Independent Research? [modified]
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Am I to assume that you are angry that there is opposition to the widespread industrial use of GMO's until we know more about the impact on our food supply and environment?
I think that putting all genetic modification under the same umbrella is alarmist. Take todays article, for example. In absence of the study that Greenpeace cites, all the information I've seen published on the MON638 strain has been overwhelmingly positive. It's a relatively small modification, the protein in question has years of research and plenty of well-investigated homologues. As I've said, having read the data available to me, I wouldn't have a problem eating it. Secondly, you have to realize that there is no immediately obvious link between the protein being expressed and any sort of physiological nephro/hepatotoxicity. So yes - I'm slightly skeptical about the study. I'd need to read it - not all studies are created equal. Some pretty awful ones make it past peer review. It's also completely possible that this modification may actually be hazardous. There are legitimate concerns with GMOs - but it strongly depends on the GMO in question. Every single one will be different, with different potential challenges and different potential effects on the environment and on the "end-user." So to me it's both silly and counterproductive to say "No GM!" GMOs are just a faster means of what the human race has been accomplishing for thousands of years with selective breeding.
oilFactotum wrote:
What is the problem with waiting?
Honestly? Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops, etc. Making better use of crop space is better for the environment. They can reduce the need for costly (both financially and environmentally) chemical pesticides. Etc. And, if we go too far down this road of "wait-and-see", it would be possible to wait forever. We're never going to get a 100% "safety" ruling, because that's simply not the way science or the world works. We go on our best guess. And with that in mind, I point at how the pharmaceutical industry considers the general public: as phase 4 of clinical trials. I know a lot of people find that distateful because they don't like being considered as guinea pigs - but I do think it's a necessary evil. In light of this, in order for the GMO industry to develop, it has to try implement
For an ecosystem that takes millions of years to gain its equalibrium, are you really trusting that the genetic encoding that we make won't have consequences? It always amazes me that we can't develop complex software systems without bugs, yet people want to trust genetically modified anything. What are the consequences of bugs in genetic encoding? Look to the farm belt in Indiana for instance where the round up crops are corrupting the eco system. Regardless of whether its safe for consumption, we are messing with a carefully balanced system that took years to develop and think we're smart enough not to screw it up. Astounding.
This statement was never false.
-
Problems with GMO is not only about the toxicity of their embedded proteins, but also on the consequences of the propagation of this protein in the wild. First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Because there are starving people in the world who would benefit immediately from sturdier crops, more pest resiliant crops
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^]. I'm not by principle opposed to GMO, I believe it can be a way to reduce use of pesticide and herbicide which are a huge but not mediatized enough problem. However, I think we have to be very, very careful and cannot trust the GMO makers, especially when they pay for the scientific study.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
K(arl) wrote:
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^].
Exactly. In India, the grain that is distributed is sterile and poor farmers are forced to purchase seed each year. Wow, what a benefit.
This statement was never false.
-
Very good points. However...
K(arl) wrote:
First, the modified genes travels, they don't stay in the field where the GMO crops are. Next, they can interact either with other plants which are 'compatible[^]' or could even affect other organisms as bacterias.
I'll just say I agree with the website you quoted: Prospective ecological consequences of an out-crossing event need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The out-crossing of an herbicide resistance gene to a wild relative should not be considered particularly important, because herbicide is rarely used outside of the field or the farm. Aside from this, I really don't think there's much we can do about the unintended consequences, but hopefully (with proper regulation of the GMO industry) we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
K(arl) wrote:
People are not starving because there is not enough food. They are starving because they can not afford it. And they won't be able to buy GMO crops either - especially when GMO plants are made to produce sterile grains[^].
Part of the reason they're made to produce sterile grains is to prevent the spread of the transgene into the wild, which helps address the environmental concerns in your first paragraph. (It certainly doesn't hurt the GMO maker's pocketbook, though). Unfortunately, we can't have it both ways. I also recall an incident where an African nation outright refused a (very likely) safe GMO crop donation simply because it was GM. This was largely due to Greenpeace's lobbying, IIRC. I don't think that's productive or helpful. It is a very difficult issue.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs wrote:
Aside from this, I really don't think there's much we can do about the unintended consequences, but hopefully (with proper regulation of the GMO industry) we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
And if its too late? Ecological consequences won't be so easy to clean up. More likely it'll be one goose chase after another. Like a badly coded mutli-threaded program, that deadlocks due to not paying attention to order of access, after this has reached a few hundred thousand lines of code, the only solution is a re-write often times. We can't rewrite our eco system.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is a very difficult issue.
Not if they send non-sterile, non-gmo seed.
This statement was never false.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Aside from this, I really don't think there's much we can do about the unintended consequences, but hopefully (with proper regulation of the GMO industry) we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
And if its too late? Ecological consequences won't be so easy to clean up. More likely it'll be one goose chase after another. Like a badly coded mutli-threaded program, that deadlocks due to not paying attention to order of access, after this has reached a few hundred thousand lines of code, the only solution is a re-write often times. We can't rewrite our eco system.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is a very difficult issue.
Not if they send non-sterile, non-gmo seed.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And if its too late?
Well, then, let's never do anything, because there might be unintended consequences.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
More likely it'll be one goose chase after another.
Irresponsible, uninformed speculation.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Like a badly coded mutli-threaded program, that deadlocks due to not paying attention to order of access, after this has reached a few hundred thousand lines of code, the only solution is a re-write often times. We can't rewrite our eco system.
Having worked on both, you cannot use computer systems as an analogy to living systems. They are profoundly different.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Not if they send non-sterile, non-gmo seed.
A large concern of GMO is to grow better crops in harsher places with a larger yield. This doesn't address that issue.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
For an ecosystem that takes millions of years to gain its equalibrium, are you really trusting that the genetic encoding that we make won't have consequences? It always amazes me that we can't develop complex software systems without bugs, yet people want to trust genetically modified anything. What are the consequences of bugs in genetic encoding? Look to the farm belt in Indiana for instance where the round up crops are corrupting the eco system. Regardless of whether its safe for consumption, we are messing with a carefully balanced system that took years to develop and think we're smart enough not to screw it up. Astounding.
This statement was never false.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
For an ecosystem that takes millions of years to gain its equalibrium, are you really trusting that the genetic encoding that we make won't have consequences?
Our ecosystem is not at equilibrium. It is always changing, with or without us.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It always amazes me that we can't develop complex software systems without bugs, yet people want to trust genetically modified anything. What are the consequences of bugs in genetic encoding?
For the third and final time (since clearly nobody is reading what I write anyway) you cannot just put all GMOs under one blanket like that. Each case needs to be individually examined for potential cost and potential benefit.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
there's much we can do about the unintended consequences
Study, study and study again. We can not afford a biogenic Chernobyl.
Fisticuffs wrote:
we can learn from the consequences when they occur.
It depends of the consequences, and if there's still somebody to learn.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Part of the reason they're made to produce sterile grains is to prevent the spread of the transgene into the wild,
No, because it does not prevent pollen spreading but make grains sterile. The "terminator" gene is made to oblige farmers to buy new crops every year and make them dependent of Monsanto and Co.
Fisticuffs wrote:
It is a very difficult issue.
Absolutely. That's why we should not trust GMO industries. We should apply the Precautionary principle[^]
Where do you expect us to go when the bombs fall?
-
Both are gonna be biased. The difference is what's public. Monsanto doesn't want their biased study to stand up to the rigors of scrutiny, yet the biased Greenpeace study is available for scrutiny. Heh, do you just dismiss the word: "probably"? This implies a guess.
This statement was never false.
-
K(arl) wrote:
No, because it does not prevent pollen spreading but make grains sterile.
Having a sterile grain means by definition the pollen either will not be produced or will not be viable.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
-
Hum, no. The pollen is not mandatory the carrier of the terminator gene, it could be included in the ovule.
The most wasted of all days is that on which one has not laughed Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
And if its too late?
Well, then, let's never do anything, because there might be unintended consequences.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
More likely it'll be one goose chase after another.
Irresponsible, uninformed speculation.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Like a badly coded mutli-threaded program, that deadlocks due to not paying attention to order of access, after this has reached a few hundred thousand lines of code, the only solution is a re-write often times. We can't rewrite our eco system.
Having worked on both, you cannot use computer systems as an analogy to living systems. They are profoundly different.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
Not if they send non-sterile, non-gmo seed.
A large concern of GMO is to grow better crops in harsher places with a larger yield. This doesn't address that issue.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, then, let's never do anything, because there might be unintended consequences.
Nice, exaggerate why don't you. Gamble with your own life, but not the life of the planet. Do you really think that we can correctly code that complex of a system? One that took millions of years to establish its equalibrium? Never do anything. Well, gotta first rate the risk. In this case, the risk is too great til there's more data to suggest that we can program biological systems without bugs. Or at least without bugs of consequence. Microsoft can't even write an OS that can function properly. Why do you think we could take on the biological system of this planet when there is rarely a bug free software system on this planet?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Irresponsible, uninformed speculation.
Irresponsible is fucking with the eco-system like we're some gifted set of bio-engineers. Oh, in our paltry 200 years of science we've figured it out. Whatever. Gamble with your own life.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Having worked on both, you cannot use computer systems as an analogy to living systems. They are profoundly different.
When programming the genome, it isn't. One of the issues with cloning, is that there can only be a few mistakes acceptable. Out of millions of sequences that have to coded perfectly, human error makes this unacceptable. We just aren't good enough and that analogy stands up.
Fisticuffs wrote:
A large concern of GMO is to grow better crops in harsher places with a larger yield. This doesn't address that issue.
You can't dismiss the economic reality that's coupled with it. These same harsh areas are also some of the poorest. So, believe what you want. Time will tell. Hope your gamble pays off. I'll stick to the odds.
This statement was never false.
-
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
For an ecosystem that takes millions of years to gain its equalibrium, are you really trusting that the genetic encoding that we make won't have consequences?
Our ecosystem is not at equilibrium. It is always changing, with or without us.
Chris-Kaiser wrote:
It always amazes me that we can't develop complex software systems without bugs, yet people want to trust genetically modified anything. What are the consequences of bugs in genetic encoding?
For the third and final time (since clearly nobody is reading what I write anyway) you cannot just put all GMOs under one blanket like that. Each case needs to be individually examined for potential cost and potential benefit.
- F "You are really weird." - Kyle, age 16
Fisticuffs wrote:
Our ecosystem is not at equilibrium. It is always changing, with or without us.
And that is an equilibrium. It balances as it changes, but the changes are small giving the rest of the system time to adjust. What we are doing with GMO doesn't do this. Its a harsh change, one that didn't evolve, but is introduced. We can't even see the consequences for years, and it'll be too late when we do. No take backs on this one.
Fisticuffs wrote:
For the third and final time (since clearly nobody is reading what I write anyway) you cannot just put all GMOs under one blanket like that. Each case needs to be individually examined for potential cost and potential benefit.
Ok, for the third and final time, you have to put them under one blanket like that. Because it is playing roulette with our environment. GMO is encoding genes. That is programming. Better safe than sorry when the sorry is uncorrectable. There's no chance in debugging this thing live.
This statement was never false.