WH Relents and Allows the FDA To Proceed with Genetically Modified Salmon
invite response
2012 Dec 21, 4:03am 63,690 views 235 comments
« First « Previous Comments 72 - 111 of 235 Next » Last » Search these comments
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 27, 1:03pm
A feral cat that I used to feed could do that
Could be one of those alien beings Dmitry Medvedev mentioned and discussed on another PatNet thread?
If not it's a cool looking cat.
Homeboy
2012 Dec 27, 1:34pm
Actually grafting does not "change the genetics" any more than a transplant heart changes the genetics of the recipient.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27377/title/Grafts-guide-gene-exchange/
When two plants are grafted together, they share much more than water and minerals: They also swap genetic material, according to a linkurl:study;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5927/649 published in tomorrow's (May 1) issue of __Science__. These findings muddy the distinction between naturally-occurring gene transfer in plants and the human-mediated mechanisms we generally refer to as genetic engineering.
Homeboy
2012 Dec 27, 1:37pm
How do you know and why do you think this is better than just cross pollinating the corn and being able to save seeds for the next year instead of having to buy new seeds from Monsanto?????
How do you know it's worse?
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 27, 1:53pm
OK - just passing
Good questions. It depends on the legal contract I suppose. I'm not against patenting GMs for the time required to recoup (very expensive) business costs and to generate profits. Maybe a model similar to drugs where eventually they expire and generics become available.
However, your scenario suggests monoculture which is a bad idea. You'd want a certain amount of 'variable' plants also growing in any region in order to confront the unexpected. I'm pretty sure that is how it's done.
GM's and patenting and monoculture is exactly what Monsanto is doing? This is what you are sticking up for.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 27, 2:16pm
Then you should know that if they would sequence the genomes for the weeds and the pests - they would know how to eradicate them without chemicals and having to alter the plants they are trying to grow.
No. They'd be able to use either or both better. Like designer drugs in medicine which are also on the horizon.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 27, 2:20pm
GM's and patenting and monoculture is exactly what Monsanto is doing? This is what you are sticking up for.
I think they plant something like 10% regular hybrids within a mono-culture field or some such to get the best of both.
I'm sticking up for GM and what it isn't despite the frankenfood nuts claims otherwise. Yes, I also support patents you're damn straight.
New Renter
2012 Dec 27, 3:01pm
Actually grafting does not "change the genetics" any more than a transplant heart changes the genetics of the recipient.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27377/title/Grafts-guide-gene-exchange/
When two plants are grafted together, they share much more than water and minerals: They also swap genetic material, according to a linkurl:study;http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5927/649 published in tomorrow's (May 1) issue of __Science__. These findings muddy the distinction between naturally-occurring gene transfer in plants and the human-mediated mechanisms we generally refer to as genetic engineering.
Interesting stuff. Makes one wonder about that heart transplant.
When a farmer grafts 2 trees together, he is changing the genetics of that product.
I think what you fail to understand is that what we are calling GMO is an organism that could not in any way develop "naturally" that is under natural circumstances. Much of the so called genetic manipulation prior to the relatively recent labortory insertion of genetic material from other species has been by selection and controlled selection. These varieties could theoretically occour in nature, by accident, it is just that they have been selected in situations where man has controlled their genetic makeup through selective breeding. There are people that object to the process of hybridization, there are people that will object to anything. The big natural food movement is a bit less organic now and more directed toward heirloom varieties
The actual process of gene insertion in a true GMO used to (not sure of latest technology) involve actually shooting (with a gun like tool) the material gene(s) into the plant. Thus we get BT corn which has a bacillus genetically inserted that provides built in protection against certain insects. BTW this has dramatically lessened the amount of insecticide applied to the corn crop. There are other ways of controlling those insects without pesticides or BT corn but they involve crop rotation which many farmers do not want to be locked into. The difference in the old technology and new is that it is simply not possible for these GMO's to develop in nature and thus we are involved in a gigantic experiment covering vast areas of the earth with plants (maybe fish now) that have been created in a lab.
Using the original example of grafting it is possible when it was first noticed or attempted that people might have objected to that practice also. Since grafting has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years it has proven to be a benign practice, let us hope that laboratory genetic modification proves likewise as benign. In the mean time label label label.
Wheat. The basis of all breads, pizza's, pastas, cakes, and cookies. The prime evil of our health and waist lines in today's society is a purely GENETICALLY ENGINEERED crop.
But this misses the point of why there is concern with GMO's. As I said in previous post crop selection has been going on for thousands of years controlled hybridization on a high level probably for 80 to 100 years. The laboratory insertion of genes from divergent species into crop plants is relatively recent and could in no way occur n nature. Wheat may not have existed in nature but it is certainly possible for it to have arisen naturally. Same with corn. People have "genetically selected" not "genetically engineered" these crops into existence over thousands of years. Therein is the difference and "possible" reason for concern
70% of the corn and soy in this country are GMO, separating them at this point isn't an option,
I actually think the percentage may be higher but I disagree that it is not possible to separate the two. It is not only possible but is happening. I am involved in farming (indirectly) and used to farm. There was an .80 premium per bushel being paid for non gmo soybeans (last fall), so there is a demand for conventionally grown non gmo crops
but don't blame GMO's. We know exactly what we are doing with GMO's, it couldn't be more straight forward.
This type of scientific hubris doesn't sit very well with me. I am not opposed to GMO's but to think you know all the answers and ramifications of their introduction is just... irrational.
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:10am
Your scientists cling to a tree's, it's why they are paid by institutions
They are not here to provide you with health related information.
They are not here to care about your health. They are here to make money for their masters.
People are getting sicker and sicker from eating food. WHY!
Diabetes, Allergies, Wheat Allergies and worse, to suggest there is no health issues related to crops and GMO is pathetic.
Scientists are taking over from farmers , who do you trust?
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:14am
over 90% Soy is GMO
There is way to much GMO CORN in the food CHAIN. Way to much CORN in the food chain used as feed for FISH!!! CORN IS Used for EVERYTHING!
When will you scientist admit that!
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:16am
If you think we aren't doing OK, then blame hamburgers, wireless communications, electronics, chemicals in everyday plastics and cosmetics, pharmaceuticals that we pee into our toilets and remain in our watersupply, but don't blame GMO's. We know exactly what we are doing with GMO's, it couldn't be more straight forward.
Don't mind the man behind the sheets.
Yes, typical, as long as you have a job you can blame everyone else.
Yes there are many toxins in our lives, stop putting them there!
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:19am
As a scientist speaking. Nobody is trying to hide technology (GMO) from you.
Monsanto, Monsanto, Monsanto
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:22am
4. "Round-UP is Monsantos evil little Herbicide drug that is killing us and everything around us."
First of all, yes. Monsanto patented Round-UP, and "Round-Up ready crops". They do work in combination. Secondly, ROUND UP AND BT CORN are two separate technologies!
Speaking of Glyphosphate (RoundUp), this is one of the most safest herbicide on the market
B U L L S H I T!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash
Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs…Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…â€
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:51am
http://www.naturalnews.com/036023_Monsanto_GM_alfalfa_USDA.html
Exposed: Monsanto planted GM alfalfa before USDA approved it, federal agency knew all along
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:53am
http://redgreenandblue.org/2011/01/28/end-of-organics-monsantos-gmo-alfalfa-approved/
End of Organics? Monsanto’s GMO Alfalfa Approved
121212
2012 Dec 28, 2:54am
.....USDA acknowledges that GE material moves into fields and markets where it is not allowed or wanted. OSA believes the agency missed an opportunity to establish a comprehensive framework for overseeing GE crops and to protect the organic industry.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 3:15am
I think what you fail to understand is that what we are calling GMO is an organism that could not in any way develop "naturally" that is under natural circumstances.
Actually no, it's your failure of understanding. A gene for a salmon oil can turn up in a plant 'naturally' aka 'randomly' without help from any person. It could happen faster using older selective technologies. It cab happen really fast with modern scientific tools. Granted, it might be rare or not happen at all 'naturally' but there is nothing preventing this from occurring. The entire globe is a 'natural' GMO experiment. Trillions and trillions and trillions of GMO experiments are occurring everywhere all the time and have been for billions of years. There are such experiments going on in your shoes, your bathroom, your kitchen all-the-time. The world is not flat and you will not fall off if you sail West.
@donjumpsuit: Nice comments! I'm glad someone with direct experience in this area is commenting. Folks like you work their tails off all their lives to better the world and have to put up with this sort of nonsense. It's almost criminal. I'd considered going that route over a decade ago but decided against it when I saw the fear in Europe spreading here. Much easier ways to scratch out a living.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 3:27am
@Zlxr: That marijuana you are smoking is giving you a paranoid imagination.
@121212: Fortunately for me I don't work for a GMO company and never have. Consequently I am not paid by them - there are plenty of other DNA based companies and technologies for me to work on that will continue just fine if crazies ever managed to ban GMO foods (plants/animals). Keep on charging at windmills if you believe they are ferocious giants.
Tenpoundbass
2012 Dec 28, 3:49am
Good stuff Don, it's refreshing to actually hear the voice of reason from a Scientist that didn't go to the University of Hope and Change.
What do you have to say about Climate change, and what would be the best way to address it? Something tells me that if GW/CC is a real threat, and we're depending on Green upstarts to pull our bacon out of the fire, then that will be an up charge.
121212
2012 Dec 28, 4:08am
126 independent studies on the safety of GMO's in a variety of different situations, crops, environments. Conducted and published, peer reviewed in very trusted journals.
.....USDA acknowledges that GE material moves into fields and markets where it is not allowed or wanted. OSA believes the agency missed an opportunity to establish a comprehensive framework for overseeing GE crops and to protect the organic industry.
121212
2012 Dec 28, 4:09am
On glyphoshpate (RoundUP) specifically? Here is a 2 year study on the long term effects of Round up herbicide and GMO's in mammals.
B U L L S H I T!
http://www.globalresearch.ca/stench-of-eu-corruption-in-monsanto-gmo-whitewash/5316294
Cancer of Corruption, Seeds of Destruction: The Monsanto GMO Whitewash
Their findings were more than alarming. The Seralini study concluded, “In females, all treated groups died 2–3 times more than controls, and more rapidly. This difference was visible in 3 male groups fed GMOs…Females developed large mammary tumors almost always more often than and before controls; the pituitary was the second most disabled organ; the sex hormonal balance was modified by GMO and Roundup treatments. In treated males, liver congestions and necrosis were 2.5–5.5 times higher. This pathology was confirmed by optic and transmission electron microscopy. Marked and severe kidney nephropathies were also generally 1.3–2.3 greater. Males presented 4 times more large palpable tumors than controls…â€
Patrick
2012 Dec 28, 5:55am
A gene for a salmon oil can turn up in a plant 'naturally' aka 'randomly' without help from any person.
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
zzyzzx
2012 Dec 28, 7:27am
Same way a human liver is grown in a Pig.
I think Patrick was really saying that putting a gene from plant to animal or vice versa seems implausible. A human liver grown in a pig seems way less of a stretch, even to someone like myself who has no background in biology.
Patrick
2012 Dec 28, 7:28am
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Same way a human liver is grown in a Pig.
But there is no way for either to happen without direct and deliberate human involvement, right?
121212
2012 Dec 28, 7:35am
Right. Infact Monsanto and othes cannot PATENT anything that would occur naturally. It has to be artificially created and not happen in nature.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:33am
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
Well, technically it would be a plant gene if it evolved in a plant but they'd be identical. Random chance mutations would do the job.
Check out these structure diagrams:
http://lansbury.bwh.harvard.edu/structure_of_dha_and_epa.htm
DHA is mostly only found in sea life. EPA is found in plants. They are already almost identical. It does not take that many mutations to convert one to the other. In fact, if I looked a bit harder I'd bet there are already some plants with DHA.
Actually no, it's your failure of understanding. A gene for a salmon oil can turn up in a plant 'naturally' aka 'randomly' without help from any person.
Provide any evidence that this is true. This is simply your imagination. There are clear and very substantial built in barriers to inter-species breeding. In closely related species it does occur in divergent species such as salmon and plants it cannot occur... naturally
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:36am
A bit more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosapentaenoic_acid
"EPA is also a precursor to docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)"
It's virtually impossible for this change to not have occurred in some plant somewhere throughout time.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:39am
Provide any evidence that this is true. This is simply your imagination. There are clear and very substantial built in barriers to inter-species breeding. In closely related species it does occur in divergent species such as salmon and plants it cannot occur... naturally
I never said it would happen through inter-species breeding. Useful traits at the molecular level and macro level find their way and occur through evolution independently. For instance, bats, birds and insects all have wings but they are all unrelated - as far as wings are concerned.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 8:47am
I had many biology classes in college, including genetics and embryology and I just don't see how a salmon gene could ever turn up in a plant.
Please explain.
Well, technically it would be a plant gene if it evolved in a plant but they'd be identical. Random chance mutations would do the job.
Check out these structure diagrams:
http://lansbury.bwh.harvard.edu/structure_of_dha_and_epa.htm
DHA is mostly only found in sea life. EPA is found in plants. They are already almost identical. It does not take that many mutations to convert one to the other. In fact, if I looked a bit harder I'd bet there are already some plants with DHA.
By the way Pat, not to poke at you but they didn't teach you much about evolution apparently. If you believe in that and understood how it works and the implications then none of this would seem out of the ordinary at all.
I never said it would happen through inter-species breeding. Useful traits at the molecular level and macro level find their way and occur through evolution independently. For instance, bats, birds and insects all have wings but they are all unrelated - as far as wings are concerned.
Yes of course evolution can develop similar genes in plants and fish but they have evolved naturally over millions of years. Your post implied that an actual gene from a salmon could end up in a plant through some natural process. That is simply not true. This evolutionary natural selection creating desirable (for the species survival) is a far cry from "shooting" genetic material directly from a bacteria into a corn plant.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:00am
No, I didn't say "similar", I said, "identical". You just clearly don't understand and this is the source of your fear. No worries, kids are going to understand it as will successive generations.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:03am
I take that back rdm, I don't know if you are afraid of GM but do know you don't understand how these things work.
Maga_Chaos_Monkey
2012 Dec 28, 9:18am
No arguments with you on any of that Zlxr... But it's all not GM. If you have an issue with a company or industrial process we might agree.
Simply freaking out about GM though is barking up the wrong tree. There are so many things in food to worry about. Transfats are one I look out for. I don't eat baked goods these days unless I can read the label etc..
I don't know if you are afraid of GM but do know you don't understand how these things work.
I have yet to see where you have shown me how I dont "know how these things work"
I have stated I am not totally opposed to GMO's. I think they can provide some great benefits. One being the almost complete end to the application of corn root worm insecticide. I think they have been unleashed upon us with minimal regard to the complex web of life that exists on earth. Yet the Earth is resilient and we will likely survive any negative consequences.
What I most object to is the scientific hubris proclaiming that you and others have all the answers and anyone questioning your reasoning doesnt have the background to argue rational points. Your posts generally end with such a statement. I am speaking from experience as an ex farmer and one that is currently involved in agriculture as well as having a fair amount of "book learnin" Scientists have been wrong many times when they felt they had all the answers, the stakes just get higher as our level technological expertise grows.
« First « Previous Comments 72 - 111 of 235 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/21/genetically_modified_salmon_white_house_had_blocked_fda_but_now_approval.html
White House Relents and Allows the FDA To Proceed with Genetically Modified Salmon
The Food and Drug Administration today released an electronic version of its environmental assessment for a genetically modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies—effectively giving its preliminary seal of approval on the first transgenic animal to be considered for federal approval.
#environment