toldailytopic: You are what you eat. How do you feel about genetically modified organ

[BigBoof1959]

[QUOTE]

When I was an undergraduate, in the 60s, they were discussing the functions of non-coding DNA ("junk DNA" is kind of a joking term for biologists).

So over half a century since they learned that "junk DNA" had some functions.

They knew it had functions, but didn't know what they were, and still felt comfortable messing around with the parts they thought they understood?

It's not like X-Men. No magic. Same stuff as in nature.

You know darn well genetic manipulation is taking place in ways that are impossible for natural breeding to produce. Genes from species totally incapable of interbreeding naturally are being inserted into one another.

Even that happens in nature. It's called "lateral gene transfer" and although it's not common, it sometimes it becomes a factor in evolution.

Lateral gene transfer in nature would have to take place between individuals that shared enough in common to interbreed successfully. Artificially inserting foreign dna sequences (genes) into a creature that normally would not have an opportunity of receiving this gene may seem to you to be something that is not that dangerous. But what happens when two (or likely more than two) animals of the same species, each having genes artificially inserted into their genomes from two different, naturally incompatible other species escape from a lab or research farm and interbreed with each other? Changes can compound rather quickly for quite some time.

These are always concerns, but that's the case with organisms modified by traditional methods as well. The one case that concerns me is the possibility of lateral gene tranfer of the BT inclusion crystal gene from corn to milkweed. The material, found in Bacillus thurengensis, is toxic to moths and butterflies. It provides great protection against some common insect pests on corn, but if it should get established in milkweed, it would devastate the Monarch butterfly population.

This points out one of the big problems with man using knowledge in a way that seems good but produces bad fruit. The scientists working on manipulating plant genomes to include a built in pesticide factory are playing with dynamite. Any naturally occurring examples of plants producing certain compounds with pesticidal properties would have done so over long periods of time and the results of potential interbreeding problems or lateral transfer would be known. Genetic manipulators in the lab are going ahead at such a fast pace, and with such a short-sighted focus, that the results of their work may achieve the goal they set for it, but the side effects are unknown. Who knows, maybe we should just let them manipulate the monarch butterfly's genome so it can withstand the onslaught of their latest achievement. From there they can go on to fixing the next problem they have created. Pretty soon, no one will know what to call any of their concoctions. We are still learning things we don't know about the species that have been around for millenia, and now we will be able to keep track of new additions being added every year or month? And foresee the possible negative effects that could arise in time to control them?

[Alate_One]

Lateral gene transfer in nature would have to take place between individuals that shared enough in common to interbreed successfully.

WRONG. Horizontal or Lateral gene transfer is by definition transfer between organisms that cannot interbreed. Examples being Parasitic plants picking up genes from their host plant and Aphids picking up genes from fungi.

Artificially inserting foreign dna sequences (genes) into a creature that normally would not have an opportunity of receiving this gene may seem to you to be something that is not that dangerous. But what happens when two (or likely more than two) animals of the same species, each having genes artificially inserted into their genomes from two different, naturally incompatible other species escape from a lab or research farm and interbreed with each other?

You realize this can happen through traditional breeding? And even if the genes escape, is that necessarily bad if there is no selective advantage for those genes in nature?

[Alate_One]

It would be more instructive to read the reply to the criticisms from the study authors that I posted previously. Here it is again:

Answers to critics: Why there is a long term toxicity due to a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize and to a Roundup herbicide

And their response mostly consists of variations on "nuh-uh", I can't say I'm impressed.

Perhaps you should have several looks until you are convinced.

Why should I be convinced by bad science? Perhaps you should be willing to be convinced by the weight of evidence rather than cherry picking a paper that supports your conclusion?

Prove your claim.

The EPA considers it low toxicity because of considerable animal testing.

Here is a review of numerous studies showing no risk to human health from glyphosate.

Here's a review from the EU, saying the same thing.

Monsanto is not a good actor in these matters, but Round Up is actually about as good as a chemical pesticide can get.

You will have to ask the developers of Roundup ready corn. Are you wanting to imply that GMO is unnecessary?

Some GMOs are more useful than others. But in terms of human health, round up ready GM crops are among the lowest risk of any GMOs and round up is about as low risk of a pesticide as you can get.

I would be far more concerned about residues from pesticides on non-GM apples and strawberries as well as mercury and PCBs in fish than round up and round up ready crops. The level of risk just isn't there.

[Delmar]

If you don't like modern hybrids, do a search on "heirloom plants."

Lots of old varieties still available.

and becoming increasingly popular.

[moparguy]

GM is completely different than natural breeding.

How can you call something "natural breeding" when said form of breeding would *not happen without human intervention?*

GMO, bad ... millenia of eugenics programs producing the *exact same sort of results, EEEEVILLLLLLL!

I swear, this is hilarious.

[The Barbarian]

and becoming increasingly popular.

My wife is searching for the old New England "Peace Rose" variety. Not sure if it's hardy in Texas, but she wants to try.

And yes, roses that are not so showy, but retain that wonderful fragrance are better, in my opinion.

[Alate_One]

My wife is searching for the old New England "Peace Rose" variety. Not sure if it's hardy in Texas, but she wants to try.

I guess I wouldn't consider "Peace" to be an heirloom variety. If it's what I'm thinking of, it was bred in the late 30s in France. The variety was sent out just before the war and was given the trade name "Peace" after the war ended.



Heirloom/ Old garden roses are usually considered only those bred before 1867.

Peace shouldn't be particularly hard to find and would do far better in Texas than New England. Main problem with it is disease, not hardiness. If you're in Texas though I'd recommend the Antique Rose Emporium. If you want some actual old garden roses.

With respect to the topic at hand I don't think there are any GM roses commercially available at current. I originally wanted to do my PhD in that area but alas it wasn't to be. There was a "blue" rose in the news a while back but it wasn't any more blue than conventionally bred "blue" roses. There are GM purple carnations you can buy through high end florists, though.

And yes, roses that are not so showy, but retain that wonderful fragrance are better, in my opinion.

I recommend a variety called Marie Pavie for that. It's a small bush wish small flowers but the fragrance is amazing.

[Clem]

A very bad idea to mess with such things, especially when terrible mistakes could be spread by the wind or by flying insects. One bad mistake could kill off all bees, and then where would we be? Experiments with animal DNA might be safe an useful, so long as our motives are pure, but God has given us science as a gift, not to give us a (false) sense of purpose by making us see ourselves as godlike.

And, I'm mistrustful of the profit motive, which tries to create an artificial world where everything can be patented !!