Should the UK government allow genetically modified potatoe trials?

[peppermint]

A plant science company called BASF has applied to Defra to grow genetically modified potatoes that are resistant to potato blight. If they get the go ahead they will be planting next spring.

I am totally against this as not enough testing has been done on genetically modified foods, not just potatoes, to prove they are 100% safe for human consumption. Big corporations such as Monsanto involved in genetically modified foods claim they are safe, yet have done so little testing. They silence researchers that find results that prove their genetically modified foods are unsafe and stop them from publishing their work.

There is also the contamination issue, where genetically modified crops pollinate natural varieties therefore cross breeding. This could potentially lead to the natural varieties being wiped out.

[lewisa]

No.

Applying genetics to food is attempting to cure a problem we dont yet have. The world can grow enough food, what it fails at is distributing it evenly.


It SHOULD allow genetic engineering on things that do need a cure, like stem cells for cloning organs, etc.

[nightshade]

I always think that plant /insect relationships took a long time to develop
so that digestive systems were in tune, sudden GM introductions could mean
that pollinating insects find themselves with food that they cannot utilise fully
a bit like having no tin opener but plenty of tinned food.
If insects cannot have their share of a crop what other dependent species
will die

[Tormentil]

I think I read somewhere when GM crops first raised its ugly head, that seeds produced from GM crops would be infertile and cross polination could effect natural plants, with the result that eventually there would be no fertile seeds at all. A frightning thought!!

It may well have been just a bit of scaremongering by avid opponents of GM crops. But its food for thought (sic).

[Imaginos]

The biggest field experiment in the world took place in this country a few years ago on Glyphosate tolerant GM crops and whether the management of them had any effect on the environment. Despite plenty of vociferous opposition from members of the public and the media the trials were completed and found that these crops were even worse for the environment than conventional crops-a finding that, far from being supressed by Monsanto actually lead to them pulling out of Britain entirely.

I completely agree with peppermint that not enough testing has been done on health implications, but I would point out that bread wheat has four times the chromosomes as normal wheat thanks to radiation and chemical genetic modification carried out in the 40's and 50's, with little or no ill effects for the majority of people.

I vote yes, furtherance of our understanding of this issue can only improve the decision making process-after all it is not the scientists who decide to make these products legal but politicians. In the experiment outlined at the top of this post, despite the scientists finding against all the GM crops tested, the government still gave the green light to maize.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by lewisa

No.

Applying genetics to food is attempting to cure a problem we dont yet have. The world can grow enough food, what it fails at is distributing it evenly.


It SHOULD allow genetic engineering on things that do need a cure, like stem cells for cloning organs, etc.

Other than to remove the emphatic "no" and to say that we might never have a real need to cure the "problem" that Lewisa refers to, Lewisa sums up what my opinion is.

[peppermint]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

I think I read somewhere when GM crops first raised its ugly head, that seeds produced from GM crops would be infertile and cross polination could effect natural plants, with the result that eventually there would be no fertile seeds at all. A frightning thought!!

It may well have been just a bit of scaremongering by avid opponents of GM crops. But its food for thought (sic).

Yes you are right to some degree. It is a technology called Terminator technology conjured up by U.S. Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company in the 1990s, Monsanto and now other biotech companies are greatly welcoming and have patented this technology.

It render the seeds infertile so that farmers have to keep going back to the biotech companies to purchase seeds every year. Basically it stops people saving seed.

Read this wiki article for more info

Terminator Technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peppermint]

I think the GM issue is one that needs to be highlighted a lot more than what it has been already. There are a lot of people who dont really have a clue about whats happening with our food and if nothing else, then i hope to raise more people's awareness on this issue.

Although from the UK, i am currently travelling accross Canada with my husband and i find i cannot trust the food here at all to be GM free. They are in the top 4 countries for growing genetically modified foods and there is no law that makes them label the foods which contain the GM ingredients . Personally i dont want to be eating GM food and i hope so much the UK and Europe doesn't follow suit from USA and Canada, Argentina and a few other countries.

[nightshade]

http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng...gmo/gmo012.pdf
looking for something else entirely I came across this

[RobSutton]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

I vote yes, furtherance of our understanding of this issue can only improve the decision making process-after all it is not the scientists who decide to make these products legal but politicians. In the experiment outlined at the top of this post, despite the scientists finding against all the GM crops tested, the government still gave the green light to maize.

I must admit I agree. The technology exists and isn't going to go away. Proper scientific trials are the only way to work out how safe for both health and the environment these things are. How many technological advance would have been lost if the, entirely natural, reaction to be scared of anything new had held sway. Didn't people oppose the idea of railways because they thought the human body couldn't cope with the speed?

[nightshade]

I do not think it will affect humans directly it will be the side effects like insects and other types of plants being subtley altered or unable to feed or be fed on
T.I.C. Look how warlike the Americans are since they started eating GM!!

[peppermint]

beware this is a long one....
By embracing genetically modified foods, we would be taking so many risks. I have listed some of them, i hope its not too in depth.

1) Living organisms will be redesigned, moving genes back and forth not only across species lines but across boundries that now divide living organisms. cross breeding and artificial induction of mutations as with X rays worked within single or closely related species.

2)Potentially genetic engineering could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.

3) The vast majority of genes encode more than one protein due to the action of things called spliceosomes which cut up RNA, rearrange it, then reassemble it. (DNA encodes RNA which encodes amino acids which make up the protein). Biologists had estimated that in humans, there were about 100,000 proteins so therefore about 100,000 genes to code for them. When the genome was decoded, the scientific community was shocked to find only 30,000 genes.
In a fruit fly there is one gene that encodes for 38,016 different protein molecules - thats the record so far!
If genes encode more that one protein, then the desired trait ie resistance to potato blight may be achieved, but what else has been encoded for by this gene?. Will anyone know for sure how many proteins are actually being made and what effects on the normal plant system it will have?

4) Even if a forign gene passes the spliceosomes unchanged, the effect of a particular protein can be modified, according to Professor David Schubert of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, by the addition of phosphates, sugars, sulfates or lipids (fats). Different types of cells are susceptable to different add on molecules.
Will these added molecules change the way the forign genes desired attribute behave? Will a different add on molecule be picked up in the root or leaves or stems and change the proteins behaviour there? nobody knows and this could be a dangerous gamble.

5) A proteins shape will also determine its effect. The newly made protein must be folded into a precisely organized structure. Some proteins do not fold correctly and remain biochemically inactive unless they come into contact with a special type of 'chaperone' protein that properly folds them.
What will happen if a forign fungicide protein meets with the potatoes chaperone folders? Will they leave it alone? Will they fold it? Will they get it right? nobody knows the answer as these two proteins have never met before.
According to Dr Peter Wills of Auckland University, an incorrectly folded form of an ordinary cellular protein can under circumstances duplicate itself and give rise to infectious neurological disease. Prions responsible for BSE and CJD are examples of dangerous misfolded proteins.

6) The host DNA can be messed up when blasting the forign gene into the host DNA. one method uses a 22 caliber gene gun to fire tiny shards of gold or tungsten coated with the forign gene into thousands of cells. By doing this, there is no way to know where in the DNA sequence the forign gene has inserted, or even if it is in tact. Native genes can be damaged in ways the engineer cannot identify. Forign DNA can be inserted inside other genes deactivating it, or massivly increasing its activity. DNA can be totally reorganised with unforseen consequences.

7) Normally a gene in one cell will be busy pumping out its protein whilst in another where it is not needed, it will be unused. eg a genes that makes the iris blue in the eye will be activated here but in the whites of the eye it will be deactivated. When an fungicide gene is inserted into the potato DNA, the cells in the potato wont have a clue what to do with it, it has never seen it before. Should it be activated or not? As biologists dont know how to tell it to monitor the whole organism and turn on the gene when needed, they permanantly turn the gene on in all cells. This is done by using a promoter from viruses which can overcome the plants defenses that prevents forign DNA being expressed, therefore this can enable the virus the hijack a plants genetic machinary and make many copies of itself.
These promoters can also activte other non viral genes and one result of such overexpression may be cancer.

8) Changes in a plants DNA can effect its nutritional content. Cows fed GM roundup ready sop produce milk with more fat content.

9) Genetically modifying plants can turn harmless food into one containing potentially deadly allergens by either increasing a natural allergen, a gene taken from one type of food might transfer allergenic properties to another when inserted or an allergen might result from forign genes and proteins that have never been part of the food supply before.

Genetic engineering is built on a long list of assumptions. The main one is that the forign gene will always operate the same way in the host organism. Lots of the genes used these days are synthetic and are assumed to be equivilant to the ones present in nature.

[peppermint]

Originally Posted by nightshade

I do not think it will affect humans directly it will be the side effects like insects and other types of plants being subtley altered or unable to feed or be fed on
T.I.C. Look how warlike the Americans are since they started eating GM!!

We will definatly be affected directly, we shall be/ are eating the stuff!!

Check this article about the L Tryptophan daedly epedemic that hit the US and other countries in 1989.

Looking Back at Genetic Engineering's First Deadly Disaster: L-tryptophan

Also there has been incidences of genetically modified crops unfit for human comsumption (or should i say not tested for human consumption) that have got into the human food market. One such example is starlink corn, which was found in taco shells and many other food items in th USA in 1998. Many people had allergic reactions to it and so much food had to be recalled.

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by nightshade

http://archive.greenpeace.org/geneng...gmo/gmo012.pdf
looking for something else entirely I came across this

Much as I hate to pick, this article (with only four references, plus one unreferenced source dating from 1913) is full of holes. They have entirely failed to take habitat association into account when detailing the risk to butterflies-for example I'm sure there is no chance of GM maize (or any maize) being grown in the vicinity of the Large Blue populations in this country, or Heath Fritillary, or others, yet they are classed as potentially vulnerable...

With regard to Peppermint's points, forgive me if I don't answer all of them, but...

1) Species boundaries are rather subjective things-we humans share 98% of our genes with chimps, but we also share about 46% with cabbages, gene splicing in this context is not really any different from the bread-wheat mutations in the 50's. In fact with Genetic insertion you are adding one gene, with the bread wheat whole new chromosomes were created.

2) Potentially yes, also probably not-it depends who you listen to & who you want to believe/disbelieve.

3) Some genes encode for more than one protein, other genes only encode for part of a protein, let's not forget here that most, if not all, potential new GM types are extensively tested in closed systems (greenhouses, or rearing rooms) for many generations before being tested in the field.

6) Again I point you towards bread wheat, three new chromosomes and no ill effects...

8) & 9) Yes, but again these things don't go directly to market once they have been created, there are tests in place-rather stringent in this country, admittedly less so in others- that should 'weed out' (excuse the pun) deadly strains.

Of course there are problems with Genetic modification as there are problems with any new technology-how many people were killed by early steam engines, or production lines, how much wildlife died under new control chemicals like DDT in the 60's? However the technology is here to stay and as more is done, more is known and the safer it becomes, we cannot take the Luddite approach and bury our heads in the sand.

One final point-I'll quote the disclaimer at the end of the L-tryptophan article above (in a different colour so the providence is clear) with the question-if we don't trust one side of the argument ("Big corporations such as Monsanto involved in genetically modified foods claim they are safe, yet have done so little testing. They silence researchers...") shouldn't we also discount the other side too?

This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association Eco-Farm Home Page Ecological Farming Association <Eco-Farm Home Page Ecological Farming Association

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Imaginos

Much as I hate to pick, this article (with only four references, plus one unreferenced source dating from 1913) is full of holes. They have entirely failed to take habitat association into account when detailing the risk to butterflies-for example I'm sure there is no chance of GM maize (or any maize) being grown in the vicinity of the Large Blue populations in this country, or Heath Fritillary, or others, yet they are classed as potentially vulnerable....

Of course there are problems with Genetic modification as there are problems with any new technology-how many people were killed by early steam engines, or production lines, how much wildlife died under new control chemicals like DDT in the 60's? However the technology is here to stay and as more is done, more is known and the safer it becomes, we cannot take the Luddite approach and bury our heads in the sand.

One final point-I'll quote the disclaimer at the end of the L-tryptophan article above (in a different colour so the providence is clear) with the question-if we don't trust one side of the argument ("Big corporations such as Monsanto involved in genetically modified foods claim they are safe, yet have done so little testing. They silence researchers...") shouldn't we also discount the other side too?

This GMO news service is underwritten by a generous grant from the Newman's Own Foundation, edited by Thomas Wittman and is a production of the Ecological Farming Association Eco-Farm Home Page Ecological Farming Association <Eco-Farm Home Page Ecological Farming Association

So we are to trust these corporations without question and have total faith in them, this does also mean that that like the luddites we also have to bury our heads in the sand and allow others to carry on with their work unhindered. Faith is a wonderful thing and blind faith of course gets us our place in paradise.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by lewisa

No.

Applying genetics to food is attempting to cure a problem we dont yet have.

I have disagreed with Lewisa on a number of other issues, but on this comment I am in total agreement, in the area of food applying genetics is about increasing profits and forcing out the competition no more no less.

Accusing all people who oppose genetics being applied to food is proposterous, luddites oppose change because of an unjustifiable fear of change and using that argument is like saying those who opposed the Nazis or Pol Pot were luddites.

At best applying genetics to food is like those 4 litre urban 4x4s that are used to ferry one or two children to and from the local school or for shopping at the local tesco and are then left parked on the pavement outside the owners house because they won't fit in the drive, simply a waste of energy and resources that creates inconvenience for others.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

I have disagreed with Lewisa on a number of other issues, but on this comment I am in total agreement, in the area of food applying genetics is about increasing profits and forcing out the competition no more no less.

Accusing all people who oppose genetics being applied to food is proposterous, luddites oppose change because of an unjustifiable fear of change and using that argument is like saying those who opposed the Nazis or Pol Pot were luddites.

At best applying genetics to food is like those 4 litre urban 4x4s that are used to ferry one or two children to and from the local school or for shopping at the local tesco and are then left parked on the pavement outside the owners house because they won't fit in the drive, simply a waste of energy and resources that creates inconvenience for others.

It's my understanding of this thread is that no-one is accusing anyone of anything, but giving the oppinion that more experimentation is needed to understand the the facts. If anyone agrees that more experiments have to be carried out. Then surely to carry out these experiments you have to grow a limited amount of GM Crops?

That's the question for me - do we experiment or not?

Since GM Modified foods are here whether we like it or not, for me the answer would be yes. For me if I didn't say yes, I would be burying my head in the sand!

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by speckled wood

So we are to trust these corporations without question and have total faith in them, this does also mean that that like the luddites we also have to bury our heads in the sand and allow others to carry on with their work unhindered. Faith is a wonderful thing and blind faith of course gets us our place in paradise.

I did not say to have blind faith in corporations nor to allow work to continue unhindered, my point was that to dismiss the technology out of hand is just as bad.
My other point, which is relevant to quite a few threads is that we must be sure that the source we are quoting is either unbiased (not easy when quoting from websites-most of which are set up to put forward the founder organisations point of view), or the bias is acknowledged (something very rarely done on WAB, where there is often a point of view put forward, backed up by quoting websites with no attribution). Just as I would refrain from posting a link to a Monsanto or similar website in this discussion I would also, personally, refrain from quoting the Ecological Farming Organisation, and think hard about quoting Greenpeace in this context too.
Every technological and scientific (note the separation of these two different fields) revolution has its doubters, sometimes the doubters are proved right, often they are not. To call for the ban on a technology just because science hasn't caught up with it yet is understandable, to call for a ban on the technology and the research is wrong.

[speckled wood]

Originally Posted by Alan

It's my understanding of this thread is that no-one is accusing anyone of anything, but giving the oppinion that more experimentation is needed to understand the the facts. If you anyone agrees that more experiments have to be carried out. Then surely to carry out these experiments you have to grow a limited amount of GM Crops?

That's the question for me - do we experiment or not?

Since GM Modified foods are here whether we like it or not, for me the answer would be yes. For me if I didn't say yes, I'd be burying my head in the sand!

Alot of things are here whether we like it or not but that is no basis to allow all of them to continue, do we vote yes to allowing murder as an experiment?

[Imaginos]

Originally Posted by lewisa

No.

Applying genetics to food is attempting to cure a problem we dont yet have. The world can grow enough food, what it fails at is distributing it evenly.


It SHOULD allow genetic engineering on things that do need a cure, like stem cells for cloning organs, etc.

I should note that the GM Field-scale Experiment carried out in the early years of this century were based on herbicide tolerant strains designed primarily to reduce the herbicide load on agricultural fields and allow more weeds to grow within the crop, rather than just increase yields.