Genetically modified foods

Thanks Mr. P, that's exactly the "scandal" I was thinking about. It was something I remembered reading from a couple of years ago - I'd have never found the link.My impression at the time was the same as yours - the plants were infertile hence there would be no problem with hybridization. I guess I was wrong - I'm not a botanist and didn't really pay much attention at the time. Maybe I should take another look. (So much to learn, so little time!)

gene90: I'm not sure I agree with you. I'm much more nervous about gene-engineering species-specific pathogens than I am about using exotics to combat exotics. Given the state of the art in microbiology (where they can't even really agree on the phylogeny of prokaryote agamaspecies - let alone having a good handle on their evolution or the mechanisms of coevolution at this level), in spite of amazing strides in the science I'm not sure we have sufficient understanding of the ease in which bacterial (for example) lateral gene transfer occurs among other issues. It would be even easier for bacterial pathogens to jump species than it would for those European flea beetles I mentioned. The threat from transgenic crops or exotic speciation pales in comparison. There's a REAL doomsday scenario for you. Lots more research is needed before anybody should even think about releasing tailored bacteria into the environment.

[QUOTE][b]I'm much more nervous about gene-engineering species-specific pathogens than I am about using exotics to combat exotics. [/QUOTE][/b]I was thinking more along the lines of engineering virii (less horizontal gene transfer) or perhaps fungal infections (fungi are the leading plant pathogens but we would have a problem with host specificity) than using a bacterial or procaryotic agent.
I profess ignorance of lateral gene transfer in fungi but I understand that virii can jump species, are involved in lateral gene transfer, and often can infect closely related species. [QUOTE][b]phylogeny of prokaryote agamaspecies - let alone having a good handle on their evolution or the mechanisms of coevolution at this level)[/QUOTE][/b]In that case, I guess they were divinely created. "Agamaspecies" is a term I'm not familiar with. More info or URLs would be appreciated. [QUOTE][b]Lots more research is needed before anybody should even think about releasing tailored bacteria into the environment.[/QUOTE][/b]I thought GM bacteria were already being released into the environment for bioremedition, ie, oil spills, etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I was thinking more along the lines of engineering virii (less horizontal gene transfer) or perhaps fungal infections (fungi are the leading plant pathogens but we would have a problem with host specificity) than using a bacterial or procaryotic agent.
I profess ignorance of lateral gene transfer in fungi but I understand that virii can jump species, are involved in lateral gene transfer, and often can infect closely related species.

---

That's the heart of my concern. I don't know that much about it either, really. I'm just aware that bacteria can evolve very rapidly under selection pressure and that they are much more highly subject to mutation due to the simplified genome and asexual reproduction - let alone gene transfer (which is almost the equivalent of the creationist demand that a lizard hatch from a chicken egg). The results are actually remarkably Lamarckian - inheritance of acquired traits!

quote:

---

In that case, I guess they were divinely created.

---

No doubt.

quote:

---

"Agamaspecies" is a term I'm not familiar with. More info or URLs would be appreciated.

---

Sorry, reading your post I realized that was a typo - it should be agamospecies. Without getting too deep into it, the biological species concept breaks down when you deal with the taxonomy of asexual lineages. Since biological "species" relates to reproducing populations intrinsically isolated from reproducing with other closely related populations, this idea of species obviously doesn't work in asexual organisms. What happens is an asexual organism basically clones itself. A mutation (or acquisition of new genetic material) creates a new clone lineage, and so on. Since NS is operating on each and every clone, a lot of the intermediates between two "bundles" of no-longer-identical clone lineages are eliminated. The remaining "bundles" are called agamospecies. Probably more than you needed or wanted to know. I suppose the bundles could be considered "species", but the concept gets even squishier at the microbial level.

quote:

---

I thought GM bacteria were already being released into the environment for bioremedition, ie, oil spills, etc.

---

True. However, I think there may be an intrinsic difference between gene-engineering something that can metabolize an organic compound and something engineered as an infectious pathogen. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps Dr. T can provide more info - I'm now totally talking out my ass...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:
I thought GM bacteria were already being released into the environment for bioremedition, ie, oil spills, etc.

---

True. However, I think there may be an intrinsic difference between gene-engineering something that can metabolize an organic compound and something engineered as an infectious pathogen. Maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps Dr. T can provide more info - I'm now totally talking out my ass...[/B][/QUOTE]Good afternoon, well I am a Research Biochemist/Process Development scientist but I have done a little molecular biology. While the methods used in the engineering of bacteria may be the same whether you are making it able to eat plastic or oil or whether you are making it secrete a toxin to bugs, I agree that the end point is different. The problems with the release of modified bacteria into the environment is unintended consequences. Here is a simple example. I make a bacteria known to associate with a plant so that the bacteria produces/secretes a protein toxic to a major pest, such as a bore worm. I put the protein toxin into a plasmid or even into a section of the bacterial chromosome. Either the plasmid or the section of the chromosome can, under the proper conditions, be transfered into a different bacteria. If this protein is toxic to a portion of the human population and is introduced into one of the forms of E. coli that inhabit the human gut then there is a problem. People may say that this is far fetched, but the introduction of antibiotics into animal feeds resulted in the selection of soil bacteria containing plasmid markers for antibiotic resistence. These have been shown to have transfered into a number of human pathogens, and this is only one way in which these transfers of genetic material have occured. Proper selection of the bacteria (ie bacteria with Rec A-, meaning missing a gene for recombining the bacterial plasmid and chromosomal DNA) can help decrease the odds of potential problems but people need to think before they do things. That would be a change wouldn't it .OK, as to the genetically modified plants I have some serious concerns over some of what is going on. While I generally support some modification (ie the use of the new "golden" rice with increased vitamin A) I am more concerned with some of the other modifications, i.e. pathogens and this termination technology. Gene tranfer in plants is very easy when compared to gene transfer in animals, insects or most other multicellular organisms (ie moble organisms). Here is just a little info on natural gene tranfer in plants:
http://www.agwest.sk.ca/infosource/inf_apr96.html
Man just has taken partial control over what nature was doing already. If this termination gene should be transfered into another plant it could cause all kinds of havoc, the same with other genes. Hell, bacteria do not even need to be involved in all the steps. There is currently concern in Mexico over genetically modified corn mixing with the native corn stock which could dilute or destroy the diversity of the corn stocks. If gene duplication and/or cross over occurs and activates a number of these toxic or termination compounds we could have some serious problems.I do not want to take a Luddite style approach in a manner similar to Jerimy Rifkin (sp?) or Ralph Nader as I consider them to be a pair of idiots. That said, the insertion of certian genes into plants that are placed into the fields is a little scary, people say that these fields are controlled but I know someone who used to test for the Round-Up markers in fields adjacent to fields planted with Round-Up resistent strains and there was significant contamination of the off use sites. Strict containment of these sites is, IMO, a fairy tale. I am very afraid that in the rush to put these products out that we might end up putting serious future problems into the biosphere.Well, thats my 2 cents.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Thanks Dr. T, appreciate the insights. Nothing like reinforcing my paranoia .

Isn't the risk of contaminating the gene pool of native cornstocks in Mexico with GM corn the same as contaminating with standard "domesticated" corn?

my opinion on GE foods:
"quote. i would rather eat garbage than eat GE food. end quote" quoted Noel Olson aka KingPenguin------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

The matter of this topic was brought up here.My impression is that mainstream science thinks that concern about the potential adverse effects of genetically modified crops are NOT justified.I think that you damn well better error on the side of safety, for there's no going back.Moose

I don't believe there's a substantiated threat to our health, no.But there are substantiated risks to "natural" populations of food crops; plants do reproduce sexually, after all, and many of our food crops air-pollenate. There's no telling where these new genes might end up, or what the result might be.

Look at it this way, though. Without genetic engineering, Malthus would have been right about mass starvation.

I dunno about that. Norman Borlaug fed a billion people in India and Pakistan with Norin 10 wheat, which they created with nothing more that the same horticultural techniques we used to create wheat in the first place.I'm not against genetic engineering, by any means. But transgenic crops are a far cry from the sort of selective breeding constituting the bulk of the history of horitculture. This new genetic engineering is lightyears beyond that.

I worked for a year and a half in a lab dealing with transgenic plants. Everytime we were done with the plants, we incinerated them immediately. Only the ones that are labeled as "safe" are used in mainstream agriculture. Don't worry, there are safeguards in place that prevent something like giant man-eating plants growing out of engineered-wild hybrids.

Have there ever been any instances of any form of disease attributed to the consumption of genetically altered food that had been regarded as "safe"? I haven't heard of any, but if anyone else has, I'd like to know. I'm sure the "You'll grow three eyes!!" people are full of crap, but what about realistic diseases?Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't both the FDA and EPA, at least in the United States, test GM foods rigorously to make sure there will be no adverse effect, either to the consumer or to the environment? I'm sure they do make mistakes from time to time, and I'm not so sure I would want to trust a government agency in this country anyway, but I would think that if they have been testing them thoroughly, and no adverse effects have been seen in people and animals eating this food, and no GM species have escaped into the environment to do serious damage, then GM foods are fine by me.If my thoughts on this are correct, GM foods could help alleviate some of the many problems people in developing countries face. I realize it won't be a panacea for the world's problems, but if it suddenly became easier to grow food in infertile areas, it might help things out a bit.

What about the spread and replacement possibilities though. For example, just recently the EPA release a study on GM Bent Grass grown near Madras, Colorado spreading through wind blown polination many times further than expected. IIRC, there were signs of the GM variety as far as 21K from the source.The risk of herbicide resistant grasses getting into crop areas is certainly something worth concern.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion