breeding too, so why not hold that up to the same standard?
Typically the answer is, "because that process is natural, and who knows how the artificial process works?" In other words, "I understand how breeding works, but gene splicing is black magic and should be feared."
Yes, this is how farming has been done since time immemorial... right up until Monsanto.
The problem isn't with the farming, the problem is with the exploitation of the patent. We did not have genetic engineering and patents on the result of that engineering "since time immemorial". This wouldn't have been a problem if the traits in question were naturally occurring. These were not naturally occurring, and Schmeiser knew that.
I was responding to the OP saying that money was owed simply because of the contamination. Schmeiser could have ignored the contamination (if you don't attempt to benefit from the gene, you're not profiting from the patent and owe nothing), destroyed the contaminated crops (not a significant loss given the number of acres he normally plants). Nobody owes "IP money" simply as a result of contamination. They have to exploit the patented trait somehow.
He didn't make a contraption that would generate seed like Monsanto's and sell it to others without paying a royalty to Monsanto.
That's not what the patent is for.
People are allowed to look at patents, and make those things for their own personal use.
This wasn't for personal use. He planted 1000 acres and intended to use the properties of the seed to reduce his (commercial) costs. The patent is for making use of the gene (by exploiting the traits that result from it), not for splicing genes into a new seed.
He had physical stuff on land he owned, and did all the physical work himself to make use of that stuff (seed).
If you don't mind, let's get absurd for just a sec. Let's envision a RepRap-like machine: it digs through the soil, extracts metals, and manufactures farm equipment, which can include manufacturing a copy of itself. This process is patented. Now let's say that one of these machines is owned by a neighbor, and inadvertently crosses a fence, digs into this guy's soil, and produces a copy of itself on this guy's land, before ending up back on the other side of the fence. Does he "own" this new machine? Is he free to start using it to produce other farm equipment, thereby reducing his costs, without paying a license fee for making commercial use of a patented process?
Why? The company finding this unprofitable is still taking the money and spending it on (Chinese) parts and labor. This revelation makes no difference to the trade deficit.
Consider: 1. "Naturally" modifying a line by breeding traits from one population into another 2. "Artificially" modifying a line by taking the gene responsible for a trait from one population and placing it into another
Also consider: 3. Both of these methods achieve exactly the same result: a gene responsible for the trait ending up in the resulting population 4. The two populations could be exactly the same species (i.e. the transfer might have happened naturally), or completely different species.
Would you be OK with someone "artificially" modifying wheat by finding a trait in one wheat varietal and transferring it into another? (This is a transfer that could easily happen "in nature".) What about taking genes from barley or rye (very close to wheat, genetically) and transferring them into wheat? (This is less likely to happen "in nature", but the genomes of these grains are very similar and for all we know the gene in question may have existed in a common ancestor.)
In other words, how different do two species have to be before you say the act is dangerous?
But more importantly, why is it dangerous? Is this just fear of something you don't understand?
No they're not. Please provide a citation for your claim that farmers who have had their crops contaminated with GM seed have been forced to start buying from Monsanto. Farms are re-planted every year, and there is nothing whatsoever stopping a farmer from destroying the contaminated crops and re-planting them with their own stockpiled seed. (He may or may not have a claim against his neighbor for the contamination requiring him to destroy those crops.) Further, even if he harvested the GM seed and sold it, so long as he didn't do anything differently (like using Roundup, so as to profit from the benefits of the GM crop), then he didn't even violate the patent in the first place and wouldn't owe Monsanto a penny.
You are undoubtedly referring to the Schmeiser case, where the issue was not contamination, but the behavior of the farmer after he discovered the contamination. (He identified it as herbicide-resistant, collected the seed, segregated the seed, and then planted 1000 acres with the seed, fully intending to take advantage of its properties.)
The problem was not the contamination. No one has ever been forced to pay up simply because their crops were contaminated. The problem was that he knowingly exploited patented properties of a crop he should not have had, and profited from it.
Your other points are interesting and worthy of discussion, but are not relevant.
People have been genetically engineering (selectively breeding) food for thousands of years. How can you say that "any" GMO product is untrustworthy and implicitly trust other forms of genetic engineering? If there is no middle ground whatsoever, exactly what criteria are you using to differentiate between the two that makes it clear that one is untrustworthy?
I think the correct question would be: does it cause cancer at a rate higher than the food it was modified from? I agree: probably not.
What about nutrition?
How did we discover the nutritional properties of any of the food we eat? We test it! This is trivial to do and routinely done for every food on the market today. GM food is no different and its nutritional properties can be fully quantified.
What about tiny, subtle effects that don't show up for 40 years?
What about tiny, subtle effects that don't show up for 40 years when eating non-GM food? What about Twinkies?
I am just a little skeptical. I fear that we don't know enough yet.
We are like monkeys sticking twigs in a precision machine..."Ah, that seems to slow it down"..
I think this speaks more to your (and most people's) lack of education on the current state of the art of genetics and genetic engineering. This is part of the problem, and, unfortunately, can't really be solved without giving every GM critic a degree in genetics, or forcing an oligarchy or technocracy onto everyone.
You could pick any conceivable variation on a crop and say, "evolution would have never produced that," and probably be correct, strictly speaking. But that's not the point, the point is whether or not it's sufficiently similar to the original crop(s) to be safe. The point that people are trying to make when they compare "artificially GM" crops against "naturally GM" crops is that the degree of the modification is similar enough, so that if people are worried about the amount of changes made to an "artificially GM" crop, they should also be worried about 10 generations of selectively-bred "naturally GM" crop.
The second part of that is the nature of the modification itself, and for the most part, the modifications are very well understood. They know what the gene will do (else how could they have found it and isolated it), and they know what it should end up doing in the resulting plant. People treat "artificially GM" crops as unknowns that need controlled clinical trials, just like any other unknown drug, but it's not really the same at all. The plants aren't going to start producing arsenic, or some unknown chemical, and even if they were, we'd be able to trivially see that and then we'd either need to make that stop, or do whatever research is needed to say that it's a safe byproduct. (To my knowledge, I don't know that this has ever happened, but I think it represents the fears that people have.)
I don't think the argument (of those making the argument) against labeling is based on the idea that it's not "relevant", but that labeling something "non-GM" implies something that is unsupported, and that implication drives up costs unnecessarily and irrationally.
the wind doesn't blow proprietary software from nearby windows and OS X boxes onto your linux systems, causing you to owe the IP owners money and disabling your ability to build your own software.
If you're referring to the Schmeiser case, the problem wasn't that his crop was contaminated, it's that he discovered that his crop was contaminated, saved and segregated the seed from the contaminated parts, and then used that seed to plant 1000 acres that he knew would then be herbicide-tolerant. There's a difference between being accidentally contaminated, and actively exploiting a (patented) gene to reduce costs or improve yield. Nobody has owed anyone else money simply because their crops were contaminated, so long as they didn't exploit the properties of that genetic engineering.
That being said, I generally agree that the patent process around this are really dubious and Monsanto in particular is pretty evil, but I think people misunderstand what actually happened with this particular case.
* The IP of drugs are owned and vehemently defended by their owners - GM crops? check!
Many new drugs developed because companies have the ability to profit from their research? check!
* Drugs are extensively tested on a variety of subjects from cute fluffy animals, up to controlled trials of volunteers - GM crops? Hmm.. not so sure of that
Safety trials are not repeated from scratch every time a trivial modification is made to a drug, and even so, drugs are designed to artificially change the way your body works. GM foods are not meaningfully or significantly different from the original, and the original is something your body evolved to consume.
That last bit is really the heart of the debate, right? If a GM crop is really just as different from a non-GM crop in the way that ten generations of non-GM crops are different from each other, should we really freak out about what kinds of health effects we might see from that ten generation gap? Is it a problem that these crops can "contaminate" neighboring fields? People have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years through selective breeding. Why is it OK if a trait appears randomly, by accident, but not OK when we do it deliberately?
Most plants reproduce sexually. This means DNA from one plant gets mixed up with DNA from another plant, producing an genetically "altered" crop. Additionally, Genetic Engineering, in the form of selective plant breeding, has been going on for thousands of years to exploit this fact so as to produce crops that have desirable characteristics. Are you suggesting that we need to stop all of this, and start safety trials on every new generation of crop? If not, what meaningful distinction between these "natural" efforts at genetic engineering, and some "artificial" effort, should be used as the point where safety trials have to be performed?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't follow. Are you saying that it's OK for us (or our distant descendants) to be wiped out from a meteorite impact because our unfortunate descendants will "technically" be a different species? I would prefer that humanity survive long enough for that to happen.
If you don't want to share anything publicly, don't share anything publicly. Then it doesn't matter if someone adds you to their circles, because they won't see your posts and there's nothing to influence their search results. If you choose to share something publicly, is it a problem if people can find that information when they search for it? If so, why are you sharing it publicly?
Are you talking about exploration, or colonization? I agree that it's silly to send humans to explore, but colonization helps protect against extinction. We sort of have all of our eggs on one basket at the moment.
in the hopes that you will use their products (The OS for MS, Google app for Google) instead of their competition
That tells me you misunderstand Google's goals with respect to Chrome. Why do you believe that increased usage of Chrome implies increased usage of (any) Google property?
To put this another way, it is not necessary for other web browsers to "fail" or lose market share to Chrome for Chrome to be a success for Google. Once you understand why that is, you will understand why drawing a parallel to IE is a flawed exercise.
So you'd prefer that all innovation be done by committee?
There is very little resemblance between what Google is doing here and what Microsoft did back then, and if you really believe that these situations are similar, I suspect you misunderstand Google's goals behind Chrome/Chromium.
Is this a question or a statement? Because this does not appear to be part of their terms at all.
I don't want to stop GE because of what I don't know about it, I want to stop it because of what I do know.
You're essentially admitting that you know little about how genetic engineering works, but you know about history, and "technology", and pollution, and somehow you think that means you can take an educated stance on genetic engineering. I disagree, sorry, and that's really the heart of my point. There is a strong correlation between those that fear GM foods and those that lack education in genetics, and that correlation is important.
But in order for that to be true he would have had to only collect the seed with the trait somehow
He did. He identified the seed with the trait and segregated that seed from the rest of his (unmodified) seed. Please actually read about the case before you call out others' arguments as "bogus".
You didn't actually answer my question. You say you've "worked in labs", which I presume to mean you've worked in the field of gene splicing, so you should be able to tell me (a) why splicing a gene from one wheat varietal into another wheat varietal is dangerous (and more specifically, why it's more dangerous than plant breeding), or if it's not, (b) how dissimilar the source plant has to be from the modified plant before it becomes dangerous, and what the actual danger is.
So far nobody's that's anti-GM has been able to give me a straight answer to this question. It's all boiled down to "I understand how plant breeding works, but gene splicing is black magic and should be feared." But since you say you've "worked in labs", that's almost certainly not the case for you, so I'm really interested in understanding, from a scientific perspective, why these forms of gene splicing are dangerous.
I would not trust "mega farming corporations" to perform scientific studies either, just like I wouldn't trust some random homeless guy on the street to do an appendectomy. But I would not automatically distrust the results from a reputable science lab every time their results end up in the best interests of the company paying them to do the study either. It doesn't even strike me as surprising that you'd find a general correlation between the results of these studies and the interests of the company writing the check, because companies do not tend to fund studies that they suspect will not turn out in their favor, right? So even if all labs were guaranteed to be unbiased, you'd still expect to see a bias in their results because there's frequently a bias in the decision to make the request in the first place.
I don't understand where you got from my post to concerns on regulation of the 'organic' label. Just because regulation exists doesn't mean that the minimum requirements for the 'organic' label aren't dubious. We could create a labeling requirement for "DHMO-free" that states "must contain less than 0.1% by mass of dihydrogen monoxide", and effectively police the use of that label, but that doesn't mean that "DHMO-free" is "better" (but I'm sure if such a label existed, people would think that must mean it's better).
I think you misunderstood. When I say "plant breeding", I'm referring to people stepping in and intentionally crossing two plants with desirable traits to keep that trait going into the plant's offspring. It works by identifying genes by identifying the traits expressed by those genes, and observing when those traits are passed on to the plant's offspring, effectively manipulating the genome of the plants, just by less direct means. The means shouldn't matter, though, right? It's the fact that we have a new plant that has a "designer" genome, so as to express traits that we want. We get that from plant breeding too, so why not hold that up to the same standard?
Typically the answer is, "because that process is natural, and who knows how the artificial process works?" In other words, "I understand how breeding works, but gene splicing is black magic and should be feared."
Yes, this is how farming has been done since time immemorial... right up until Monsanto.
The problem isn't with the farming, the problem is with the exploitation of the patent. We did not have genetic engineering and patents on the result of that engineering "since time immemorial". This wouldn't have been a problem if the traits in question were naturally occurring. These were not naturally occurring, and Schmeiser knew that.
I was responding to the OP saying that money was owed simply because of the contamination. Schmeiser could have ignored the contamination (if you don't attempt to benefit from the gene, you're not profiting from the patent and owe nothing), destroyed the contaminated crops (not a significant loss given the number of acres he normally plants). Nobody owes "IP money" simply as a result of contamination. They have to exploit the patented trait somehow.
He didn't make a contraption that would generate seed like Monsanto's and sell it to others without paying a royalty to Monsanto.
That's not what the patent is for.
People are allowed to look at patents, and make those things for their own personal use.
This wasn't for personal use. He planted 1000 acres and intended to use the properties of the seed to reduce his (commercial) costs. The patent is for making use of the gene (by exploiting the traits that result from it), not for splicing genes into a new seed.
He had physical stuff on land he owned, and did all the physical work himself to make use of that stuff (seed).
If you don't mind, let's get absurd for just a sec. Let's envision a RepRap-like machine: it digs through the soil, extracts metals, and manufactures farm equipment, which can include manufacturing a copy of itself. This process is patented. Now let's say that one of these machines is owned by a neighbor, and inadvertently crosses a fence, digs into this guy's soil, and produces a copy of itself on this guy's land, before ending up back on the other side of the fence. Does he "own" this new machine? Is he free to start using it to produce other farm equipment, thereby reducing his costs, without paying a license fee for making commercial use of a patented process?
Why? The company finding this unprofitable is still taking the money and spending it on (Chinese) parts and labor. This revelation makes no difference to the trade deficit.
Consider:
1. "Naturally" modifying a line by breeding traits from one population into another
2. "Artificially" modifying a line by taking the gene responsible for a trait from one population and placing it into another
Also consider:
3. Both of these methods achieve exactly the same result: a gene responsible for the trait ending up in the resulting population
4. The two populations could be exactly the same species (i.e. the transfer might have happened naturally), or completely different species.
Would you be OK with someone "artificially" modifying wheat by finding a trait in one wheat varietal and transferring it into another? (This is a transfer that could easily happen "in nature".)
What about taking genes from barley or rye (very close to wheat, genetically) and transferring them into wheat? (This is less likely to happen "in nature", but the genomes of these grains are very similar and for all we know the gene in question may have existed in a common ancestor.)
In other words, how different do two species have to be before you say the act is dangerous?
But more importantly, why is it dangerous? Is this just fear of something you don't understand?
No they're not. Please provide a citation for your claim that farmers who have had their crops contaminated with GM seed have been forced to start buying from Monsanto. Farms are re-planted every year, and there is nothing whatsoever stopping a farmer from destroying the contaminated crops and re-planting them with their own stockpiled seed. (He may or may not have a claim against his neighbor for the contamination requiring him to destroy those crops.) Further, even if he harvested the GM seed and sold it, so long as he didn't do anything differently (like using Roundup, so as to profit from the benefits of the GM crop), then he didn't even violate the patent in the first place and wouldn't owe Monsanto a penny.
You are undoubtedly referring to the Schmeiser case, where the issue was not contamination, but the behavior of the farmer after he discovered the contamination. (He identified it as herbicide-resistant, collected the seed, segregated the seed, and then planted 1000 acres with the seed, fully intending to take advantage of its properties.)
The problem was not the contamination. No one has ever been forced to pay up simply because their crops were contaminated. The problem was that he knowingly exploited patented properties of a crop he should not have had, and profited from it.
Your other points are interesting and worthy of discussion, but are not relevant.
I wouldn't trust any GMO product.
People have been genetically engineering (selectively breeding) food for thousands of years. How can you say that "any" GMO product is untrustworthy and implicitly trust other forms of genetic engineering? If there is no middle ground whatsoever, exactly what criteria are you using to differentiate between the two that makes it clear that one is untrustworthy?
Does it cause cancer? Probably not.
I think the correct question would be: does it cause cancer at a rate higher than the food it was modified from? I agree: probably not.
What about nutrition?
How did we discover the nutritional properties of any of the food we eat? We test it! This is trivial to do and routinely done for every food on the market today. GM food is no different and its nutritional properties can be fully quantified.
What about tiny, subtle effects that don't show up for 40 years?
What about tiny, subtle effects that don't show up for 40 years when eating non-GM food? What about Twinkies?
I am just a little skeptical. I fear that we don't know enough yet.
We are like monkeys sticking twigs in a precision machine..."Ah, that seems to slow it down"..
I think this speaks more to your (and most people's) lack of education on the current state of the art of genetics and genetic engineering. This is part of the problem, and, unfortunately, can't really be solved without giving every GM critic a degree in genetics, or forcing an oligarchy or technocracy onto everyone.
You could pick any conceivable variation on a crop and say, "evolution would have never produced that," and probably be correct, strictly speaking. But that's not the point, the point is whether or not it's sufficiently similar to the original crop(s) to be safe. The point that people are trying to make when they compare "artificially GM" crops against "naturally GM" crops is that the degree of the modification is similar enough, so that if people are worried about the amount of changes made to an "artificially GM" crop, they should also be worried about 10 generations of selectively-bred "naturally GM" crop.
The second part of that is the nature of the modification itself, and for the most part, the modifications are very well understood. They know what the gene will do (else how could they have found it and isolated it), and they know what it should end up doing in the resulting plant. People treat "artificially GM" crops as unknowns that need controlled clinical trials, just like any other unknown drug, but it's not really the same at all. The plants aren't going to start producing arsenic, or some unknown chemical, and even if they were, we'd be able to trivially see that and then we'd either need to make that stop, or do whatever research is needed to say that it's a safe byproduct. (To my knowledge, I don't know that this has ever happened, but I think it represents the fears that people have.)
I don't think the argument (of those making the argument) against labeling is based on the idea that it's not "relevant", but that labeling something "non-GM" implies something that is unsupported, and that implication drives up costs unnecessarily and irrationally.
the wind doesn't blow proprietary software from nearby windows and OS X boxes onto your linux systems, causing you to owe the IP owners money and disabling your ability to build your own software.
If you're referring to the Schmeiser case, the problem wasn't that his crop was contaminated, it's that he discovered that his crop was contaminated, saved and segregated the seed from the contaminated parts, and then used that seed to plant 1000 acres that he knew would then be herbicide-tolerant. There's a difference between being accidentally contaminated, and actively exploiting a (patented) gene to reduce costs or improve yield. Nobody has owed anyone else money simply because their crops were contaminated, so long as they didn't exploit the properties of that genetic engineering.
That being said, I generally agree that the patent process around this are really dubious and Monsanto in particular is pretty evil, but I think people misunderstand what actually happened with this particular case.
* The IP of drugs are owned and vehemently defended by their owners - GM crops? check!
Many new drugs developed because companies have the ability to profit from their research? check!
* Drugs are extensively tested on a variety of subjects from cute fluffy animals, up to controlled trials of volunteers - GM crops? Hmm .. not so sure of that
Safety trials are not repeated from scratch every time a trivial modification is made to a drug, and even so, drugs are designed to artificially change the way your body works. GM foods are not meaningfully or significantly different from the original, and the original is something your body evolved to consume.
That last bit is really the heart of the debate, right? If a GM crop is really just as different from a non-GM crop in the way that ten generations of non-GM crops are different from each other, should we really freak out about what kinds of health effects we might see from that ten generation gap? Is it a problem that these crops can "contaminate" neighboring fields? People have been genetically engineering crops for thousands of years through selective breeding. Why is it OK if a trait appears randomly, by accident, but not OK when we do it deliberately?
Most plants reproduce sexually. This means DNA from one plant gets mixed up with DNA from another plant, producing an genetically "altered" crop. Additionally, Genetic Engineering, in the form of selective plant breeding, has been going on for thousands of years to exploit this fact so as to produce crops that have desirable characteristics. Are you suggesting that we need to stop all of this, and start safety trials on every new generation of crop? If not, what meaningful distinction between these "natural" efforts at genetic engineering, and some "artificial" effort, should be used as the point where safety trials have to be performed?