Genetically modified foods

Are the current processes of "genetically modified foods" going to far.My short answer: YesMoose------------------
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I'm bringing this over from message 41 of "Evolution and Christianity Reconciled" at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=2&t=51&m=41#41It is my response to Percy's comment, quoted below.

quote:

---

Gene splicing has a number of notable successes. We have insect resistant corn and cotton, herbicide resistant soybeans, virus resistant papaya trees, more digestible feed grains, and vegetables that transport better.

---

This may be a matter for a whole new topic (I think I may even have already started such, quite a while back).I am highly leery to down right scared of the long term ecological implications of geneticly modified foods. I used to think Jeremy Rifken(sp?) was a total crackpot; Now I am wondering if he was/is a great visionary.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

I think that whatever we do as a technological species is going to affect the environment, probably adversely, and most of what we do that does affect the environment is originating from agriculture. Hence, whatever makes agriculture more efficient without sufficiently increasing the load of chemical controls, is likely to be beneficial.There are many potential dangers with GM crops but there are many dangers in just about anything we do. Some are obvious, some less so. For example, what are two of the primary human-generated sources of methane into the atmosphere? The obvious answer is cattle but two other huge sources are our "clean" hydroelectric power plants (decomposing submerged vegetation) and SE Asian rice paddies (same reason). Most would think that rice would be the perfect food for an environmentally responsible Vegan culture but it is actually an environmentally irresponsible choice when overused.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
I think that whatever we do as a technological species is going to affect the environment, probably adversely, and most of what we do that does affect the environment is originating from agriculture.

---

The problem as I see it, is not the splicing ability per say but rather how the information ideas all seem to be LIMITED in broader discussions of heritability to the coded relation of DNA and protein and any success in applying that information via messengers RNA, reagents, catalysts, carbon intermediates etc. These things can go forward.Simlarly there is an engineering problem with the same information that leads one to think of the cell bag as minostrone soup and forget ones sensory physiology since physiological genetics would tend to be moved more by transmission genetics than any evoked response behaviorlly. This leads to acceptance of "electro-pollution" which is not acceptable. These things should not go forward.
[b] [QUOTE] Hence, whatever makes agriculture more efficient without sufficiently increasing the load of chemical controls, is likely to be beneficial. [/b][/QUOTE]This is frightening to me because it is not the additive "load" per say that is even more worrysome than the reductionist "attitude" above but the idea of creating physical 3-D replicating external variables that which could locally increase some agricultural productivty and as such become introduced (I do not know that any such thing exists as yet) but when ecologically disperesed from the evirons of the crop, herd etc could by some other means change the "ecosystem". The thinking that gives us electro-pollution is doubly blind to this check on economic growth and the excitment in the nano-science industry could only be the tip of the ice berg of this issue for tissue.

Although not appearing in a peer reviewed journal ("The Scientist"), this article would seem to bear on Moose's question: Toxicologists Label GM Foods Safe.

Actually, I'm more concerned with the sociological/economic/ecologic aspects.Is it big business out to make big money, by taking atvantage of the "have nots", and are they going to cause nasty ecologic impacts in the process?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Moose: Sorry about the "post and run", but I was late for a meeting. I understand your concern about ecological impacts. When I first heard about GM food crops, I was a bit worried that there had been insufficient testing done to insure that hybridization or natural reseeding outside of the cultivated areas wouldn't cause ecological catastrophe. Some of that concern has been assuaged both by things I've read and (believe it or not) complaints by anti-GM activists.The latter case is interesting - anti-GM activists a couple of years ago started ranting about biotech companies cheating farmers with their "frankenfood" seeds. Apparently, it was discovered that the new grains being proposed were not fertile - iow the farmers would have to buy new seeds every year. If that's the case, escaping control would seem to be less of a concern.Another positive sign is the result/success from other transgenic crops - that also haven't escaped control. One example is about 8 million hectares planted with crops (corn, cotton, and potatoes) that have had genes from Bacillus thuringensis inserted which create a protein that kills moths and butterflies - a natural pesticide.Where my real concern remains is in a related issue - the release of exotics to combat invasive species. We've had incredibly bad luck worldwide with this effort (usually the cure turns out almost worse or at least as bad as the disease). And yet, more large scale experiments are in process. One includes the release over large areas of Nebraska, Wyoming and the Dakotas of the European Aphthona negriscutis beetles in an effort to combat another highly destructive invasive species, leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). So far, the beetles are doing a bang-up job destroying the spurge. However, unlike infertile transgenic crops, insects are great at jumping species. When the spurge is gone, selection pressure alone might get these beetles interested in other, native grasses. The Aussies probably have some experience in this area they could relate.Anyway, just my $.02.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

​

The latter case is interesting - anti-GM activists a couple of years ago started ranting about biotech companies cheating farmers with their "frankenfood" seeds. Apparently, it was discovered that the new grains being proposed were not fertile - iow the farmers would have to buy new seeds every year. If that's the case, escaping control would seem to be less of a concern.

​

---

Hi Quetz,Not that I doubt you, & this a comment on how little I know about GM seeds. But, how do you grow a plant whose seeds are infertile? ie Where does the second generation come from?Mark(like seedless grapes )------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"But, how do you grow a plant whose seeds are infertile? ie Where does the second generation come from?"
--If I am interpereting your question right, I would have to say the various processes of asexual reproduction in plants. Asexual reproduction of course does not require fertilization, it replicates or clones itself. Asexual reproduction in plants is commonly called vegetative reproduction, it involves fragmentation, the separation of parts from the parent plant and regeneration of the parts into whole plants. Good examples of this are garlic bulbs, creosete bushes, dune grass, raspberries, or redwood trees.
--(added by edit) hm, well after taking another look at your question and then reading Quetzals post again, I don't think this was what you were looking for, seems like the seeds being infertile was the whole scam, with them having to buy new seeds every year(because they didn't grow?).------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 04-15-2002]

Not because they didn't grow, but how did they get plant seeds that produce infertile seeds, if not from plants that produce infertile seeds, but then, how do ......There's obviously a simple answer....Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Not because they didn't grow, but how did they get plant seeds that produce infertile seeds, if not from plants that produce infertile seeds, but then, how do ......
There's obviously a simple answer....
Mark

---

This link is the best intro to the "terminator" gene technology I have read ... http://www.victoryseeds.com/news/terminator_gene.html from the wonderful online retailer Victory Seeds.For those who do not want to read the whole link, here is a summary ...
"The system has three key components: 1. A gene for a toxin that will kill the seed late in development, but that will not kill any other part of the plant. 2. A method for allowing a plant breeder to grow several generations of cotton plants, already genetically-engineered to contain the seed-specific toxin gene, without any seeds dying. This is required to produce enough seeds to sell for farmers to plant. 3. A method for activating the engineered seed-specific toxin gene after the farmer plants the seeds, so that the farmer's second generation will be killed.These three tasks are accomplished by engineering a series of genes, which are all transferred permanently to the plant, so that they are passed on via the normal reproduction of the plant"The link explains these components in more detail.I am very concerned about genetically engineered crops: far more so than genetically engineered animals. Horizontal gene transfer can occur in plants through a number of methods - the ability of many plants to reproduce asexually and the planting of large scale crops together override the evolutionary checks and balances that operate in natural environments and traditional non-intensive farming.There is a danger of horizontal gene transfer from animal to human via retroviral sequences but, while this may be worrying because it directly affects humans, the scale of the transfer is unlikely to dramatic and may be "nipped in the bud" quite early.

Thanks, Mr P,Sneaky bastards!I tend to agree, although it is possible, obviously, to terminate seeds, I think this is the exception rather than the rule. I am not convinced that these GM crops are reproductively isolated from "natural" crops, which, to be fair, bear no resemblance to "wild type" species 4,000 years ago +, anyhow. However, the point must therefore be made that these crops, because of their ability to send pollen over large distances have already "infected" non-GM crops. Now, I am told by the government that GM crops present no danger. But then, my friend who fought in the Gulf War of '91, was told by that same (UK) government that Gulf War Syndrome didn't exist........ I reserve the right to be sceptical!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

More so than ever, I fear that when the interests of big business and the interests of environmental concerns are in conflict, the environment is liable to suffer.Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Thanks, Mr P,
Sneaky bastards!

---

They certainly are. You know, when all this terminator gene stuff started coming out, I thought they had simply cracked some way of creating infertile hybrids reliably on a massive scale - not too much problem with that, and probably no great worries if they turned out not to be so infertile.But when I realised that there pretty extreme post-zygotic terminations going on, I realised the name lived up to the hype.

I think it makes more sense to engineer diseases to smite unwanted species than to introduce something else. Of course, possible lack of host specificity is the problem with that. And I'm also sure that environmental activists would rain hellfire down on any who dared suggest such a thing.