Kamilla Ludwig wrote:
<< I realize much of the gmo foods issue is psychological (and many of us
would make
different choices if we were informed about much of the way our food gets to
us!). I'm sorry, but I really don't want to find out that tomato I just ate
contained genes from a rat.
>>
In general, if you want to supply a growth hormone to an organism, it
is wisest to use a neighboring relative on the evolutionary chain.
For a "frankenfish", best results are most likely to come from existing
genes in closely related fish. Indeed, the article that Moorad posted said:
To create the salmon, scientists spliced into their eggs
a growth gene from the Arcticpout, a fish that thrives
in very cold water. That gene allows the salmon to act
like a colder water fish, which means its growth promoter
genes remain more active than a normal salmon. That could
be a boon to fish farmers because their salmon would be
ready for market earlier, and would grow on less food.
If I remotely recall (IIRR), fish have a primitive immunity
system, where mammals have the most developed. That would
mean genes used to express a growth hormones from a rat or
some vastly distant animal on the evolutionary chain would
be unlikely to be of any use for a fish and would likely
trigger an immune (autoimmune) response if anything happened
at all.
So in this sense, the *principle* (where I can't emphasize
the word "principle" enough) is similar to breeding.
<<
But the biggest problem I have with the proponents
of GM foods is that they are proclaiming it an unqualified consumer and
environmental benefit and it is not. The monarch butterfly population has
been
destroyed in some areas planted with GM corn. There is a concern that hidden
genes from other organisms may trigger allergic reactions (there have already
been reports of this occurring). Not to mention the agribusiness control of
the
whole process - you can't save seeds from your own crops, you have to buy new
seed from them every year under the terms of the purchase agreements.
I'd be happy to wait for the long term studies to come in, but there aren't
any
being done. I'd be happy to wait for any of the necessary long term studies
if
they would be done. In the meantime, the primary thing I am advocating is
labeling these products so those of us who have psychological and other
concerns
can make the choice.
>>
I basically agree with you here. I think your main points are (1) lack
of utility of GM foods, (2) the unknown risks of these foods, and (3)
Too much control on the part of the company over the farmer and the
consumer and the creation of long term dependency.
(1) lack of utility:
Basically I think you are correct for the most part. The current effort
is little more than scientists playing with plasmids to come up with
something useful.
The only thing I might encourage you to consider here is that to fight
some of the genetically inherited diseases that exist our human
population, we may have to resort to some drastic measures. For example,
the disease that Steven Hawkings (the famous cosmologist) has, is a
progressive neurological disease, and quite likely, in cases like that, the
only way we could stop the progression of the disease is to insert a
gene locally in part of the brain tissue. That would involve considerable
advances in our current technology. Most of all, we need to develop accurate
delivery systems and we need to make major advances in protein engineering,
but these will likely be possible in 20 years or so (too late for Hawkings
I think). To learn this, we need to do a lot of experimental work, and
manipulating plant genes seems like a relatively benign way to struggle
through this early stage of our ignorance. Even if I thought I had something
that could cure Hawkings now, I think it would be wise to test it somewhere
else first...... Don't you think so?
We have a long way to go.....
(2) Unknown risks:
There are a lot of unknowns, and my
greatest concern is these "terminator" type of systems they introduce.
That is definitely mucking with the business end of an organism and is
not part of the traditional history of breeding. The question then
becomes "what else are they doing" beyond the stated objective.
Keep in mind again, that there are some cross breeds that are
also infertile. The tangelo(sp?) (IIRR, a cross between a tangerine and
a peach) is infertile. A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey
and is infertile. So in some cases, the infertility does not pose
any unusual risks.
I think in the case of the genetically modified (GM) corn, it might
have been insect resistant corn and the monarch butterfly was an
inadvertant victim. However, even the mindset that we need *more*
toxins in plants because insects are becoming resistant to the current
arsenal of insecticides seems to me the wrong way of solving the
problem.
(3) too much control on the part of the company over the farmer
and the consumer
I also agree, one cannot help but suspect anyone who claims they
are trying to help you by creating dependencies. Drug dealers will
say "they are only trying to help", gossipers will say "they are only
trying to help", and flimflam men will tell you "they are only trying
to help". When an advertiser hand me that kind of malarkey, my skeptic
filters fly to the red zone.
The benefits that I raised in (1), are likely to be lost in trade
secrets etc. and the risks in (2) are likely to be down played or
ignored in the interest of economic gains. So your "feeling" are
probably well served on this point.
Perhaps, in that sense, the only way that we can insure that (1) is
advanced, and (2) is minimized is to link such research in publicly
funded projects like current efforts in biosciences.
by Grace alone do we proceed,
Wayne
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 19 2000 - 12:04:30 EDT