E I E I GMO - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 11-21-2005, 02:05 PM

"Genetically engineered food will take over the world!"
Wow, that sounds like a terribly alarmist statement. Of course if you ask a Canadian farmer about it, they'll agree. Because of poor control of GMO testing sites, there are no natural canola seeds being grown in Canada today. No soybean or canola seed is free of GMO genes in Canada. Not one. Not only that, but these genes pass into other plants and animals in the food chain, none of which have been tested with. It has even been suggested that GMO (BT corn) fed cows are dying. At least 30% of corn on the market is suspected to be GMO nsecticide corn, including the high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks. The US does not require labeling on GMO foods. BTW, these toxins were found by doctors at a swiss confrence on GMOs to have a compounding effect in the body, in other words they stay in an organisms system and build over time. So over a period of time, it would be just as harmful as having a large dose. (information from an interview on Guns and Butter the other day with Percey Schmeiser, http://www.percyschmeiser.com/)

A few questions to start a DEBATE (a conversation involving people who want to learn and share information).
How should the government or the indusdtry monitor and control this? Should they use closed greenhouses to test GMOs? Should GMOs be allowed at all? Should the press be covering this more actively? Better safe than sorry (should we stop eating it)? Should food with insecticide in each cell be sold without being labled as such (BT corn and cotton seeds are labaled as an insecticide, not a food, but the food that it grows into is labaled as food)? Is there a revolving door in the US or Canada with agricultural corporations?

Warning, there is very little info online about GMO, at least that I can find.

raveneye · 11-21-2005, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

How should the government or the indusdtry monitor and control this?

There's no reason to monitor DNA, since DNA is not a toxin. However, the products of DNA (enzymes and whatever products result from the catalyzed reactions) might be toxins and therefore in need of environmental monitoriong. Any government control should be on a case by case basis depending on what the genes are producing.

Quote:

Should GMOs be allowed at all?

Yes they should, because GMOs are no more of a threat to anybody than traditionally bred organisms.

Quote:

Should the press be covering this more actively?

Not any more than they should be covering stories about traditional controlled breeding.

Quote:

Better safe than sorry (should we stop eating it)?

No, because GMOs are no more dangerous than any other food, all else equal.

Quote:

Should food with insecticide in each cell be sold without being labled as such (BT corn and cotton seeds are labaled as an insecticide, not a food, but the food that it grows into is labaled as food)?

The protein in Bt corn was determined safe to humans by the EPA (after 20 years of research), so it should be treated the same way as any other harmless substance in the corn. It is a protein that is produced by Bacillus thuringiensis that is specifically toxic to the corn borer, has to interact with the insect's digestive enzymes in its stomach before it is active, after which it binds to specific receptors that are only in the stomach lining cells of certain insects.

I don't see any problem with GMOs in general; the only potential problem is the substances produced by the inserted genes, and these can be managed on a case by case basis, regardless of the method that was used to insert them, whether traditional or engineered.

Just my opinions

Willravel · 11-21-2005, 03:48 PM

My main concerns are the lack of control of the testing sites. In other words, those GMOs that are being tested by the corproations, and not yet by the FDA, are possibly sending their pollons to nearby farms and plantlife. What if they made their way into the ovule of plants on farms or in populated areas, and were ingested without propor testing? Is this a problem waiting to happen?

raveneye · 11-21-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

My main concerns are the lack of control of the testing sites. In other words, those GMOs that are being tested by the corproations, and not yet by the FDA, are possibly sending their pollons to nearby farms and plantlife. What if they made their way into the ovule of plants on farms or in populated areas, and were ingested without propor testing? Is this a problem waiting to happen?

I would say the problem of a pollen grain containing Bt being carried to another plant outside the testing area and pollinating that plant is much smaller than the case where somebody is spraying insecticide and it happens to blow outside the area of spray, onto some adjacent farmland. The latter can be immediately toxic; the former (pollen) has to satisfy several stringent conditions before any problems result (has to find a flower of the same species, has to land on the stigma, has to germinate, has to grow down the style, has to find an ovule, has to fertilize that ovule, has to produce a seed, seed has to germinate, seedling has to survive, seedling has to grow to adult, seedling has to be harvested and processed etc.)

So I would say that these testing sites should have to follow guidelines that are similar to those that any sprayer has to follow, but in general the likelihood that any problems will result is a lot smaller than those that might result from errant spray.

samcol · 11-21-2005, 04:52 PM

Quote:

how should the government or the indusdtry monitor and control this? Should they use closed greenhouses to test GMOs? Should GMOs be allowed at all? Should the press be covering this more actively? Better safe than sorry (should we stop eating it)? Should food with insecticide in each cell be sold without being labled as such (BT corn and cotton seeds are labaled as an insecticide, not a food, but the food that it grows into is labaled as food)? Is there a revolving door in the US or Canada with agricultural corporations?

Ideally, I think the government should ban all genetically modified food and species, but I dont think they can realistically control it. GMOs should be stopped entirely because there is no way of knowing the long term consequences of eating this stuff. These scientists are splicing things that have no business going together, like cockroaches and tomatos, goats and spiders, and vaccines and pesticides into food.

Also, any GM food currently on the shelves needs to be labled as such.

The other side of this is will these companies be able to patent their new creations?

Quote:

Scientists debate blending species

Washington Post | November 22 2004

WASHINGTON – In Minnesota, pigs are being born with human blood in their veins. In Nevada, there are sheep whose livers and hearts are largely human. In California, mice peer from their cages with human brain cells firing inside their skulls.

These are not outcasts from “The Island of Dr. Moreau,” the 1896 novel by H.G. Wells in which a rogue doctor develops creatures that are part animal and part human. They are real creations of real scientists.

Biologists call these hybrids chimeras, after the mythical Greek creature with a lion’s head, a goat’s body and a serpent’s tail. They are products of experiments in which human stem cells were added to developing animal fetuses.

Chimeras are allowing scientists to watch, for the first time, how nascent human cells and organs mature and interact – not in the cold isolation of laboratory dishes but inside the bodies of living creatures. Some are already revealing deep secrets of human biology and pointing the way toward new medical treatments.

But with no federal guidelines in place, an awkward question hovers above the work: How human must a chimera be before more stringent research rules should kick in?

The National Academy of Sciences, which advises the federal government, has been studying the issue and hopes to make recommendations by February.

“We need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what the scientific community ought to do and ought not to do,” said James Battey, chairman of the National Institutes of Health’s Stem Cell Task Force.

Chimeras (pronounced ki-MER-ahs) – meaning mixtures of two or more individuals in a single body – are not inherently unnatural. Most twins carry at least a few cells from the sibling with whom they shared a womb, and most mothers carry in their blood at least a few cells from each child they have born.

Scientists for years have added human genes to bacteria and farm animals – feats of genetic engineering that allow those critters to make human proteins such as insulin for use as medicines.

“Chimeras are not as strange and alien as at first blush they seem,” said Henry Greely, a law professor and ethicist at Stanford University who has reviewed proposals to create human-mouse chimeras there.

But chimerism becomes a more sensitive topic when it involves growing entire human organs inside animals. And it becomes especially sensitive when it deals in brain cells, the building blocks of the organ credited with making humans human.

In those experiments, Greely told the academy, “there is a non-trivial risk of conferring some significant aspects of humanity” on the animal.

In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey Platt at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it’s not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.

It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, Platt said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into patient’s cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.

In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80 percent human – and make all the compounds human livers make.

Scientists debate blending species

I would rather keep human genetics out of our food supply. This stuff needs more government control than anything ever done in my opinion.

JimmyTheHutt · 11-21-2005, 08:37 PM

Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullsh*t on Genetically Engineered foods. It explained my opinion better than I ever could. Pull it down somewhere and watch it. It's pretty informative, particularly on the fact the GE is harmless, and most organized resistence to it is of an anti-corporate nature hidden in terms of health concerns.

Veritas en Lux!

Jimmy The Hutt

alansmithee · 11-21-2005, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimmyTheHutt

Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullsh*t on Genetically Engineered foods. It explained my opinion better than I ever could. Pull it down somewhere and watch it. It's pretty informative, particularly on the fact the GE is harmless, and most organized resistence to it is of an anti-corporate nature hidden in terms of health concerns.

Veritas en Lux!

Jimmy The Hutt

A lot isn't just anti-corporate, much of the fuss by countries outside the US is also just ways of protecting local markets from competition.

smooth · 11-21-2005, 10:14 PM

My personal distrust regarding the safety of such products in comparison to traditionally engineered products is that nature has a few prcoesses that ensure incompatible genes do not produce viable offspring. No such checks exist when one splices genes together.

Abstractly, however, I think people should be allowed to create and consume pretty much whatever they want. I do demand my own choices in food, in particular, be kept safe from intrusion from alien genetic encroachment.

All that said, consumers should have a right to choose what they consume and the only way I can envision that occuring is if products are accurately labeled.

Elphaba · 11-21-2005, 10:39 PM

As Will mentioned in his OP, there is very little data available for any novice to gain much information on this topic. So I will "lurk and learn" as much as y'all can teach me.

There was an article in the local press about increasing the acreage of canola (I assume the natural one?) in order to make biofuels financially possible. Canola is used in eastern Washington as a throw-away crop to keep wheat fields heathy. The positive of a canola field is that is doesn't require expensive irregation watering. (E-WA is dry like a desert).

That is the only tidbit that I can add, and I hope to learn a great deal more.

highthief · 11-22-2005, 03:34 AM

I'm sure third world farmers gaining access to crops that yield 50% more corn/wheat/millet/etc and that are resistant to pestilence without the use of expensive insecticides will be pretty happy to get genetically engineered seeds.

raveneye · 11-22-2005, 05:22 AM

For Elphaba and anybody else interested in learning more about genetically modified plants, here is a recent review article about the situation in the UK and Europe. It's a good review of the biology, the techniques, and the cultural obstacles involved in making use of the enormous human benefits of this technology.

Quote:

Annals of Applied Biology (2004),145:17-24.

Prospects for genetically modified crops

By NIGEL G HALFORD* Crop Performance and Improvement Division, Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK (Accepted 4 May 2004; Received 20 February 2004)

Summary

Genetically modified (GM) crops have been in use commercially around the world for almost a decade. This review covers the successes and failures of GM crop varieties in that time, the current status of GM crop adoption and the traits that are being used. It also describes some of the GM crops that might come on to the market in the next decade. The barriers in the way of GM crop development in Europe, including consumer hostility, the difficulty in gaining official approval and discriminatory labelling laws are discussed. Key words: GM crop status, GM crop traits, future applications of GM crops, farm scale evaluations, GM food legislation and labelling

Introduction

Genetic modification using transgenesis is now an established technique in plant breeding. That is not to say that it is sweeping away every other technique, rather that it is an additional tool in the plant breeder's toolbox. All plant breeding, of course, involves the alteration (or, if you like, modification) of plant genes, whether it is through the crossing of different varieties, the introduction of a novel gene into the gene pool of a crop' species, perhaps from a wild relative, or the artificial induction of random mutations in the DNA of a crop plant through chemical or radiation mutagenesis. Recently, however, the term genetic modification has been applied to the technique of inserting a single gene or small group of genes into the DNA of an organism artificially. The methods available for the genetic modification of plants are described in detail elsewhere (e.g. Halford, 2003; Slater et al., 2003) and I will not describe them here. The technique has become established in plant breeding because it has some advantages over other techniques. These advantages are:

o It allows genes to be introduced into a crop plant from any source (although it is likely that the use of animal genes would not be acceptable to consumers, at least in food crops).

* It is relatively precise, single genes can be transferred (this is not possible in conventional breeding).

o Genes and their products can be tested extensively in isolation before use to ensure their safety.

* Genes can be "cut and pasted" in the laboratory to change when and where in a plant they are active, and to change the properties of the proteins that they produce.

There is also, however, a significant down-side for the plant breeder in using genetic modification to produce new varieties for the European market. This is that any genetically modified (GM) crop or food derived from it has to be approved for use within the European Union, and approval is extremely difficult to obtain. Furthermore, any food containing GM crop material above a threshold of 0.9% has to be labelled, while novel foods produced in any other way do not. This is preventing the development of new GM traits specifically for the European market. Nevertheless, the use of GM crops around the world continues to increase.

Current Status of GM Crops

Detailed information on the uptake of GM crops by farmers around the world has been provided for several years by Clive James at the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) (www.isaaa.org). In 2003, the ISAAA reported that GM crops were being grown commercially in 18 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Honduras, Mexico, Uruguay and the USA in the Americas; Bulgaria, Germany, Romania and Spain in Europe; China, India, Indonesia and the Philippines in Asia; Australia and South Africa. Of these, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China and the USA dominate in terms of total area. The global area of land planted to GM crops in 2003 was approximately 65 million ha, an increase of 15% on 2002. *Author E-mail:

More than half of this area is accounted for by herbicide-tolerant GM soybean, in fact more than half of the global soybean crop is now GM. The other major GM crops are maize (corn), cotton and oilseed rape (canola). There are also relatively small areas planted to GM virus-resistant papaya and squash and slow-ripening tomatoes.

GM Traits Being Used Successfully in Commercial Agriculture

The most successful traits to date (and it is difficult seeing them being overtaken) are those aimed at the fanner: herbicide tolerance (soybean, oilseed rape, cotton and maize) and insect resistance (cotton and maize). Traits affecting the quality or the nutritional value of the product have been more difficult to develop and market, but there are signs that these sorts of crops will become important in developing countries. It is fair to say, at present, that the number of traits that have been commercialised successfully is small.

Herbicide tolerance

Herbicides have been used since the 1950s, long before the advent of genetic modification, and are an essential part of weed control for farmers in developed countries. Most herbicides are selective in the types of plant that they kill and a fanner has to select a herbicide or combination of herbicides, applied at different times in the season, that is tolerated by the crop that he is growing but kills the problem weeds. Some of these herbicides have to go into the ground before planting, some pose a health risk to farm workers and some are persistent in the soil, making crop rotation difficult. They all require equipment and labour to apply and they all cost money.

Herbicide-tolerant GM crops were produced to overcome or reduce these problems. The first to be grown commercially were soybeans developed by Monsanto that were modified to tolerate the broadrange herbicide, glyphosate (Padgette et al., 1995). Glyphosate is relatively safe to use, does not persist long in the soil because it is broken down by microorganisms and is taken up through the foliage of a plant, so it is effective after weeds have become established. It is also relatively cheap. Its target is 5-enolpyruvoylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase (EPSPS), an enzyme in the shikimate pathway that is required for the synthesis of many aromatic plant metabolites, including some amino acids. The shikimate pathway is not present in animals, hence glyphosate's low toxicity to animals. The gene that confers tolerance of the herbicide is from the soil bacteriumAgrobacterium tumefaciens andmakes an EPSPS that is not affected by glyphosate.

Over 150 US seed companies now offer varieties carrying the trait and 81% of the US soybean crop in 2003 was glyphosate-tolerant (Benbrook, 2003). This success is due to simple factors: simplified and safer weed control, reduced costs and more flexibility in crop rotation. Overall, between 1995 and 1998 there was estimated to be a reduction of $380 million in annual herbicide expenditure by US soybean growers (Gianessi et al., 2002). However, farmers who used glyphosate-tolerant varieties had to pay a technology fee of $6 per acre. This reduced the overall cost saving to $220 million. Another report has suggested that although herbicide use fell with the introduction of these crops it has since risen (Benbrook, 2003). The fact that the GM system has led to a switch to conservation tillage systems which involve leaving weeds and stubble undisturbed over winter and then spraying with herbicide in the spring could explain an increase in herbicide use. If this is the case the consequent benefits of reductions in soil erosion and pollution from run-off would far outweigh the disadvantage of a modest increase in herbicide use. Nevertheless, it is not clear how these reports should reach such different conclusions. There are two other broad-range herbicide tolerant GM systems in use, involving the herbicides gluphosinate (or glufosinate) and bromoxynil, both marketed by Bayer. The gene used to make plants resistant to gluphosinate comes from the bacterium Streptomyces hygroscopicus and encodes an enzyme called phosphinothricine acetyl transferase (PAT). This enzyme detoxifies gluphosinate. Crop varieties carrying this trait include varieties of oilseed rape, maize, soybeans, sugar beet, fodder beet, cotton and rice. The oilseed rape variety has been particularly successful in Canada. Bromoxynil tolerance is conferred by a gene isolated from the bacterium Klebsiella pneumoniae ozanae. This gene encodes an enzyme called nitrilase, which converts bromoxynil into a non-toxic compound. So far this has only been used commercially in Canadian oilseed rape.

Interestingly there is a fourth broad-range herbicide-tolerance trait available in commercial oilseed rape varieties in Canada. The herbicide in this case is imidazolinone and the varieties were produced by Pioneer Hi-Bred, now part of DuPont. However, the trait was produced by mutagenesis, not genetic modification. Herbicide tolerance has now been engineered into many crop species and is undoubtedly the most successful GM trait to be used so far. In the USA in 2003,59% ofthe upland cotton and 15% ofthe maize was herbicide-tolerant (Benbrook, 2003), as well as the 81% of the soybean crop already discussed. Herbicide-tolerant soybeans have been adopted even more enthusiastically in Argentina and now account for 95% of the market, while herbicide-tolerant oilseed rape has taken 66% of the market in Canada. 18 Prospects for genetically modified crops

Insect resistance

Organic and salad farmers have been using a pesticide based on a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), for several decades. The bacterium produces a protein called the Cry protein that is toxic to some insects but has no toxicity to mammals, birds or fish. Different strains of the bacterium produce different versions of the protein that are effective against different types of insects. Cryl proteins, for example, are effective against the larvae of butterflies and moths, while Cry3 proteins are effective against beetles.

The CrylA gene has now been introduced into several crop species (de Maagd et al, 1999) and the modified varieties are generally referred to as Bt varieties. As with herbicide tolerance, the benefits of using the insect-resistant GM crops depend on many factors, most obviously the nature ofthe major insect pests in the area (not all are controlled by Bt) and the insect pressure in a given season. However, Bt varieties have been successful in many parts of the USA (in 2003, 29% of the maize and 41% of the upland cotton crop was Bt) and Bt cotton in particular is gaining ground in Australia, China, India and the Philippines. Farmers who use Bt varieties cite reduced insecticide use and/or increased yields as the major benefits. A further, unexpected benefit of Bt maize varieties is that the Bt grain contains lower amounts of fungal toxins (mycotoxins) such as aflatoxin and fumicosin.

A different Cry gene, Cry3A, has been used to modify potato to make it resistant to the Colorado beetle. These GM potato varieties were withdrawn in the USA due to poor sales, farmers preferring to use broad-range insecticides instead. However, they may have a role to play elsewhere in the world where the Colorado beetle is a problem.

Virus resistance

There are two methods currently in use to genetically modify plants to be resistant to viruses. The first arose from studies into the phenomenon of cross protection, in which infection by a mild strain of a virus induces resistance to subsequent infection by a more virulent strain (reviewed by Culver, 2002). Modifying a plant with a gene that encodes the viral coat protein has been found to mimic the phenomenon.

An example of the commercialisation of this technology comes from the papaya industry in the Puna district of Hawaii (Ferreira et al., 2002; Gonsalves, 1998). After an epidemic of papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) in the 1990s almost destroyed the industry growers switched to a virus-resistant GM variety containing a gene that encodes a PRSV coat protein. The GM variety was successful and probably saved the papaya industry in Hawaii. The other method used to engineer virus resistance is to use antisense or co-suppression techniques (Grierson et al., 1996) to block the activity of viral genes when the virus infects a plant. Apotato variety carrying a replicase gene from potato leaf roll virus (PLRV) was marketed by Monsanto in the 1990s, later in combination with the Bt insect-resistance trait. These GM potato varieties have since been withdrawn in the USA because of reluctance to use them in the important fast-food industry. This technology is being applied to many other plant virus diseases, just one example of resistance being achieved at least under trial conditions being with potato tuber necrotic ringspot disease (Racman et al., 2001). It has tremendous potential for developing countries where losses to viral diseases are the greatest and have the most severe consequences.

Modified oils

Oilseed rape was first grown in the UK during the second world war to provide industrial oil, high in erucic acid (which is poisonous to humans), and these varieties are still grown today for that purpose. In the second half of the last century, however, varieties were bred with reduced levels of erucic acid and another group of poisonous compounds called glucosinolates. When these varieties were passed as acceptable for human consumption (oilseed rape received its seal of approval from the Food and Drug Administration of the USA in 1985), Canadian producers came up with the name Canola for edible oilseed rape oil. This name was adopted all over North America as the name not only for the edible oil but also for the crop itself. A problem for farmers who grow oilseed rape is that its oil is one of the cheapest edible oils on the market. The value of the crop is, therefore, relatively low and there is a lot of interest in increasing it. This has been achieved through genetic modification by introducing a gene from the California Bay plant that causes an accumulation of lauric acid to approximately 40% of the total oil content, compared with 0.1% in unmodified oilseed rape. Lauric acid is a detergent traditionally derived from coconut or palm oil.

A different modification has been made to the oil of soybean. In this case, the genetically modified variety accumulates oleic acid to approximately 80% of its total oil content, compared with approximately 20% in non-GM varieties (Mazur et al., 1999; Kinney, 1996). This was achievedby co-suppression (Grierson et al., 1996) of a gene that encodes an enzyme that converts oleic acid to linoleic acid. Oleic acid is very stable at high temperatures and at present the oil from the GM soybeans is used for industrial purposes. Relatively small amounts ofthese GM oilseed rape and soybean varieties are grown to contract, but those farmers who can get in on this business benefit from a premium price for their crop.

Slow-ripening fruit

Fruit ripening is a complex process that brings about the softening of cell walls, sweetening and the production of compounds that impart colour, flavour and aroma. The process is induced by the production of a plant hormone, ethylene. The problem for growers and retailers is that ripening is followed sometimes quite rapidly by deterioration and decay. Genetic modification has been used to slow ripening down or to lengthen the shelf-life of ripe fruit by interfering either with ethylene production or with the processes that respond to ethylene. This technology has the potential not only to improve the produce of western farmers but also to enable farmers in tropical countries to sell fruit to customers in Europe and North America. So far, however, the only examples of its commercial use are in tomato.

The first GM tomatoes with increased shelf life had reduced activity of an enzyme called polygalacturonase (PG), which contributes to cell wall softening. Afresh fruit GM tomato, Flavr Savr, with this trait was marketed by Calgene in the mid- 1990s but did not prove popular with consumers. Zeneca introduced the trait into tomatoes used for processing. The GM tomatoes have a higher solid content than conventional varieties, reducing waste and processing costs in paste production and giving a paste of thicker consistency. This product proved very popular in the UK from its introduction in 1996 until 1999 when retailers withdrew it in response to anti-GM hostility.

Some GM tomato varieties with delayed ripening are still on the market in the USA. They have reduced activity of the enzyme aminocyclopropane- 1-carboxylic acid (ACC) synthase, which is required for ethylene synthesis. ACC has also been targeted by Monsanto using a gene from a bacterium, Pseudomnonas chlororaphis, that encodes an enzyme called ACC deaminase, which breaks down ACC. A similar strategy has been adopted by Agritope, Inc., to break down another of the precursors of ethylene, S-adenosyl methionine (SAM), using a gene encoding an enzyme called SAM hydrolase. These products are not yet on the market but demonstrate that there is still considerable interest in modifying fruit ripening and shelf-life. The StarLink Incident

Not everything has run smoothly in the commercial application of GM crops. The most costly mistake involved several Bt maize varieties produced by Aventis (now part of Bayer) and marketed in the USA under the trade name StarLink. StarLink contained a different version of the Cry gene to that in other Bt varieties on the market (Cry9C instead of Cryl4) and was also tolerant of the herbicide gluphosinate. StarLink was not approved for human consumption but, inexplicably given that maize is an outbreeding crop, the Environmental Protection Agency approved StarLink for commercial growing as an animal feed in 1998. Inevitably, cross-pollination occurred between StarLink and maize varieties destined for human consumption and StarLink had to be withdrawn. Aventis agreed to buy back the entire StarLink crop of 2000 at a premium price.

Future Applications in GM Crops

Production of industrial oils and pharmaceutical fatty acids

Two examples of GM crops with modified oil content are described above but they are undoubtedly only the first of many. One application of this technology is in the production of oils with nutritional orpharmaceutical properties. Several oils produced by plants have pharmaceutical properties, including gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), which is found in borage and evening primrose, and arachidonic acid (AA) which is only found in a few mosses and fungi. GLA is used in the treatment of skin conditions such as atopic eczema and also has anti-viral and anti-cancer properties. AA is a constituent of breast milk and is important for brain and eye development in infants. The aim of biotechnologists is to take the genes that encode the enzymes responsible for making these fatty acids and engineer them into crop plants and there are already examples of this being done successfully (reviewed by Napier et al., 1999; Napier & Michaelson, 2001).

Nutritional value

Consumers in the developed world who take advantage of the world's harvest of fresh fruit, vegetables, bread, meat and dairy products that is available to them all year round probably have little need for an increase in the nutritional value of their food. Many, however, do not, and there is an argument for increasing the nutritional value offoods that consumers like rather than persuading consumers to change their diets. Nutritional value is also a selling point with some foods, breakfast cereals being a good example. Examples ofthe many potential targets for plant breeders and biotechnologists are folic acid, deficiency of which may cause gastrointestinal disorders, anaemia and birth defects, and the fat-soluble vitamins E and K, deficiencies in which are associated with arterial disease and, in the case of vitamin K, postmenopausal osteoporosis. Strategies for increasing 20 Prospects for genetically modified crops the levels of some of these nutrients are described by Herbers (2003). The real need for nutritional enhancement of foods, however, is in developing countries, where a limited amount and range of foodstuffs may be available or affordable. An example of a severe but avoidable health problem in poor countries is night and totalblindness brought about by vitamin A deficiency. This is associated in particular with a reliance on rice as a staple food and it is estimated that a quarter of a million children go blind each year because of vitamin A deficiency in South East Asia alone. There are many ways to tackle this problem and many have been tried but so far all have failed. One possible solution might be to address the low levels of vitamin A in rice (rice grain does contain vitamin A but only in the husk, which is discarded because it rapidly goes rancid during storage, especially in tropical countries). This has been achieved in an experimental GM rice line called Golden Rice (the name deriving from the colour of the grain) (Ye et al., 2000). Golden Rice actually accumulates ,Bcarotene (a precursor that humans can process into vitamin A) in its seed endosperm. The modification required the introduction of three genes, phytoene synthase (psy) and lycopene j3-cyclase genes from daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus), and a phytoene desaturase (crtl) gene from the bacterium Erwinia uredovora. The enzymes encoded by these genes convert the compound geranylgeranyl diphosphate, which is present in rice endosperm, into a-carotene. This line was then crossed with another GM rice line which had been modified with a gene encoding phytase, an enzyme which breaks down phytate, a compound that prevents iron absorption, to make Golden Rice.

Golden Rice is not a commercial variety but the trait is being crossed into commercial breeding lines at the Rice Research Institute in the Philippines and by plant breeders in India. Even if these programmes are successful, it will still be several years before commercial varieties carrying the trait become available. Nevertheless, the potential of the work is extremely exciting.

Another target of great potential is improving the protein content of crops in terms of amount and quality. One example where this has been achieved is in potato at the National Centre for Plant Genome Research in Delhi. Tuber yield and protein content have been increased by introducing theArmaranthus hypochondriacus AmMA1 gene, which encodes a seed protein that is rich in essential amino acids (Chakraborty et al., 2000). Potato is not a major crop in India, but the same gene is also being introduced into rice, sweet potato and cassava. Improving nutritional value, particularly protein content and protein quality, is also relevant to the production of animal feed. However, although-some GM crops, for example soybean, maize, cotton and oilseed rape, are used for animal feed, there is currently no commercial use of a GM crop that has been modified specifically to improve its nutritional value to animals.

Resistance to fungal diseases

Fungal diseases of plants cause severe losses in crop production and an example of genetic modification being used to tackle the problem is in the engineering of potato to make it resistant to late blight (Song et al., 2003). Late blight is infamous as the cause of the Irish potato famine of the 19h century and still causes serious crop losses around the world today. The gene that was introduced into the potato line was called RB and came from a wild Mexican potato species called Solanum bulbocastanum.

Salt tolerance

Millions of acres of otherwise fertile land in developed and developing countries are rendered useless by salt build-up, usually as a result of irrigation. A possible solution to this problem has been developed using genetic modification to increase the rate at which a plant cell can remove salt from its cytoplasm and dump it in its vacuole. This involved the over-expression of a gene that encodes a vacuolar Nag/H' antiport pump (Apse & Blumwald, 2002). Tomato plants modified in this way can tolerate salt concentrations several times higher than non-GM plants and should survive comfortably in the salt concentrations of soils that are currently considered unusable. Salt accumulates in the leaves but the fruit remains edible and not salty at all. This means that removal and disposal of the leaf material after harvest actually cleans up the soil and a few harvests of the GM plants should return the soil to salt concentrations suitable for growth of other crops. Similar technologies are being developed to address the problem of contamination of soils with heavy metals.

Other traits

The above is not meant to be a comprehensive list. Other traits that might be developed commercially in the future include the ability to survive difficult climatic conditions (Araus et al., 2003), improved photosynthetic efficiency (Parry et al., 2003), the synthesis of non-food products such as pharmaceuticals, including vaccines (Mor et al., 1998), the synthesis of fragrances, pigments and industrial starch (Burrell, 2003), the removal of allergens (Tada et al., 1996) and the modification of metabolism (H-alford et al., 2003; Halford & Paul, 2003). Whether or not these advances are made will depend to some extent on the barriers that are put in the way of the development of the technology.

21 Barriers to the Development of Plant Biotechnology

Resistance to the use of GM crops is most significant in Europe. A major barrier is consumer hostility, driven in part by an intense anti-GM campaign waged by pressure groups. The UK government ran a public consultation exercise in 2003 called the 'GM Nation' debate. This consisted of public meetings organised around the country after which participants were invited to complete questionnaires. Entirely predictably these debates were dominated by the representatives of pressure groups and the result was an overwhelming rejection of GM crops and food. Real consumer attitudes are much more complex and difficult to gauge. A poll undertaken by the Institute of Grocery Distribution in August 2003 in the UK found that 47% of respondents were not interested in the ingredients in their food at all. Another 27% would prefer not to eat GM products but would not trouble to look at a label to avoid them, while 13% were happy to eat GM products but another 13% would actively avoid them. Clearly this is not a simple issue for retailers. The second barrier in Europe is one of legislation and official approval. This arose at first as an attempt to err on the side of caution as the new technology was introduced, but it is now clearly a political issue. If a GM crop is to be grown commercially in the EU it must first be granted a Part C consent by the European Commission. An application for consent is submitted to one of the 15 Member States, which becomes the lead Competent Authority (CA) for the application. If the United Kingdom is the CA for an application the dossier, which includes the results of safety testing and environmental risk assessment, is reviewed by the Joint Regulatory Authority, comprising the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), the Scottish Executive, the National Assembly for Wales and the Department for the Environment in Northern Ireland. Advice is taken from the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment (ACRE), the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) and the Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding-stuffs (ACAF). The CA returns the application to the European Commission with an accept or reject recommendation.

If acceptance has been recommended, a dossier is circulated to the other Member States, who have 60 days to make comment. If they all approve the marketing application the lead CA issues a Part C marketing consent, which applies across all Member States. In reality, one ormore Member States objects to every application and the Commission passes the dossier to its own Scientific Committee on Plants (SCP), which considers exactly the same questions already considered by ACRE. The SCP can consult two other committees, the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition (SCAN) and the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), the equivalents ofACAF and ACNFP.

If the SCP recommends that approval be granted, the Commission asks the Members States to vote again, this time by the Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) procedure. If there is a QMV in favour the lead Member State should issue consent. But since 1998, France, Italy, Denmark, Greece, Austria and Luxembourg have blocked every application. The Commission then has the option of referring the application to the Council of Ministers, who can reject the decision of the Commission but only by a unanimous vote. If this does not happen the Commission should instruct the lead CA to grant consent. The Commission has been reluctant to use this option but appears to have become more assertive on the issue and has exercised it this year (2004) in the case of a Syngenta sweetcorn variety. However this variety is intended for import, not for cultivation in Europe. Three other products, a variety ofBt maize, glyphosate-tolerant soybean and tomato paste from GM tomatoes, have had such approval for many years.

Any food containing material from GM crops and sold in the EU must be labelled. Up to April 2004 vegetable oils, sugar and other refined products that do not contain DNA or protein are exempt from this rule, as are foods that contain small amounts (below 1%) of GM material as a result of accidental mixing and food sold in restaurants and other catering outlets (the UK government waived this exemption). In April 2004 the exemption for refined products will be dropped (although there are fears that this will lead to fraud since there is no way of policing it), the tolerance level for accidental mixing will be reduced to 0.9% and the law will be extended to animal feed.

The clear labelling of foods is entirely laudable, but the policy applies solely to GM crop products, not to new crop varieties produced by other methods or to the products of GM micro-organisms commonly used in yoghurts, cheeses and other foodstuffs. The policy could, therefore, be regarded as illogical and discriminatory. Nevertheless, the lack of a clear labelling policy when GM crop products first went on sale in Europe is one of the factors that led to consumer hostility.

The UK Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) Programme

In 2000 the UK government erected another barrier to the commercial use of GM crops. At that time a gluphosinate-tolerant maize variety, Chardon LL from Bayer, had been granted Part C consent and gluphosinate-tolerant oilseed rape and glyphosate- I 22 Prospects for genetically modified crops tolerant sugar beet were expected to be granted consent shortly after. The government negotiated a voluntary agreement with the companies involved that these varieties would not be marketed until a 3- yr programme of farm-scale evaluations had been carried out to compare the environmental effects of the GM crop and its non-GM equivalent together with the appropriate herbicide regime. The results of these studies were published in a special edition of the Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences of the Royal Society (Vol. 358, No. 1439, 29 November 2003).

These studies produced a huge amount of data and it is not possible to review it all here. In brief summary, it was found that for the sugar beet and oilseed rape varieties the numbers of weeds and consequently insects in the GM crop were lower than in the non-GM equivalent. This was widely reported as showing that GM crops were 'bad for the environment'. In reality it meant that the herbicide regime used with the GM varieties did what it was supposed to do. The possible advantages to the farmer of growing herbicide-tolerant GM crops (for example May (2003) estimated that sugar beet farmers could save £150 ha-' yr-') were not considered and different ways of using the crops and the herbicide were not included in the study. As a result, the Government has put off approval of these varieties until the companies involved, Monsanto and Bayer, can show that they can be used in an 'environmentally-friendly' manner. It is not clear whether Monsanto and Bayer are interested in doing this.

Both GM and non-GM maize were found to harbour fewer weeds and insects than the other crops studied (maize is taller and weed growth is restricted by shading). However, the GM variety was 'better' than the non-GM variety. In fact this relatively poor weed control was a concern to at least one farmer participating in the study (personal communication). However, the herbicide used on the non-GM maize in the study and used by most maize farmers in the UK was atrazine, which has just been banned for use within the EU because of its toxicity. The GM maize/gluphosinate combination represented a possible alternative.

In March 2004 the UK Government announced that it agreed in principle to the commercial cultivation of Chardon LL maize but that a number of constraints would be placed on its use. In April 2004 Bayer announced that, in view of the fact that details of these constraints had still not been made available, resulting in another period of delay, and that the variety was already 5 years old, it was not worth proceeding with commercialisation.

Conclusions

The GM crops that have been introduced so far and have been, in cases such as herbicide tolerant soybean, extremely successful will continue to be used by farmers around the world. It is also likely that the traits that have proved successful will be introduced into other crop species. Glyphosate tolerance, for example, has been engineered into a wide variety of crops from wheat to onions (Eady et al., 2003) and the wheat is already being considered for approval for commercial release in North America and Australia.

Despite this, the only significant use of GM crops in the European Union at present is the cultivation of Bt maize in Spain and it is almost inconceivable under the present circumstances that a company would develop a GM crop specifically for the European market. Europe might continue to get spinoff products with traits that have been shown to be successful elsewhere. However, biotechnology companies appear to be focussing more on gaining approval for the import of GM crop products from outside the EU rather than for cultivation within it. This means that European farmers may not be able to grow GM crops but they will have to compete with them.

Acknowledgement

Rothamsted Research receives grant-aided support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council of the United Kingdom. References

Apse M P, Blumwald E. 2002. Engineering salt tolerance in plants. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 13:146-150.

Araus J L, Bort J, Steduto P, Villegas D, Royo C. 2003. Breeding cereals for Mediterranean conditions: ecophysiological clues for biotechnology application. Annals of Applied Biology 142:129-141.

Benbrook C M. 2003. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Eight Years. BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 6 (www.biotech-info.net/Technical_paper_6.pdf):

Burrell M M. 2003. Starch: the need for improved quality or quantity - an overview. Journal of Experimental Botany 54:451-456. Chakraborty S, Chakraborty N, Datta A. 2000. Increased nutritive value of transgenic potato by expressing a nonallergenic seed albumin gene from Amaranthus hypochondriacus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAAmerica 97:3724-3729.

Culver J N. 2002. Tobacco mosaic -virus assembly and disassembly: determinants in pathogenicity and resistance. Annual Reviewv ofPhytopathology 40:287-308.

Eady C, Davis S, Farrant J, Reader J, Kenel F. 2003. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation and regeneration of herbicide resistant onion (Alliutm cepa) plants. Annals of Applied Biology 142:213-217.

Ferreira S A, Pitz K Y, Manshardt R, Zee F, Fitch M, Gonsalves D. 2002. Virus coat protein transgenic papaya provides practical control of Papaya ringspotvirus in Hawaii. Plant Disease 86:101-105.

Gianessi L P, Silvers C S, Sankula S, Carpenter J E. 2002. Plant Biotechnology: Current and Potential Impact For ImprovingPestManagementIn U.S. Agriculture:An Analysis of 40 Case Studies. Washington: National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy.

Gonsalves D. 1998. Control of Papaya Ringspot Virus in Papaya: A Case Study. Annual Reviev of Phytopathology 36:415-437.

Grierson D, Lycett G W, Tucker G A. 1996. Mechanisms andApplications of Gene Silencing. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press. 205 pp.

Halford N G 2003. Genetically Modified Crops. London: Imperial College Press. 112 pp.

Halford N G, Paul M J. 2003. Carbon metabolite sensing and signalling. Plant Biotechnology Journal 1:381-398.

Halford N Q Hey S, Jhurreea D, Laurie S, MeKibbin R S, Zhang Y, Paul M. 2003. Dissection and manipulation of metabolic signalling pathways. Annals of Applied Biology 142:25-31.

Herbers K. 2003. Vitamin production in transgenic plants. Journal of Plant Physiology 160:821-829.

Kinney A J. 1996. Development of genetically engineered soybean oils for good applications. Journal of Food Lipids 3:273-292.

Maagd R A de, Bosch D, Stiekema W. 1999. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin-mediated insect resistance in plants. Trends in Plant Science 4:9-13. May M L. 2003. Economic consequences for UK farmers growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Annals ofApplied Biology 142:41-48.

Mazur B, Krebbers E, Tingey S. 1999. Gene discovery and product development for grain quality traits. Science 285:372- 375.

Mor T S, Gomez Lim M A, Palmer K E. 1998. Perspective: edible vaccines - a concept coming of age. Trends in Microbiology 6:449453.

Napier J A, Michaelson L V. 2001. Towards the production of pharmaceutical fatty acids in transgenic plants. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 81:883-888.

Napier J A, Michaelson L V, Stobart A K. 1999. Plant desaturases: harvesting the fat of the land. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 2:123-127.

Padgette S R, Kolacz K H, Delannay X, Re D B, Lavallee B J, Tinius C N, Rhodes W K, Otero Y 1, Barry G F, Eichholtz D A, Peschke V M, Nida D L, Taylor N B, Kishore G M. 1995. Development, identification and characterization of a glyphosate-tolerant soybean line. Crop Science 35:1451-1461.

Parry MA J, Andraloje P J, Mitchell R A C, Madgwick P J, Keys A J. 2003. Manipulation of Rubisco: the amount, activity, function and regulation. Journal of Experimental Botany 54:1321-1333.

Racman D S, McGeachy K, Reavy B, Strukelj B, Zel J, Barker H. 2001. Strong resistance to potato tuber necrotic ringspot disease in potato induced by transformation with coat protein gene sequences from an NTN isolate of Potato virus Y. Annals ofApplied Biology 139:269-275.

SlaterA, Scott N, Fowler M. 2003. Plant Biotechnology: 1The Genetic Manipulation ofPlants. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 346 pp.

Song J, Bradeen J M, Naess S K, Raasch JA, Wielgus S M, Haberlach G T, Liu J, Kuang H, Austin-Phillips S, Buell C R, Helgeson J P, Jiang J. 2003. Gene RB cloned from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to potato late blight. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences USA 100:9128-9133.

Tada Y, Nakase M, Adachi T, Nakamura R, Shimada H, Takahashi M, Fujimura T, Matsuda T. 1996. Reduction of 14-16 kDa allergenic proteins in transgenic rice plants by antisense gene. FEBS Letters 391:341-345.

Ye X, Al-Babili S, Kloti A, Zhang J, Lucca P, Beyer P, Potrykus I. 2000. Engineering provitamin A (,-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287:303-305. 24

Charlatan · 11-22-2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I'm sure third world farmers gaining access to crops that yield 50% more corn/wheat/millet/etc and that are resistant to pestilence without the use of expensive insecticides will be pretty happy to get genetically engineered seeds.

Except that with all the subsidies in the developed world they can't sell their bumper crops any more than they can what they are already growing...

splck · 11-22-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highthief

I'm sure third world farmers gaining access to crops that yield 50% more corn/wheat/millet/etc and that are resistant to pestilence without the use of expensive insecticides will be pretty happy to get genetically engineered seeds.

Farmers have to purchase GE seeds every year rather than keeping enough from this years crop for re-seeding. Do you actually think a third world farmer can afford these seeds every year? It'll be a cold day in hell when the GE seed companies give there seeds away or allow re-seeding by farmers, rich or poor.

I'm with Smooth, label products that have GMO so the consumer can decide.

martinguerre · 11-22-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Except that with all the subsidies in the developed world they can't sell their bumper crops any more than they can what they are already growing...

also, they have to pay for seed every year, since most modern american crops, GM or not, are bred to only work for one year. that's a huge flash point for developing world acceptance of our farming practices.

Charlatan · 11-22-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martinguerre

also, they have to pay for seed every year, since most modern american crops, GM or not, are bred to only work for one year. that's a huge flash point for developing world acceptance of our farming practices.

That's true... I had forgotten that part.

Even those that are not made to work for only one year... the farmers must pay an annual license fee to replant. If they collect their seeds in the traditional method, rather than purchase new seeds, GM seed companies claim they are breaking the law...

There is a massive anti-trust suit being brought against companies like Monsanto for this practice: Link to a related story

Ustwo · 11-22-2005, 09:20 AM

Let me see.....

I spend millions to make a better corn plant (or whatever).

You think you should only pay for one seed?

Thats cute, if you don't want to use the superior seed, don't, if you do pay for it.

Also while I don't know if they are 'bred to only work for one year.' that is a pretty good safeguard against enviormental 'pollution' from a GM crop.

GM food IS the future, the benifits are huge and the risks are hypothetical. I too have some questions, though my concerns are more mundane biology, I'm not worried about human health risks.

Elphaba · 11-22-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Quote Raveneye: For Elphaba and anybody else interested in learning more about genetically modified plants, here is a recent review article about the situation in the UK and Europe. It's a good review of the biology, the techniques, and the cultural obstacles involved in making use of the enormous human benefits of this technology.

Many thanks Raveneye. That was very helpful.

I have a "mundane" biology question that maybe Ustwo can answer for me.

One of the concerns mentioned in the review article is the possibility of natural cross-pollination between a gm and nongm plant. It would seem that the possibility of a new species is possible, but wouldn't it still be a self-limiting (one-year) plant?

Ustwo · 11-22-2005, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I have a "mundane" biology question that maybe Ustwo can answer for me.

One of the concerns mentioned in the review article is the possibility of natural cross-pollination between a gm and nongm plant. It would seem that the possibility of a new species is possible, but wouldn't it still be a self-limiting (one-year) plant?

No, most likely not, unless the modified gene itself did the limiting factor. This could be the case for genes designed to make bigger seeds (the seeds may be larger but not viable) but I can't see it working for say anti-insect type genetic modification. There is a natural process of genetic splicing, which can at times move a gene from one chromosome to another. Its rare that it would work out, but it is possible that you could 'lose' the limiting gene and keep the other modified gene.

Nothing here would really make a new species, but the fear is of making a 'super species' sort of a zebra muscle equivalent for vegetation.

Over all I'm not very worried, as there are several factors which limit the spread of plant life. Farm fields are 'ideal' conditions, and the genetic modifications are designed for those conditions. Things which inhibit their growth in the non-ideal conditions will still inhibit GM crops. That being said, in some future it is possible to think of a GM crop gone wild, but I still say the benefits well out way the risks.

Fear of the unknown is a normal human reaction, but we must face it if we hope to advance.

raveneye · 11-23-2005, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

I have a "mundane" biology question that maybe Ustwo can answer for me. One of the concerns mentioned in the review article is the possibility of natural cross-pollination between a gm and nongm plant. It would seem that the possibility of a new species is possible, but wouldn't it still be a self-limiting (one-year) plant?

A little basic biology . . . . the "self-limiting" trait that Monsanto developed was just completely sterile seeds. They inserted a gene that prevents seeds from germinating, so that farmers couldn't use the seeds to start a new crop. As far as I know the seed crop could still be harvested and consumed, but it couldn't be used to plant a new crop. They called the gene "terminator" after the movie. But the public outcry was so deafening that they abandoned this practice.

On the cross pollination: yes crops can cross-pollinate, but only within the same species. So corn on adjacent fields might pollinate each other, or from a field to a ditch. There are some wild relatives of crops that can cross with them, but it is rare. When this happens, the genes of the two groups mix of course.

Is this a problem? No more so with GM crops than with traditionally bred crops. In fact you could argue that it is more of a problem with traditionally bred crops than with GM crops, because with GM only one gene is inserted but with traditionally bred crops hundreds are inserted.

martinguerre · 11-23-2005, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Let me see.....

I spend millions to make a better corn plant (or whatever).

You think you should only pay for one seed?

Thats cute, if you don't want to use the superior seed, don't, if you do pay for it.

Also while I don't know if they are 'bred to only work for one year.' that is a pretty good safeguard against enviormental 'pollution' from a GM crop.

GM food IS the future, the benifits are huge and the risks are hypothetical. I too have some questions, though my concerns are more mundane biology, I'm not worried about human health risks.

meh. I didn't say that's terrible, or call it extortion. But i don't blame the people who see it that way. It looks like increasing dependance and potential for instability for people who already have too much of that. Farming in the west is still a risky business...out in minnesota, i see a lot of places go under and some places thrive. That's here...how much more risk is a farmer in a developing nation under?

It's a major obstacle to the adoption of western farming practices. That's about the most objective way i can say it. I don't know if them farming like we do is a good thing. I don't know that Agribusiness isn't entitled to recoup those costs. I'm rather ambivalent on the matter, as i simply don't know how people would be better off.

highthief · 11-23-2005, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by splck

Farmers have to purchase GE seeds every year rather than keeping enough from this years crop for re-seeding. Do you actually think a third world farmer can afford these seeds every year? It'll be a cold day in hell when the GE seed companies give there seeds away or allow re-seeding by farmers, rich or poor.

I realize there is an expense to the seeds - there is also an unbearable expense to increased fertilzer and pesticides and irrigation that the poor agricultural areas of the world desperately need (not to mention the potential damage to the environment that heavy pesticide use in already poor soils causes).

I'm all for trying something new rather than sticking with a status quo that is so obviously not working and results in subsistence farmers starving to death from the Caribean to Africa to Asia.

Elphaba · 11-25-2005, 03:05 PM

There is an interesting (but perhaps biased) argument here for organic produce.

http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html

Dialup folks might want to take a long lunch.

Ustwo · 11-25-2005, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

There is an interesting (but perhaps biased) argument here for organic produce.

Perhaps biased?

It was an add not an argument, but nicely done.

Elphaba · 11-25-2005, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Perhaps biased?

It was an add not an argument, but nicely done.

It cracked me up and I just had to sneak it into this discussion. If you ever see me do this:

I am probably on the yellow brick road to silliness.

Glad you enjoyed it, Ustwo.

Seaver · 11-25-2005, 08:16 PM

Y'all are not getting how UNrevolutionary this is.

Quote:

Ideally, I think the government should ban all genetically modified food and species

Great idea. So we get no beef, lamb, chicken, corn, wheat, rice, oats, soy, beans, vegetables or any seedless fruits.

Genetic modifications have occured since man first decided to take an active role in obtaining food. Do you realize the wheat you eat today are EXACT clones of wheat developed by the Romans? They found seeds from those times and in many instances they shared 99.99% DNA with the ancient seeds to modern (the differences being natual oddities). Do you realize they have used genetic modification to produce the hundreds of varieties of cattle through the ages since pre-history? Oh but the sky is falling!

By declaring you outlaw everything is rediculous. I dont know about you, but I enjoy seedless watermelons. If I were a farmer (many of my family are) I'd enjoy self-pestiside producing, larger, and faster growing food. As a consumer I like larger and cheaper products.

samcol · 11-26-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Y'all are not getting how UNrevolutionary this is.

Great idea. So we get no beef, lamb, chicken, corn, wheat, rice, oats, soy, beans, vegetables or any seedless fruits.

Genetic modifications have occured since man first decided to take an active role in obtaining food. Do you realize the wheat you eat today are EXACT clones of wheat developed by the Romans? They found seeds from those times and in many instances they shared 99.99% DNA with the ancient seeds to modern (the differences being natual oddities). Do you realize they have used genetic modification to produce the hundreds of varieties of cattle through the ages since pre-history? Oh but the sky is falling!

By declaring you outlaw everything is rediculous. I dont know about you, but I enjoy seedless watermelons. If I were a farmer (many of my family are) I'd enjoy self-pestiside producing, larger, and faster growing food. As a consumer I like larger and cheaper products.

There's a huge difference between what you're talking about, and what is being done. I have no problems with what the Romans did. What I do have a problem with is creating chimeras and engineering vaccines and pesticides into foods. You don't see a problem with crossing cockroach genes into corn or spiders into goats? How about human organs in pigs?

Their definetly needs to be firm governmental control on Genetically Modified Organisms until we can figure out what is being done, what can be done, and the long term pro/con consequences.

raveneye · 11-27-2005, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

You don't see a problem with crossing cockroach genes into corn or spiders into goats?

AFAIK nobody is proposing to insert cockroach or spider genes into any foods whatsoever, and I don't know why they would. I think this is just fearmongering by capitalizing on people's disgust of creepy crawlies.

But in any case, even if it were true, this reminds me of the "pissing in the shower" thread. Sure, it seems disgusting, but there's nothing dangerous or unsanitary in it.

The fear of spider genes in your corn flakes is completely irrational. There's no biological law, or chemical law, or physical law etc. that states that mixing genes from two different species is bad for you, for any reason whatsoever. So any such fear is essentially a fear of spiders. Or a fear of cockroaches. Etc. It's based on your own personal psychology or aesthetics, and doesn't have anything to do with the science. Just keep in mind, a gene is not a spider, it's just a stretch of DNA.

Maybe folks will be shocked to learn that we already eat spider genes and cockroach genes in all our foods. In fact there are many genes in the human genome that are practically identical to many cockroach genes.

For those of us who believe in evolution, that's no surprise. We all evolved from a common ancestor, and we still have those common ancestor genes.

Quote:

human organs in pigs?

Genes /= organs (that's science fiction)

samcol · 11-27-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

AFAIK nobody is proposing to insert cockroach or spider genes into any foods whatsoever, and I don't know why they would. I think this is just fearmongering by capitalizing on people's disgust of creepy crawlies.

But in any case, even if it were true, this reminds me of the "pissing in the shower" thread. Sure, it seems disgusting, but there's nothing dangerous or unsanitary in it.

The fear of spider genes in your corn flakes is completely irrational. There's no biological law, or chemical law, or physical law etc. that states that mixing genes from two different species is bad for you, for any reason whatsoever. So any such fear is essentially a fear of spiders. Or a fear of cockroaches. Etc. It's based on your own personal psychology or aesthetics, and doesn't have anything to do with the science. Just keep in mind, a gene is not a spider, it's just a stretch of DNA.

Maybe folks will be shocked to learn that we already eat spider genes and cockroach genes in all our foods. In fact there are many genes in the human genome that are practically identical to many cockroach genes.

For those of us who believe in evolution, that's no surprise. We all evolved from a common ancestor, and we still have those common ancestor genes.

Genes /= organs (that's science fiction)

Dont' forget we are living in 2005 and the article I posted earlier specifically says they are doing these kinds of things:

Quote:

In one ongoing set of experiments, Jeffrey Platt at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., has created human-pig chimeras by adding human-blood-forming stem cells to pig fetuses. The resulting pigs have both pig and human blood in their vessels. And it’s not just pig blood cells being swept along with human blood cells; some of the cells themselves have merged, creating hybrids.

It is important to have learned that human and pig cells can fuse, Platt said, because he and others have been considering transplanting modified pig organs into people and have been wondering if that might pose a risk of pig viruses getting into patient’s cells. Now scientists know the risk is real, he said, because the viruses may gain access when the two cells fuse.

In other experiments led by Esmail Zanjani at the University of Nevada at Reno, scientists have been adding human stem cells to sheep fetuses. The team now has sheep whose livers are up to 80 percent human – and make all the compounds human livers make.

raveneye · 11-27-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samcol

Dont' forget we are living in 2005 and the article I posted earlier specifically says they are doing these kinds of things:

Sure, but my point is that this has nothing to do with the genetic engineering debate, since these were transplanted organs or cells, not inserted genes. The image (in a lot of people's minds) that inserting genes results in a frankenstein monster is science fiction.

ajpresto · 11-27-2005, 04:53 PM

Yeah. I don't have any problem with genetic modifications, to a point. When they start ordering babies on demand... that's a problem.

Willravel · 03-07-2011, 06:37 PM

Bear with me on this one, because it's a heck of a necro and it's a long article, but I wouldn't be posting this if I didn't feel it wasn't important.

Quote:

Wikileaks: GMO conspiracy reaches highest levels of US Government

Recent Wikileaks cables are typically associated with information leaks related to U.S. war strategy, and foreign policy, which has led some people to conclude that leaked information of this nature is a possible threat to national security.

But in this case, Wikileaks cables leaked information regarding global food policy as it relates to U.S. officials — in the highest levels of government — that involves a conspiracy with Monsanto to force the global sale and use of genetically-modified foods.

In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton conspired to retaliate against European countries for their anti-biotech policies. U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration formulated battle plans to extract revenge against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds.

In the leaked cable, Stapleton writes: “Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission…Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice.”

Ambassador Stapleton goes on to write: “Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory,” he wrote.

Jeffrey Smith, Author of Seeds of Deception

In an interview with Amy Goodman at Democracy Now, Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology notes how he’s been saying for years that the United States government is joined at the hip with Monsanto, pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto’s agenda on the rest of the world.

“This lays bare,” notes Smith, “the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union. And then, two years later, in 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government—members of the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here, they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda.”

Although GM corn was the first seed that was approved for widespread planting in the European Union — specifically (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863) — individual countries stepped forward to ban these seeds. And so, in 2007, Smith claims Monsanto and the boitech industry, with the help of the U.S. Government, formulated a strategy to force these countries to accept the first of the genetically modified seeds.

Since then, there’s been more evidence — which we reported on in January of 2010 — showing that this genetically modified corn damages mice and rats, and can cause reductions of fertility, smaller litter sizes, smaller offspring, and immune responses. As Smith observes, these concerns have been ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the United States FDA.

Study Concludes Three Monsanto GM Corn Varieties Toxic to Mammals

The Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering participated in a study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences which demonstrates the toxicity in mammals of three genetically modified corn varieties from Monsanto.

Researchers concluded that these three GMOs (GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863) are not safe enough to be distributed commercially because the kidneys and liver in rats displayed toxicity levels when exposed to all three GM corn varieties. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.

Smith adds that with MON 810 corn, “they found that there was a gene that is normally silent that is switched on and now creates an allergen in corn. They found 43 different genes that were significantly up-regulated or down-regulated, meaning that there’s massive changes in these crops and they’re not being evaluated by the U.S.—by the FDA or any other regulatory authority around the world before being put onto the market.”

The Telegraph reports that in other newly released cables, US diplomats around the world are found to have pushed GM crops as a strategic government and commercial imperative.

US Embassy Lobbied Pope to Approve GM Crops

John Vidal, environment editor for the Telegraph writes: Cables from the US embassy in the Vatican show that the US believes the pope is broadly supportive of the crops after sustained lobbying of senior Holy See advisers…The US state department special adviser on biotechnology as well as government biotech advisers based in Kenya lobbied Vatican insiders to persuade the pope to declare his backing.

“A Martino deputy told us recently that the cardinal had co-operated with embassy Vatican on biotech over the past two years in part to compensate for his vocal disapproval of the Iraq war and its aftermath – to keep relations with the USG [US government] smooth. According to our source, Martino no longer feels the need to take this approach,” says the cable.

Cables Show US Diplomats Working Directly for Monsanto

Wikileaks cable reads: “In response to recent urgent requests by (Spanish rural affairs ministry) state secretary Josep Puxeu and Monsanto, post requests renewed US government support of Spain’s science-based agricultural biotechnology position through high-level US government intervention….”

As Smith points out, they’ve been — meaning US GOVT officials, Monsanto, and the biotech industry — working around the world to try and influence policy on every single continent.

Spain and the US have worked closely together to persuade the EU not to strengthen biotechnology laws. In one cable, the embassy in Madrid writes:

“Spain was the first EU country to grow genetically modified (GM) corn and now cultivates nearly 75 percent of the EU’s MON810 corn crop – nearly 200,000 acres. During a May 13 meeting with Monsanto’s Director for Biotechnology for Spain and Portugal, Embassy officials were told that Spain is increasingly becoming a target of anti-biotechnology forces within Europe and that Spain’s cultivation of MON810 corn was under serious threat. The sentiment echoed by supporters of agricultural biotechnology regarding a ban on MON810 cultivation in Spain is that “If Spain falls, the rest of Europe will follow.”

As The Telegraph notes, the cables show that not only did the Spanish government ask the US to keep pressure on Brussels but that the US knew in advance how Spain would vote, even before the Spanish biotech commission had reported.

Blackwater’s Black Ops For Monsanto

In a must read article written by Jeremy Scahill for The Nation, Scahill claims Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the “intel arm” of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

Scahill is an American investigative journalist and author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. Scahill says the coordinator of Blackwater’s covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique “Ric” Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their “deniability” as a “big plus” for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents.

Our U.S. Food Safety Czar is a Former Monsanto Executive

If after reading these incriminating Wikileaks cables conforming that US government officials at the highest levels are working directly with Monsanto, and the biotech industry to control the world’s food supply with genetically modified foods, ask yourself why our current Food Safety Czar, Michael Taylor, is the former Monsanto executive who crafted the FDA’s GMO friendly policy while serving as the FDA’s Deputy commissioner for policy.

Taylor also wrote the FDA’s guidelines on recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), banning dairies from labeling their milk “rBGH Free“.

Additionally, as Jeremy Smith points out in his interview with Amy Goodman, the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor, allowed GMOs on the market without any safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different.

Seven years later, says Smith, because of a lawsuit, 44,000 secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. “Not only were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies.”

Wikileaks: GMO conspiracy reaches highest levels of US Government crisisboom

Admittedly this would seem to come across as conspiracy theory, but the facts are aligning a bit too well on this, I think, for it to be dismissed out of hand. There would seem to be a lot more to the story of GMOs than I had previously discovered, and it's more than a little frightening.

Baraka_Guru · 03-07-2011, 07:11 PM

David Suzuki was warning us about this over a decade ago.

David Suzuki speaks out against genetically modified food - CBC Archives

samcol · 03-09-2011, 04:29 PM

This thread just made me realize how long I've been enjoying TFP, thanks Will

I think the you are spot on with your assessment. It's the only explanation considering the known dangers of GMO foods.

Agencies like the USDA and FDA make me wonder why we even have them. The dangers of GMO is well known if you research it at all, yet these crops aren't banned?

Food safety is their job, but they are letting what might be the most dangerous aspect of the food and beverage industry go untouched.

Conspiracy? Yes I think it's quite obvious. The people who are setting the policies worked for Monsanto which is the oldest trick in the book for a mega corporation like Monsanto.

11-21-2005, 02:05 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	E I E I GMO "Genetically engineered food will take over the world!" Wow, that sounds like a terribly alarmist statement. Of course if you ask a Canadian farmer about it, they'll agree. Because of poor control of GMO testing sites, there are no natural canola seeds being grown in Canada today. No soybean or canola seed is free of GMO genes in Canada. Not one. Not only that, but these genes pass into other plants and animals in the food chain, none of which have been tested with. It has even been suggested that GMO (BT corn) fed cows are dying. At least 30% of corn on the market is suspected to be GMO nsecticide corn, including the high fructose corn syrup in soft drinks. The US does not require labeling on GMO foods. BTW, these toxins were found by doctors at a swiss confrence on GMOs to have a compounding effect in the body, in other words they stay in an organisms system and build over time. So over a period of time, it would be just as harmful as having a large dose. (information from an interview on Guns and Butter the other day with Percey Schmeiser, http://www.percyschmeiser.com/) A few questions to start a DEBATE (a conversation involving people who want to learn and share information). How should the government or the indusdtry monitor and control this? Should they use closed greenhouses to test GMOs? Should GMOs be allowed at all? Should the press be covering this more actively? Better safe than sorry (should we stop eating it)? Should food with insecticide in each cell be sold without being labled as such (BT corn and cotton seeds are labaled as an insecticide, not a food, but the food that it grows into is labaled as food)? Is there a revolving door in the US or Canada with agricultural corporations? Warning, there is very little info online about GMO, at least that I can find.

11-21-2005, 08:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
JimmyTheHutt Psycho Location: Hell (Phoenix AZ)	Penn & Teller did an episode of Bullsh*t on Genetically Engineered foods. It explained my opinion better than I ever could. Pull it down somewhere and watch it. It's pretty informative, particularly on the fact the GE is harmless, and most organized resistence to it is of an anti-corporate nature hidden in terms of health concerns. Veritas en Lux! Jimmy The Hutt __________________ Think Jabba, only with more hair and vestigal legs.... "This isn't a nightmare, its real. Nightmare's end." -ShadowDancer

11-21-2005, 10:14 PM	#8 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	My personal distrust regarding the safety of such products in comparison to traditionally engineered products is that nature has a few prcoesses that ensure incompatible genes do not produce viable offspring. No such checks exist when one splices genes together. Abstractly, however, I think people should be allowed to create and consume pretty much whatever they want. I do demand my own choices in food, in particular, be kept safe from intrusion from alien genetic encroachment. All that said, consumers should have a right to choose what they consume and the only way I can envision that occuring is if products are accurately labeled. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

11-22-2005, 03:34 AM	#10 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	I'm sure third world farmers gaining access to crops that yield 50% more corn/wheat/millet/etc and that are resistant to pestilence without the use of expensive insecticides will be pretty happy to get genetically engineered seeds. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

11-22-2005, 09:20 AM	#16 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Let me see..... I spend millions to make a better corn plant (or whatever). You think you should only pay for one seed? Thats cute, if you don't want to use the superior seed, don't, if you do pay for it. Also while I don't know if they are 'bred to only work for one year.' that is a pretty good safeguard against enviormental 'pollution' from a GM crop. GM food IS the future, the benifits are huge and the risks are hypothetical. I too have some questions, though my concerns are more mundane biology, I'm not worried about human health risks. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-21-2005, 03:48 PM	#3 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	My main concerns are the lack of control of the testing sites. In other words, those GMOs that are being tested by the corproations, and not yet by the FDA, are possibly sending their pollons to nearby farms and plantlife. What if they made their way into the ovule of plants on farms or in populated areas, and were ingested without propor testing? Is this a problem waiting to happen?

11-21-2005, 10:39 PM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	As Will mentioned in his OP, there is very little data available for any novice to gain much information on this topic. So I will "lurk and learn" as much as y'all can teach me. There was an article in the local press about increasing the acreage of canola (I assume the natural one?) in order to make biofuels financially possible. Canola is used in eastern Washington as a throw-away crop to keep wheat fields heathy. The positive of a canola field is that is doesn't require expensive irregation watering. (E-WA is dry like a desert). That is the only tidbit that I can add, and I hope to learn a great deal more.

11-25-2005, 03:05 PM	#22 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	There is an interesting (but perhaps biased) argument here for organic produce. http://www.storewars.org/flash/index.html Dialup folks might want to take a long lunch.

11-27-2005, 04:53 PM	#30 (permalink)
ajpresto Tilted	Yeah. I don't have any problem with genetic modifications, to a point. When they start ordering babies on demand... that's a problem.

03-07-2011, 07:11 PM	#32 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	David Suzuki was warning us about this over a decade ago. David Suzuki speaks out against genetically modified food - CBC Archives __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

03-09-2011, 04:29 PM	#33 (permalink)
samcol Junkie Location: Indiana	This thread just made me realize how long I've been enjoying TFP, thanks Will I think the you are spot on with your assessment. It's the only explanation considering the known dangers of GMO foods. Agencies like the USDA and FDA make me wonder why we even have them. The dangers of GMO is well known if you research it at all, yet these crops aren't banned? Food safety is their job, but they are letting what might be the most dangerous aspect of the food and beverage industry go untouched. Conspiracy? Yes I think it's quite obvious. The people who are setting the policies worked for Monsanto which is the oldest trick in the book for a mega corporation like Monsanto. __________________ It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.