Genetically Modified Corn Has Been Around For 4,000 Years

[Loonman]

http://www.cleveland.com/newsflash/washington/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1068750850280373.xml

The technique was not as sophisticated as the methods used for modern genetically modified crops, but experts said in a study released Thursday that the general effect was the same: genetic traits were amplified or introduced to create plants with improved traits and greater yield.

[Systematic Chaos]

1. So this "article" serves as justification

for trying to stuff genetic material from COMPLETELY DIFFERENT KINGDOMS into our crops?

And those untold millions of pollenating birds and insects that mysteriously drop to the ground aren't actually dead, they're just swooning over the sheer genius of it all.

Riiiiiiiight.

On edit: Guess I meant "SPECIES" in place of "KINGDOMS". I can never keep that heirarchy straight. :)

[Loonman]

2. Give an example of your hypothesis

And how you reached that conclusion.

[HereSince1628]

6. Zea mays has been GM'ed to have bacterial gene

that makes the same toxin as Bacillus thurengiensis (sp?) commonly called BT. It is a toxin that kills "bugs" the result is a corn plant that produces its own insecticide.

Corn and bacteria are in different kingdoms of life.

There is nothing hypothetical about it.

[Loonman]

8. So what's bad about that?

Sounds like beneficial modification.

[HereSince1628]

12. As written in other responses...

increased exposure to materials usually present in diets in smaller amounts, with additional risks for allergies.

within ecosystems...corn pollen blows on the wind and insects other than corn pests eat it. The concern is that this could cause insect populations in agricultural areas to decrease. Not all insects are pests, and the loss of insects could result in the loss of good insects that pollinate other plants we would like to keep around.

[sangh0]

108. Furthermore

the bugs and weeds are growing resistant to it and as a result there's a potential for creating super-invasive species. There's also the danger that because these genes are patented, if they pollinate the crops of a farmer who didn't buy the seeds, they can still be held liable for infringing on the patent. Farmers are being forced off their land because of this.

[BiggJawn]

27. You trolling or something?

BT corn pollen blows out of the field and settles on other plants, like Milkweed. Monarch butterfly cattepillars eat the pollen, die.

No More Monarchs.

BTW, before you try to tell me that there are "Plenty" of Monarchs, be advised that the entomoligists that study the creature are saying they may need to change careers in about 10 years when the species goes extinct...

Now, YOU explain how this is a GOOD thing?

[treepig]

31. the hysteria about BT corn pollen killing monarchs

has been thoroughly debunked

in the original study, monarchs were keep in a cage and fed bt-containing gm plants. they had two options - eat the food and get sick or don't eat the food and starve.

in more realistic follow-up studies (which for some reason are rarely mentioned by the anti-GM crowd), the response of monarchs to gm foods in the "real-world" was tested. here the monarchs quickly learned to avoid the gm crops and go eat some non-toxic plants in the neighboring fields. in fact, farmers who plant bt-crops maintain reservoirs of non-bt crops (or wild vegetation) exactly for the purpose of providing a food source for affected insects.

[Loonman]

35. Addressed

http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2000/oct/devine_p10_001030.html

[DemBones DemBones]

41. "tree-pig" and "loon-man" -- interesting choices of nomenclature

supporting your belief in trans-species and trans-kingdom gene transfer.

[Systematic Chaos]

7. Huh? That there are:

Higher risks of allergic reaction with GMO foods;

Lower populations of pollenating species present around at least some GMO crops;

Unknown risks to human health and biodiversity, and;

Measures taken by biotech companies to patent their GMO crops and severe restrictions and penalties - including imprisonment in some cases - placed upon growers who use said seeds...


are already proven facts. Don't believe me? Google it yourself.

On edit: And I don't mean to be flip when I say to check it yourself so don't take it that way. Just do some checks of your own and you'll have enough information to keep you busy for quite some time.

[DemBones DemBones]

3. Hybridization has never, but never, introduced genes from another

species, sometimes from another kingdom, into the genotype of an organism. This is weird science.

Some of the "genetic modification" done today is analogous to my deciding that it would be nice to have ears of corn with easily removed silks and, hey, my dog sheds pretty freely, let's splice one of her genes into this corn here in the lab. . .

We should probably go back to calling it "genetic engineering" (GE) instead of "genetic modification" (GM) to make it more obvious that this involves unnatural acts. It's notable that whether you call it GE or GM, its corporate nature is obvious.

Are GE/ GM foods bad for us? Who the hell knows? They haven't been adequately tested.

[treepig]

21. hybridization may not have produced trans-kingdom gene

transfer, but Mother Nature has plenty of other of mechanisms for doing just that.

http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/5/research/0024/abstract

From the journal Genome Biology 2002 (3:research0024.1-0024.13 (published 26 April 2002))


Title: Evolution of gene fusions: horizontal transfer versus independent events


The evolutionary history of gene fusions was studied by phylogenetic analysis of the domains in the fused proteins and the orthologous domains that form stand-alone proteins. Clustering of fusion components from phylogenetically distant species was construed as evidence of dissemination of the fused genes by horizontal transfer. Of the 51 examined gene fusions that are represented in at least two of the three primary kingdoms (Bacteria, Archaea and Eukaryota), 31 were most probably disseminated by cross-kingdom horizontal gene transfer, whereas 14 appeared to have evolved independently in different kingdoms and two were probably inherited from the common ancestor of modern life forms. On many occasions, the evolutionary scenario also involves one or more secondary fissions of the fusion gene. For approximately half of the fusions, stand-alone forms of the fusion components are encoded by juxtaposed genes, which are known or predicted to belong to the same operon in some of the prokaryotic genomes. This indicates that evolution of gene fusions often, if not always, involves an intermediate stage, during which the future fusion components exist as juxtaposed and co-regulated, but still distinct, genes within operons.

Conclusion

These findings suggest a major role for horizontal transfer of gene fusions in the evolution of protein-domain architectures, but also indicate that independent fusions of the same pair of domains in distant species is not uncommon, which suggests positive selection for the multidomain architectures.


and if you think GM foods haven't been adequately tested, well, they've been tested to death compared to the "natural" foods you're eating!!

[shirlden]

4. What unmitigated BS is this??

This is another try at public brainwashing by the frankenfood corporation. Equating the promotion of better crops through natural selection with the modification of genes by introducing foreign genes into a crop is like saying we can produce a better human by cross-breeding humans and monkeys.
Oops.....we have done that already. Isn't that how we got the BFEE ?
Is was obviously a failed experiment.

:crazy: :freak:

[Loonman]

5. Do you have hard info?

Or just invective?

[ablbodyed]

9. And what's your....

take on the matter, besides implied invective?

[LWolf]

16. Plenty.

You could spend all day gathering in all the info...go looking.

Some of us don't even use "old-fashioned" hybrids; you could start by comparing hybrids to open-pollinated plants regarding how they interact in healthy ecosystems. And GMO organisms are not the same as hybrids.

Then you could dive into current GMO crops and livestock; the chickens are profane, IMO. And so are the crops. Even if they didn't have extra consequences on habitats, ecosystems, and even neighboring farms, giving Monsanto total ownership of world food production is insane. And that's how it works. They own the seed; you can't save seed from this years' crop, but must purchase it from them every year. To get your crops ready for more Monsanto products; roundup, etc. so that you don't have to weed. And then the pollen from your crops drift and contaminate plants outside of your farm.

Last, you can look at possible health effects. Even without GMO crops, modern crop production produces food that is less nutritious than it could/should be. Another story for another day. The jury is still out on the possible health effects for GMO crops, but there is a reason why some of the rest of the world has said, "No thanks."

Here's a few places to browse to get you started; if you are really interested, you can find plenty on your own:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/gmo_lab_studies.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/pests040103.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/cancer022102.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/GMFoodRisks0702.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/GEFA110303.cfm

http://www.richardseah.com/news/chicken.html

[Zephyrbird]

38. I don't know how many damn times I have to partake in these

threads, and every damn time the same people simply ignore what I'm telling them and blat the same old crap over and over.

How much hard evidence do you have to have Loonman? How many times do I have to post about it in threads in wihch you are participating????

No amount of hard evidence is going to convince you. I suggest you work in a research division of a company that does genetic engineering for a few years to see how it's done.

As I have said now 7 times before, no matter how much fine wine, candlelight and fine food you give them, a squash and a petunia are never going to interbreed, thus resulting in a tobacco mosaic virus resistance in squash, one of the first instances of genetic engineering. I KNOW THE SCIENTIST WHOSE RESEARCH ACCOMPLISHED IT.

The kind of genetic engineering that goes on today HAS NOT EXISTED FOR 4,000 YEARS! Heyzeus Marimba you are showing just how ignorant you really are of the process, man!!!!!

You are talking traditional breeding methods, YOU ARE NOT talking about genetic SHOOTING, which is how most engineering is done today when you are discussing GM.

The technology allowing for genetic shooting has only existed for 15 years or so, and has only been used with relative "ease" for 10. Stop that damn BS about the process being around for 4,000 years for God's sake!

[treepig]

42. exactly what is "genetic SHOOTING"

kinda sounds like you're making up terms

and do you know what, genetic engineering in the lab is done very much like Mother Nature has done it for millions, if not hundreds of millions, of years.

perhaps your friend in the genetic engineering business can explain that to you

[Zephyrbird]

50. I worked in the research division for 6 years, treepig.

If you don't know what genetic shooting is, then you really ought to hush up about genetic engineering. Pretending you know about genetic engineering and not knowing what a genetic shoot is pretty abysmal. Sheesh. I feel sorry for you to have embarassed yourself so badly with that post.

Genetic engineering in the lab is nothing like what's done in nature. Ever see a petunia and a squash going at it in the field?

Didn't think so.

[treepig]

66. if "genetic shooting" is a scientific term

why doesn't it turn up search results on a scientific search engine, such as PUBMED?

http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

i suspect because it's a term you got from some hysterical political advocacy website

in any event, if you worked in a research division for 6 years, how could you possibly not know that genes are introduced into the target organism via a plasmid or viral genome? mother nature has been using plasmids and viral genomes forever to transfer genes across species (or kingdoms). in the case of laboratory genetic engineering experiments, the only difference is that the evil scientist, not mother nature chooses what gene will be transferred. the underlying mechanism is exactly the same. in fact, all the tools used to do genetic engineering are directly obtained from nature - i.e, the restriction endonucleases used to cut the genes out of a large DNA sequence, the ligases used to splice the gene back into the plasmid or viral DNA (both of which also come from natural sources), as well as the enzymes used for PCR amplification of genes - all of these tools used in the lab come from natural sources. recently, methods to specifically target genes to certain chromosomal sites (i.e., the CRE-lox system) have been developed, but these methods also use the exact molecular mechanisms already used in nature.

[Zephyrbird]

treepig.....

you've proven how you can cut and paste. You've not proven that you understand this process.

Gene shooting is the process of isolating a genetic trait on the DNA chain, extracting it, and then shooting it into another, even unrelated, species.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK SPLICING IS? You shoot the gene. Jesus Christ man.

Monsanto isolated the STS gene, shot it into the chain, developed resistant plants, then licensed THE GENE to companies for them to develop their own lines.

You can suspect me all you want. It only shows how desperate you are.

[Loonman]

74. Why shouldn't someone hold a copyright

On a process or organism that they created?

[Zephyrbird]

77. I never said they shouldn't Loonman,

But I'm not going to list, ONCE AGAIN, all the reasons why a monopoly is bad bad bad.

Go back and search the archives for my extensive posts on this subject. I directed some of them to you. Looks like you ignored them completely.

[Loonman]

79. Yeah, because I'm not talking about monopolies

Frankly, I couldn't care less.

[Zephyrbird]

84. ah, but you should, my good man,

you should.

And if you knew as much as you claim to about this subject, you would be concerned.

[JackRiddler]

138. Because they didn't CREATE it.

First of all, it's PATENT, not copyright. (How can you get that wrong? For your sake, I hope you're not working for a Monsanto PR contractor, because tomorrow you will be out of a job.)

The "someone" (Monsanto or whoever) who wants to patent did not create but only *discovered* a given gene - if even that.

"Discovery," not creation. One is about as justified in laying claim to ownership of a gene as Columbus was in seizing the Arawaks' lands.

As for "the process" by which the gene is SHOT into a different species' germ, that is about as much the shooter's creation as you laying claim to cut and paste text.

Get the analogy? If you discover some bullshit on the Web, and then stick it in a thread on a message board, that does not make you the copyright owner of either the Bullshit, or the Cut-and-Paste procedure.

And this is not about whether the science and technology of genetic engineering is good or bad per se.

This is about who makes the decisions - who has the power - who owns, who gains.

It is about what is guaranteed to happen, in a society where commerce is valued above all else: Some motherfuckers will invent crops that do not reproduce - and try to force everyone out of business who cannot afford to pay for new seeds every year.

For example, they'll make crops resistant to their own proprietary pesticide. Then they'll see to it that the surrounding area gets bathed in that pesticide, too. (Oops, looks like Ma & Pa didn't match McAgribusiness's yield this year...)

When their "proprietary" gene cross-pollinates into some other farmer's crops, they will go and SUE that farmer (the actual victim, whose crop was contaminated) and put him out of business for "stealing" their proprietary gene!

This actually happened in Canada - Monsanto won.

That is what we are dealing with. Monsanto & Co. have ZERO interest in helping the world, or in doing the right thing, or in making a better tomato. They are interested in laying claim to ownership on life, and profiting from it, and making it into a monopoly, and making us pay more for what we used to get for less.

[treepig]

81. i've worked in molecular biology labs at three universities

and have yet to hear anybody refer to "gene SHOOTING" - my point being that you're not using terminology that people who actually do genetic engineering experiments use. instead it sounds like something that probably came from a "gm-foods-are-evil for dummies" website.

[Zephyrbird]

88. treepig.

Stop insinuating I'm a liar or a "GM kook."

Genetic shooting was the term used in our division and at the research conferences I attended.

I don't give a rat's rotten ass whether you believe me, but stop trying to dis me on the basis that you haven't heard that term.

[treepig]

91. it is a bit interesting that "gene shooting"

returns 196,000 hits on google (a source of completely unvetted "science")

and 14 hits on the peer-reviewed PUBMED search engine (by contrast "genetic engineering" turns up 75989 hits on PUBMED).

guess i've never been lucky enough to associate with the 14 real scientists, yourself included, who used that terminology (oh well)

[Zephyrbird]

96. Treepig, once again.

I don't give a damn what your google searches turned up. I'm not going to cower and think to myself "oh gee treepig's proven me wrong!! oh dear oh dear" because you know what? I'm not.

[treepig]

106. ok whatever,

i just urge independent investigation into the tools that Mother Nature uses for genetic engineering (gene shooting, gene splicing, or what have you), and those used in the lab.

whatever terminology is used, they're basically exactly the same!

[Zephyrbird]

107. gene shooting is used in the lab, treepig

not by Mother nature. Ever see a fish hump a tomato plant?

[treepig]

112. it's entirely possible that a virus or bacteria

infecting the fish could pick up a gene from the fish,

and then when the fish is made into fertilizer and applied to the tomato plant, the fish gene could be transfered to the tomato plant.

cross-kingdom gene transfer does occur in the natural environment, whether you chose to accept this fact as reality or not

[Zephyrbird]

72. treepig.....

you've proven how you can cut and paste. You've not proven that you understand this process.

Gene shooting is the process of isolating a genetic trait on the DNA chain, extracting it, and then shooting it into another, even unrelated, species.

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK SPLICING IS? You shoot the gene. Jesus Christ man.

Monsanto isolated the STS gene, shot it into the chain, developed resistant plants, then licensed THE GENE to companies for them to develop their own lines.

You can suspect me all you want. It only shows how desperate you are.

[DrWeird]

126. "gene shooting"

Are you refering to the gene gun? Which literally fires DNA into an organism?
While it actually exists, it's hardly how it is done today.

Usually a gene is cloned into a vector, which then transforms the DNA into a host cell.

One such vector is a specific bacterium. This particular bacteria is known for it's ability to take DNA from one host into another, naturally. So DNA is transformed cross kingdoms and it happens every day. Kind of makes you past arguments invalid, don't it?

[Loonman]

44. Yes I am talking about traditional breeding methods

It's all the windmill jousters with their pet causes who are turning this into a GM foods = bad argument, and made me defend what was not in my initial statement.

I believe that is called a "strawman".

Or should I say baa-aa-aaa-d.

[Zephyrbird]

54. You cannot discuss the way foods are produced today

without a discussion of the type of genetic engineering I mentioned, for it's throughout the industry unless the seeds are developed ONLY by traditional breeding.

You cannot divide them out and pretend that all research is done by traditional breeding, so therefore GM foods are safe. Sheesh, man!

[Loonman]

60. I never said all research was done by traditional breeding

I said that it was nothing new, and has possibly helped human development and stocking of surplus foodstuffs throughout the ages.

[Zephyrbird]

73. Then why didn't you make the distinction?

I suspect it's because you want folks to believe the way we breed crops today has been done for 4,000 years. Yes?

[Loonman]

78. I didn't even draw the distinction between then and now

I said that it is nothing new.

I don't want to make folks believe anything.


They believe what they want to believe, and nothing I or anybody else can say will make them think otherwise.


I'm saying selective breeding and hybridization has been going on for that long, and quite possibly the current fear is misplaced.

[Zephyrbird]

92. Therein lies the rub.

The way we do plant breeding today, IS NOT the same as it has been done for 4,000 years. Hell's bells, it's not even the way we've done it for the past 50, and you know it.

[Loonman]

10. Fear is hysterical and misplaced

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=ns99993473

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=ns99993959

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/gm/gm.jsp?id=ns99993874


http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/position/


http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/

http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/menu.html

[Systematic Chaos]

17. So then, I guess there's nothing to fear about a privatized food supply?

http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1254

http://www.uua.org/pipermail/cusj-l/2002/000093.html



Are you beginning to "get it" yet, Loonman? The intentions of these biotech companies are anything but benign or compassionate.

[Loonman]

18. Yeah, they want to make a profit

Imagine that, a company that wants to make money.

[BiggJawn]

33. They want to make their profit at your expense.

And they want to makes LOTS of money off of you. If they can position themselves to become the single-source supplier for "food", hey, that's great, isn't it? Raise your glasses to monopolistic Capitalism!
So what happens when they kill the oceans and need to find something else to make the ever-popular "Soylent Green" from?

[Loonman]

36. C'mon

You sound irrational with "Soylent Green" and a big, big conspiracy to enslave the humans.

Choice is an illusion anyway.

What's wrong with improving quality and quantity of foodstuffs?

[BiggJawn]

115. At what EXPENSE????? THAT's What i'm trying to make you see!

At what EXPENSE are they "improving" things?? OK, so we kill-off several species that have no market value, BFD, they weren't worth anything to Monsanto, anyway. Lost some humans because of un-forseen allergic reactions? Eh, give the grieving mothers 100 kilobucks each (in ADM coupons) and we make 3 terabucks this year. Absorbable Cost of Business, write it off on our Taxes ..

And if I sound "irrational", so WHAT? Let's turn the topic to religion (which this thread is becoming, since I suspect you "worship" the mad science that brought us Frankenfood anyway)and you'll SEE what irrational really is...

[G_j]

11. question worth persuing?

who is Federoff? She was not part of the original study and makes the statements that use this study to point towards vindication of GM (GE) foods. Who does she work for?

[Loonman]

13. She doesn't work for anybody

http://www.gradsch.psu.edu/about/viewfaculty.cfm?id=812



Not everything is a conspiracy.

:tinfoilhat:

[G_j]

19. it's always worth

checking into these things. In case you didn't know, the latest PR tactic of industry has been scientific front groups. It's been quite successful, no foil hat needed.

A further question in this case is what grants is she working under at Penn State?

[HereSince1628]

20. Well she works in a dept dedicated to developing these

technologies. Do you suppose she is completely free of bias?

Her co-workers will expect a certain perspective.
Research is driven by public and private funding sources, and the private sources for GM technology frequently include the industry that is going to use the results...do you suppose that those companies give money to researchers who oppose their industry?

[Loonman]

24. So, I would expect

So, I would expect a theoretical physicist would have a certain perspective in the area of physics he/she works in.

Every industry that uses new innovations in science and technology uses a company or companies that put their theory in practice to facilitate wide and thorough testing.

[Zephyrbird]

43. :slyly grinning:

You are aware, of course, that grants are given to these folks by corporations, yes?

We used to underwrite research being done at universities to "prove" how safe GM was.

HAR! That's like saying Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

:7

[Loonman]

47. Grants are given to all corporations

Nothing new.

[Zephyrbird]

52. Read it again dammit.

Corporations underwrite grants to universities to do work with the results they want.

[Loonman]

58. Tell me something I don't know

n/t

[Zephyrbird]

75. Then tell me something I don't know, Loonman,

that a scientist's research underwritten by a company seeking a certain outcome is not biased.

[DemBones DemBones]

59. Officially, she's on the faculty at Penn State but she's also one of

those academics who's on various boards, just the sort of resume corporations like. It would take some time to really tease out all her connections but I couldn't help but notice that she seems to be doing rather better financially than the average academic (holdings in Sigma-Aldrich Corp.) Just Google her.

On Edit:

Here's the Sigma-Aldrich info:



http://biz.yahoo.com/t/70/355.html

Search - Finance Home - Yahoo! - Help
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Insider & Form 144 Filings - FEDOROFF, NINA V. Last Updated 
13-Nov-03
Enter symbol:
symbol lookup Insider Trades by Symbol 

EDGAR Online: Get a Free Trial to EDGAR Online Premium | Full text Search

FEDOROFF, NINA V.: Declared Holdings
Company/Relationship Reported Shares   Ownership
Sigma-Aldrich Corp
Director
NasdaqNM:SIAL
(historical quotes, profile, SEC, other insiders) 2003-10-28 1,000   Direct

Insider & restricted shareholder transactions reported over the last two years
Date Shares Stock Transaction
ADVERTISEMENT
2003-10-28 12,000 SIAL Planned Sale
(Estimated proceeds of $635,160)
2003-10-28 12,000 SIAL Option Exercise at $28.625 - $39.875 per share.
2003-10-28 12,000 SIAL Sale at $52.67 per share.
(Proceeds of $632,040)
2003-04-30 200 SIAL Purchase at $49.93 per share.
(Cost of $9,986)

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR Online: Get a Free Trial to EDGAR Online Premium | Full text Search

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 2003 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Copyright Policy
Data and information are provided by EDGAR Online, Inc. and Vickers Stock Research for informational purposes only and not intended for trading purposes. Yahoo!, EDGAR Online, Inc. and Vickers shall have no liability for the accuracy of the information furnished or for delays, omissions or opinions expressed therein. You may not use the information for any illegal purpose or furnish the information to any person, firm, or branch office for commercial re-use or re-sale.
Questions or Comments?

[Mairead]

14. You don't see the difference?

You don't see the difference between selective breeding to capture naturally-occurring changes and the forced introduction of changes that would rarely--if ever!--occur naturally?

[Loonman]

15. No, I don't

As for affecting humans on the molecular level; that is yet to be proven.

[Melsky]

22. Yet to be proven if there is any harm

but the genetic engineering companies don't want to even have the food labeled as such. In fact, they want to make it illegal to label non genetically engineered food. If the food is so great, why not let the consumer choose?

And frankly, I think there is a good chance there is harm from genetically modified foods. I don't see any benefit for the consumer at all.

I agree with you 100% on one thing though. The companies want to make money. They don't care who's rights they trample in the process.

Do you own lots of stock in Monsanto or something?

[Loonman]

25. There is no criteria for "organic" foods, either

All you have to do is slap "organic" on the label, and it goes in the "Wild Harvest" section of the supermarket.

[bicentennial_baby]

32. I call bullshit

There are indeed USDA Organic growing & labeling standards:

"Crop standards

The organic crop production standards say that:

Land will have no prohibited substances applied to it for at least 3 years before the harvest of an organic crop. The use of genetic engineering (included in excluded methods), ionizing radiation and sewage sludge is prohibited. Soil fertility and crop nutrients will be managed through tillage and cultivation practices, crop rotations, and cover crops, supplemented with animal and crop waste materials and allowed synthetic materials.

Preference will be given to the use of organic seeds and other planting stock, but a farmer may use non-organic seeds and planting stock under specified conditions. Crop pests, weeds, and diseases will be controlled primarily through management practices including physical, mechanical, and biological controls. When these practices are not sufficient, a biological, botanical, or synthetic substance approved for use on the National List may be used.

Livestock standards

These standards apply to animals used for meat, milk, eggs, and other animal products represented as organically produced.

The livestock standards say that:

Animals for slaughter must be raised under organic management from the last third of gestation, or no later than the second day of life for poultry. Producers are required to feed livestock agricultural feed products that are 100 percent organic, but may also provide allowed vitamin and mineral supplements. Producers may convert an entire, distinct dairy herd to organic production by providing 80 percent organically produced feed for 9 months, followed by 3 months of 100 percent organically produced feed. Organically raised animals may not be given hormones to promote growth, or antibiotics for any reason. Preventive management practices, including the use of vaccines, will be used to keep animals healthy. Producers are prohibited from withholding treatment from a sick or injured animal; however, animals treated with a prohibited medication may not be sold as organic. All organically raised animals must have access to the outdoors, including access to pasture for ruminants. They may be temporarily confined only for reasons of health, safety, the animal's stage of production, or to protect soil or water quality.

Handling standards

The handling standards say that:

All non-agricultural ingredients, whether synthetic or non-synthetic, must be included on the National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited Non-Synthetic Substances. Handlers must prevent the commingling of organic with non-organic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances. In a processed product labeled as "organic," all agricultural ingredients must be organically produced, unless the ingredient(s) is not commercially available in organic form.

October 2002"

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/ProdHandE.html

"Foods labeled "100 percent organic" and "organic"

Products labeled as "100 percent organic" must contain (excluding water and salt) only organically produced ingredients.

Products labeled "organic" must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form.

Products meeting the requirements for "100 percent organic" and "organic" may display these terms and the percentage of organic content on their principal display panel.

The USDA seal and the seal or mark of involved certifying agents may appear on product packages and in advertisements.

Foods labeled "100 percent organic" and "organic" cannot be produced using excluded methods, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation.

Processed products labeled "made with organic ingredients"

Processed products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients can use the phrase "made with organic ingredients" and list up to three of the organic ingredients or food groups on the principal display panel. For example, soup made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients and only organic vegetables may be labeled either "soup made with organic peas, potatoes, and carrots," or "soup made with organic vegetables."

Processed products labeled "made with organic ingredients" cannot be produced using excluded methods, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation.

The percentage of organic content and the certifying agent seal or mark may be used on the principal display panel. However, the USDA seal cannot be used anywhere on the package.

Processed products that contain less than 70 percent organic ingredients

These products cannot use the term organic anywhere on the principal display panel. However, they may identify the specific ingredients that are organically produced on the ingredients statement on the information panel.

Other labeling provisions

Any product labeled as organic must identify each organically produced ingredient in the ingredient statement on the information panel.

The name and address of the certifying agent of the final product must be displayed on the information panel.

There are no restrictions in this final rule on use of other truthful labeling claims such as "no drugs or growth hormones used," "free range," or "sustainably harvested."

Penalties for misuse of labels

A civil penalty of up to $10,000 can be levied on any person who knowingly sells or labels as organic a product that is not produced and handled in accordance with the National Organic Program's regulations.

When the new regulations become effective, organic farmers and handlers will have 18 months to adjust their growing and processing operations and revise their product labels to conform to the new standards."

http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/FactSheets/LabelingE.html

[LeahMira]

45. Absolutely!

If the food is so great, why not let the consumer choose?

First of all, there are combinations of food plants that grow well together and somehow manage to enhance one another's growth. Corn grows well with beans.

Then, crops need to be rotated so the soil is not worn out. That means that when in one year you plant a crop that uses up nitrogen in the soil, the next year you plant a crop in the same space that restores nitrogen to the soil.

There are also crops that repel pests. Some of the "smelly" vegetables like onions and scallions do that.

The large agribusinesses expect to force the land to produce unnaturally in some chemically generated euphoria. Already the U.S. has ruined much of the land and now we want to do the same thing to land in other nations? Crazy!

At least let consumers choose which foods they prefer. I prefer what I grow in my back yard but if I have to go to the grocery store at least I want to know that what I get is not full of things that I go to a lot of trouble to keep out of what I eat by growing and freezing or canning a lot at home.

I say, let the chemists eat the food they are altering. In a few years we all will check back to see how they are doing, and if they are healthy and have had normal children (not ADHD or whatever), then we'll talk.

[HereSince1628]

29. If you can't see the difference you can't see that the

quote in your originating post is at least innacurate perhaps intentionally so. A person in biotech would know that it is untrue.
People familiiar with the topic know the difference.

Realizing that someone who knows better just told an untruth is the first step in realing that what you're being presented is propaganda.

Some of the posters here clearly see that, and as you state, you don't.

[leesa]

98. Great! Let's prove it with an irreversible tragedy.

Exactly who do you guys work for? Treepig has championed DU (depleted uranium) in the past and always seems to have years and years of experience in this field or that field. Now it's genetics?

[treepig]

105. when have i championed DU?

what i have done is pointed out, based on actual scientific evidence, is the DU is not a radiation hazard (and claiming that it is makes one look foolishly un-informed).

i have also pointed out that DU has the potential to be a significant hazard due to its chemical toxicity.

and please point out exactly what fields i've claimed to have "years and years" of experience in (preferably by reference to the actual posts where i've made these claims)

[BiggJawn]

23. No, No, NO!!!!

Reminds me of that chapter in "Catch-22" where Milo got stuck with all that cotton, so he dipped it in chocolate and called it "cotton candy"...In other words, pure marketing BULLSHIT.

They can't tell me that 4,000 years ago farmers were splicing fish genes into grain, marigold genes into rice, and other Franken-food crap.
What was going on was selective breeding. Hybridizing. Sure, they were artificially "playing matchmaker" with different varieties of plants, but they were NOT crossing animal genes with vegetable genes....

The way these fuckers (ADM, Monsanto) try to push this crap on the Sheep....

We had The Plague 4,000 years ago, too.Does that make it "better" or "more natural" than VX?

[Loonman]

28. Non sequiter

I'm not discussing splicing plant genes with animal genes, I'm discussing the hybridization and selective breeding of corn for human consmption, and that has been going on for millenia.

I did not say once that "farmers were splicing fish genes into grain, marigold genes into rice, and other Franken-food crap."

You are saying that.

[DemBones DemBones]

26. This article is a propaganda tool aimed at quelling any questioning

of GM foods by the populace. It's written to make it seem as if everything is under control, nothing to worry about, move along now, nothing to see here.
Yet, since GM foods were introduced into the American diet without our consent and without our being notified, there have been changes in disease frequencies. Diabetes and asthma are increasing in incidence, and no doubt there are other examples. Various cancers are seen more and more frequently. Obesity, which contributes to many diseases, is also increasing at an alarming rate. Is anyone examining a possible relationship between dietary changes in the population and incidence of specific diseases in the population?

Here's the last part of this "All is well" article:

"Scientists now change plants by transferring specific, identified genes from species to species in sophisticated labs. Some advocacy groups have claimed this technique is dangerous. As a result, some European and African countries forbid the import of "GM crops."

But Fedoroff said that, actually, the whole world eats genetically modified foods. She said that over thousands of years, rice in China, wheat in the Middle East and corn in Mexico were all genetically altered through selective cultivation. The effect, she said, was like "a prehistoric Green Revolution."

The same process is under way now, she said, but with modern scientific techniques.

"People are fearful of the food they eat," said Fedoroff, "but civilization has been built on genetically modified plants. We wouldn't have civilization without it."


Look at the use of "sophisticated" and "modern" associated with GM foods.

Look at Dr. Federoff's claims that all cultivated plants are "genetically modified plants." She knows full well that the GM process is worlds apart from the "selective cultivation" over "thousands of years" that brought Zea mays from an insignificant weed to a major crop used for feeding humans and livestock.
She states that civilization was built on genetically modified plants, blurring the definition of GM to include hybrids. That's dishonest and appears to be a deliberate attempt to mislead the public.

[Loonman]

30. No, this article is saying that

No, this article is saying that selective breeding and hybridization of corn has been going on for millenia, and that civilization owes something for it for allowign people who would not have flourished otherwise to survive food shortages and head off blight and pestilence.


You are saying "This article is a propaganda tool aimed at quelling any questioning"

[G_j]

34. does the article

take care to point out the differences between selective breeding/hybridization and gene splicing technologies?

[Mairead]

55. You need to check your facts.

Because what you're claiming is total rubbish.

DemBones has it pegged. The article is trying to equate in terms of safety and 'naturalness' the breeding to select for naturally occurring changes within a single species and the forcible blending in the lab of genetic material from different types of organisms.

The two processes couldn't possibly be more different.

[Loonman]

62. I'm not claiming anything

Except that hybridization and selective breeding has been around for ages.

Others are making claims.

[charlie]

68. Post #60

"I said that it was nothing new, and has possibly helped human development and stocking of surplus foodstuffs throughout the ages."

Nothing new... traditional crop management or GM modification? If you're not drawing some sort of correlation between selective breeding and gene splicing, why bring up the history of corn?

[Loonman]

71. Was in response to another post

Nowhere did I claim that GM foods were safe or unsafe.

I didn't draw a correlation, it is others trying to get me in a strawman "franken-food" argument.

Just that genetically modifying food through hybridization and selective breeding is nothing new, and quite possibly, the fear of doing such is misplaced.

[charlie]

82. Again

Post #69

"Monsato is most likely fueled by avarice, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of selective breeding should not be looked at, in depth."

and...

"Just that genetically modifying food through hybridization and selective breeding is nothing new, and quite possibly, the fear of doing such is misplaced."

You are making a correlation. Otherwise your last statement makes no sense -- I doubt anyone here has any fear of food plants created by hybridization and selective breeding. And I've gotta wonder about the "all aspects" qualifier in the first. I'm not trying to play gotcha, I'm just puzzled why you won't directly say GM is no different than traditional breeding. It's what you seem to be saying. Or am I wrong, you think they're not comparable technologies?

[Loonman]

87. At the same time

I am fending off strawman "franken-food" arguments and stating and restating my original statement.

It can get confusing.

He asked me a question about Monsato, I tried to answer it.

Maybe I should ignore arguments that peel away from the original argument entirely.


I qualified my statement that alluded to current work by saying "possibly" and "could".

I didn't say it was set in stone, nor did I state an absolute, other than the original statement about ancient crop engineering.


I'm not playing "gotcha", the Z-man is trying to play it with me.

[Mairead]

90. Bull.

You posted the article that tries to equate selective breeding with intentionally combining genes from totally different organisms. That is the burden of that article, not a mere history lesson.

[Loonman]

93. They try to achieve the same goals

Using different methodology.

The conclusion is the same, you're doing the equating.

[Mairead]

97. I'm done trying to communicate with you

Your agenda is too effective a filter for truth to get through.

[Loonman]

99. So now you're going to posit truth?

Absolute or situational truth?

I am not the one with an agenda, other than all theories and experimental results should be looked at and not dismissed until all the facts are in. This includes prior knowledge.

I do not claim to have all the facts, nor do I claim to forward an agenda.


I look for the facts, and try to assimilate all information before making an assumption.

I make assumptions, and assumptions should be questioned, but not with insults or speculation on the arguer's concept of truth, or lack of it.

[DemBones DemBones]

37. About the testing of GM foods (a reply to treepig's claim above)

This paragraph shows how far down the rabbithole we are:

'Substantial equivalence' is a crude, non-scientific concept. It provided a loophole for the GM biotechnology companies not to carry out nutritional and toxicological animal tests to establish whether the biological effect of the GM crop-based foodstuff is substantially equivalent to that of its non-GM counterpart. It therefore allows them to claim that there is no need for biological testing because the GM crops are similar to their conventional counterpart, while on the other hand, because they contain novel genes from other organism(s), they are patentable."

In case YEGO (Your Eyes Glazed Over), what this means in plain English is that biotech companies are allowed to say "Oh, this GM tomato looks, tastes, and smells like a non-GM tomato so we don't need to bother doing any tests to see if it's safe (or nutritious) for people to eat. But, since we went to the trouble of inserting a few extra genes, we demand a patent on 'our' tomato so we can charge megabucks for it."

Hypocrisy always tags right along behind greed, doesn't it?


Quote is from "Genetically Modified Foods: Potential Human Health Effects" by A. Pusztai, S. Bardocz and S.W.B. Ewen, in "Food Safety: Contaminanta and Toxins," a compilation of scientific papers just published in the UK, 480 pages. The papers deal with all sorts of contaminants and toxins, from radionuclides to mycotoxins, pesticides to PCBs, but there are two papers on GM foods.

Here's a tidbit: studies with rats fed GM potatoes showed that the rats suffered retarded growth and gut lesions, among other symptoms.

[Loonman]

40. That's why things are tested.

The UK has been predisposed to slam GM foods, I've never seen a positive article in the UK science journals.

With the rats, that's why these things are tested.


BTW, you know how animals are tested for drugs and food?

They are crammed with massive quantities of the substance to be tested until something(obviously) goes wrong.

[DemBones DemBones]

48. Two questions for Loonman and tag team buddy treepig:

1) Are you a scientist?

2) Who do you work for?

[Loonman]

51. heh heh

Typical. You guys are all the same.

1) No.

2) Not important.

[treepig]

61. it always baffles me how seemingly intelligent people

and i start with the assumption that people who post on democratic underground are more intelligent than the masses out there, can be so utterly devoid of any scientific comprehension.

personally, i coulnd't care less if GM foods succeed or not. however a pet peeve of mine is political advocacy groups that produce scientific-appearing websites (tv ads, mass mailings, or what have you) that completely misrepresent the scientific consensus. if you're going to be against GM foods - at least do some research of the primary scientific literature so you can present legitimate objections, not the drivel that constantly pops up on DU about GM foods:

1) it's not natural
2) monsanto is evil
3) gm foods have not been tested

[treepig]

85. do you eat any food at all?

if so, that's quite surprising that you'd risk it considering that there is tremendous genetic diversity in naturally-occurring populations.

consider people – upon sequencing of the human genome we learned that there were ~30,000 human genes. however there are untold variations of these 30,000 genes, already over two million different forms known:

“Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are common DNA sequence variations among individuals. They promise to significantly advance our ability to understand and treat human disease. The SNP Consortium (TSC) is a public/private collaboration that has to date discovered and characterized nearly 1.8 million SNPs” (the count is a bit out of date – there are now many more known)

naturally-occurring snp’s can have devastating consequences to human health. for example, an snp can render a prion protein susceptible to plaque formation, greatly increasing the chance of neurological disorders (alzheimer’s, mad cow disease . . . )


ok, now consider that naturally-occurring crops or herds of animals also have tremendous genetic diversity. also consider that this genetic diversity is ever-increasing. therefore, if you consume a corn chip (even from non-GM corn) or beef, chances are that you’re eating some proteins that have never existed before on the planet earth (perhaps a new form of bovine protein susceptible to plaque formation??) moreover, you don’t even know the identity of these newly mutated proteins. in any event, the health effects of these newly-evolved proteins have never been tested! how the anti-GM food crowd who are so hung up on complete testing would even consider eating untested natural foods, which contain much greater genetic diversity than GM foods, is completely beyond my comprehension.

[Ediacara]

39. As usual.....

The vast majority of DUers are completely misinformed re: science.

Genetically modified foods include almost everything you put in your mouth like corn or apples or wheat etc....

Not that I am necisarily in favor of genetic manipulation, just pointing out that genetic engineering, in the form of SELECTIVE BREEDING has been around for milenia.

Calling things "frankenfood" makes you seem like a bonehead. Plus, some genetic manipulation could be genuinely beneficial to the plant. For instance, wheat with solid stem cores, so they're more resistant to pests.

[Mairead]

63. um, it's not *we* who are 'misinformed re: science'

We know the difference between forcibly blending genes in the lab and capturing naturally-occurring genetic changes in the field.

[Ediacara]

121. LOL

where do you think those genes used in the lab come from?

[Shakespeare]

125. My response to you from the other thread. No "LOL"

The other one's locked, but here's what you had to say:

Oh my goodness, that GM wheat, with the solid stem that's resistent to sawfly might pollenate with that hollow-stemmed wheat and the seeds the produce could grow into plants WITH HUMAN EYEBALLS!

LOL!!!

No, sorry, the plants produced will be, JUST LIKE ALL OFFSPRING, a mix of their parents genes, some having solid stems, some hollow, some more resistant to sawfly, some less etc.

There was a fellow by the name of Gregor Mendel who did all sorts of experiments of this kind about 200 years ago on pea plants. You should look him up one of these days.

First, to equate what Mendel did 200 years ago with the type of genetic modification being done today is simply bizarre. The two have almost nothing in common, and it's just not a valid comparison. Sorry to disappoint you.

Second, Yes, my argument is quite sound. The roundup-ready plants appear to be taking a significant toll on insects the product never intended to target, including, sadly, the monarch butterfly. And Monsanto is currently working on--and may already have in production--seeds that render subsequent generations of seed sterile. They do this to try and prevent the millenia-old practice of seed harvesting (all the better to inrease their profits), but cross-pollination of that particular modification could produce most unfortunate results on a massive scale.

Don't put words in my mouth, Dinoboy--I never suggested anything as extreme as plants growing human eyeballs, and I'll thank you to use your freshman-level attempts at twisted logic on somebody who might actually fall for it. My concerns, which I've explained, are not "extreme" in any way, and are based on outcomes already occurring with these plants.

[DrWeird]

127. Blah blah blah bling bling bling blah

First off, selective breeding is a valid comparison because you are UNNATURALLY crossing DNA from two DIFFERENT species in an UNNATURAL manner which is what all the anti-GM folks claim they don't like about GM.

Furthermore, Roundup Ready Crops have absolutely nothing to do with BT containing crops. And BT containing crops have absolutely nothing to do with killing monarch butterflies, which isn't actually happening, that's just a lie. And roundup ready crops have absolutely nothing to do with terminator genes, and monsanto hasn't been working on it for years now, mostly do to public ignorance and hysteria.

So if you are going to spread lies and propaganda could you PLEASE at least get them in order first?

[Shakespeare]

128. Not lies and propaganda.

My mistake in referring to roundup ready instead of BT--but that doesn't make my point invalid.

I'd like to thank you for your extremely disrespectful response, by the way. It's nice to see the level of debate maintained at such a high level.

No matter how many times you say so, hybridizing and genetic modification are not mutually inclusive. There's really nothing further to address on that point. You also assume, incorrectly and based on exactly nothing that I've written, that I'm against ALL GM products. That's not the case, so please save your cries of extremism and luddism for someone to whom it truly applies. I'm concerned specifically about the GM crops that have consequences not fully thought out by the Monsanto scientists.

And yes, the monarch population has been seriously in decline since the introduction of BT-containing crops. There are many outside factors that could be having an impact on that population, but the simultaneous coincidence of the introduction of BT crops and the decline of the population points to a definite connection.

And again, there's seed genetically modified for sterility (and yes, that one's still being worked on, in tandem with Monsanto's numerous lawsuits against farmers who harvest their seed). I believe (unfortunately) that time and experience will bear this out as a very legitimate concern.

When one moves away from the extremism of the cons AND pros, there are legitimate points to be made on both sides. That is what I'm attempting to discuss here, and I'd appreciate it if you'd back off your own hysteria and try to debate more reasonably.

I urge you to be more cautious in accusing people of being liars. A refresher on the DU rules might be helpful for you.

[DrWeird]

129. blah blah blah.

The monarch butterfly lie comes from one study conducted in a lab where a monarch butterfly was fed large amounts of BT pollen and was killed. Not much of a surpise since BT is an insecticide.

The hypothesis was that maybe BT pollen would blow onto milkweed and kill monarch butterflies. This hypothesis was immediately assumed by GM opponents as cardinal truth, despite the fact that studies which actually measured the amount of BT in milkweed adjacent to BT crops showed this didn't actually happen. The decline in population at the same time BT crops were introduced proves nothing but a coincidence, since the actual cause of the decline involved a freak frost in the Monarchs mexican mating grounds which wiped them out.

Furthermore, terminator gene research WAS discontinued by Monsanto. Furthermore I would ask you to explain why such technology is bad, since I really don't see any difference between that and seedless watermelons. Which, btw, were produced through selective breeding.

[Loonman]

131. Links

http://www.biotech-info.net/butterflies_btcorn.html

[Ediacara]

148. Try reading before blabbing

I was refering to Mendel when you were bitching about "what happens when they pollenate eachother!?"

I did not equate Mendel with gene splicing, but I equated Mendel with pollenation in nature... er I'm sorry, in the "uncontrolable wilderness." Let me say it again, when GM wheat pollenates with non-GM wheat, the genes in the seeds can be predicted the very same way that Mendel did 200 years ago with peas.

Like I said before in the other thread, I don't necisarily think that that all GM is good, but to have an assinine knee-jerk reaction is, well, assinine.

Speaking of freshman logic..... at what level do they teach you to READ AND UNDERSTAND an argument you're trying to counter?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. loonman are you in the biotech industry? you are always defending GMO's

just curious...you champion frankenfood loyaly imho even your handles (interjecting "treepig" here) are a dead give away...
loonman = weird science
treepig = botonist
:eyes:

[Loonman]

49. No, I am in the science industry

I can argue about superstrings, microbiology, and nanotechnology as well.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. breeding corn, maybe genetic manipulation

It is not the same as GMO. Bottom line is both corn species used are still corn. The genes used in them all come from corn. Taking a gene from a mouse and putting it in corn is an entirely different matter. The most worrysome aspect of this is genetically modified infectious diseases.

[Loonman]

64. That's what I'm saying

I didn't start the "franken-food" argument, others did.

[Classical_Liberal]

118. By calling traditional plant breeding GMO

you most certainly did make that argument whether you intended it or not.

[Loonman]

65. I'm not championing "frankenfood"

I make no such claims.

You are making counter-claims to an argument not being made.

Strawman?

[charlie]

53. And you could breed corn for another 10000 years

and never come up with a yield that had genetic material from a jellyfish in it. It's goofy that anyone would try to liken the two processes.

Organisms and plants are complex systems, living within complex systems. The expression of genetic changes will not unfold entirely as expected, there will be consequences unforeseen. We can't even write bug-free programs for computer OSes -- those are entirely crafted from scratch by humans, theoretically contain no lurking mysteries, and are magnitudes less complicated than matters of genetics and ecology. Yet we're routinely surprised by programs exhibiting unintended behaviors.

Categorical assertions that GM foods are safe, that fears of the potential for harm are "hysteria", and dismissal of concerns of the technology's stewardship lying mainly in corporate hands with flip "imagine that, a company that wants to make money" retorts... sounds like the demagoguery of a true believer. Can't you imagine for a moment that along with the benefits, there may come downsides, that extraordinary caution for extraordinary tinkering with our ecosystem and personal safety is prudent?

[Loonman]

57. They merit more dialogue and further study

Dismissing the concept out of hand is petty and foolish.

Of course there could be downsides.


That's where testing and regulation comes in.

[DemBones DemBones]

67. But they're NOT being tested or regulated.

The testing is being done on us and there are no controls (or perhaps the executives of Monsanto are the controls eating only non-GM foods? Yeah, I'm suspicious, but only because greedy corporate suits have given me reason to be.)

Look, I'm a biologist, and if you're actually in the "science industry" you have to know that scientists have screwed up in the past, as have regulatory agencies. Think thalidomide. The image of the all-knowing scientist in the crisp white lab coat is as phony as the image of the mad scientist deliberately harming people.

Scientists are people and people make mistakes, partly because they can't foresee the unforeseeable effects of a particular action.

[Loonman]

69. Of course there have been screw-ups in the past

The anti "franken-fooders", which I was not even making or not making a case for want, no dialogue, no testing, no consideration.

They don't want to know and they don't care.

It's like trying to have an objective discussion of evolution with a creationist.

Their minds are made up, and they don't want to hear about it.


The execs at Monsato see dollar signs, scientists see grants.

Nothing new about that. Monsato is most likely fueled by avarice, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of selective breeding should not be looked at, in depth.

[Mairead]

70. And another strawman is heard from

Nobody's 'dismissing the concept out of hand'.

All of us are united in saying that the implications are not yet well enough understood for anyone to be doing gene splicing within our actual food supply. If you're 'in science' but don't understand the concept of 'not well enough understood', then you must be someone junior in some other field.

Since you mention physics, read Feynman's mea culpa for not taking biology seriously. The arrogant young genius grad-student physicist, working in a bio lab one summer for a lark, thought he knew all there was to know about biology. So he screwed up an experiment that would have demonstrated a really fundamental principle in genetics. Ooops.

[Loonman]

76. "All of us"

No. I see people calling me "brainwashed" or implying I have a corporate agenda.

[Mairead]

83. Yes, all of us

When you post a rubbish article and then defend its rubbish thesis, what are the possibilities? It seems to me they're few:

- you're simply being contentious
- you're both ignorant and meta-ignorant
- you're pushing the corporate agenda being pushed by that article

Have I missed out any?

[Loonman]

89. Thanks

You just proved my point.

[DemCam]

95. Loonman...

I don't think you're a loon at all. Keep scientific evidence coming. We all need to take a look at it.

[Zephyrbird]

80. ooooo,

I think I've in love with you Charlie!!

:loveya:

good post!

[charlie]

86. Jeepers

Thank you, that's really nice of you. I'm in my second day with a mighty head cold and it's a struggle to keep my posts from veering off into splattershot ramblings. You've eased my fear that I'm writing in Chinese Moon language :)

[KFC]

119. Sure you could

The genetic material of all living things is composed of the same basic material (e.g., DNA, nucleotides...). You could certainly crossbreed corn until you come up with a genetic pattern/segment (a subset of the genome) identical to that found in a jellyfish. It would just take a long time.

[leesa]

94. Not by mixing different species genes.

[joyautumn]

100. Come on, University of Reading is side-splittingly pro-GM-biased

Loonman seems grotesquely biased against any reasonable argument against GM food, linking as he does to a propaganda site that goes to great pains to present itself as unbiased when it is obviously very biased, which would be fine if it did not make any pretense about it:

http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/menu.html

It states that it is neutral on the GM Food issue "per se", but promotes "biotechnology education" (meaning pro-GM propaganda) and says it's not funded by government or industry, but in fact it says it is part of the University of Reading, where research is done that is funded by government and industry, including the food biotechnology program at the core of its life sciences department, and which is fanatically devoted to developing research, training, business incubation, internship and career placement partnerships with the biotech industry, particularly in relation to food and agriculture:

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/businessdevelopment/aboutus.htm
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/pg/subjects/pgsubID95.html
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/res/finding/finding.htm
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/businessdevelopment/news.htm
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/businessdevelopment/documents/Life%20Sciences.pdf

They encourage their students to get research funding from blatantly pro-GM organizations:
http://www.rdg.ac.uk/pg/fees/funding.htm

in particular:
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/areas/Welcome.html
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/areas/af/priorities/g2f.html
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/initiatives/Welcome.html
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/science/initiatives/exploiting_genomics.html

Notice the blatantly earth-hating tone in this funder's areas of priority -- to "exploit" "biological systems", e.g.:

"The Engineering and Biological Systems Committee supports multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research in which the skills of engineers, biologists, chemists, mathematicians and physical scientists are employed in both theoretical and practical research to further understanding of biological systems and to exploit that understanding to address user needs, particularly in the bioremediation, bioprocessing, chemical, diagnostics, healthcare, instrumentation and pharmaceutical industries."

The University of Reading trusts the BBSRC so much it even advises its students and faculty to use the BBSRC's Good Research Practice document to guide their research:

http://www.rdg.ac.uk/Handbooks/Teaching_and_Learning/Good_Research_Practice.htm (see bottom of page for the link -- which is now broken; funny, a lot of the links are broken on the University of Reading website which evidence their strong ties to pro-GM-Food organizations and funding sources, and a lot of their documentation of where they get their funding and what patents the university owns are locked to the general public, only available by secure log-in).

There are also quite a number of clearly biased individual scholarships that the University of Reading is very proud to offer to its students, including:

"The SmithKline Beecham Prize
School of Food Biosciences and Department of Chemistry, Course in Chemistry and Food Science
Awarded to the student considered to have performed best in Terms 4-6 of the course
1 x £500 to the student and 1 x £500 to the department concerned to assist with the cost of final year projects."
http://www.lifesciences.rdg.ac.uk/grants.htm

None of this is to deny the University of Reading its right to promote its educational mission and help its students and faculty advance in their careers. But to claim that it is in any position to house a "neutral" institution which has no conflict of interest on the GM food issue is absurd. What's worse, the ncbe website all but threatens a libel suit against anyone who points out its bias by pointing out the vested interests of the university it is part of -- no matter how it gets its direct funding, its existence is tied to the university's existence. If its mission is really to promote a balanced discussion of all sides of the issue, as it claims, it cannot possibly be considered libel to dispute any institution's claim of neutrality on the issue, because such discussion only promotes the stated mission of the supposedly neutral institution. It is also possible that the ncbe is anti-GM and is engaging in blatant pro-GM propaganda to discredit pro-GM interests, but that does not seem likely. It could be they genuinely believe they are unbiased, but they fail to present anything remotely resembling a fully articulated anti-GM case on their site, so they are just badly uninformed -- since there is no department at the University of Reading promoting research on the need for ecological preservation and non-exploitation, that could explain why they are thus uninformed, and why their presentatino is thus so biased. The site certainly has valuable and interesting pro-GM arguments and information, and I encourage everyone to read through it, with the understanding that it fails miserably at its stated aim of presenting "all sides" of the issue.

[Loonman]

103. So what if they are?

What does that have to do with ancient farmers using hybridization and selective breeding.


I threw those links out to get the "franken-fooders" off my back, and one link has a whole slew of stories that are anti-GM food.

[rman]

101. never before have there been

crops resistant to pests because we put say, fish genes in the crop.

traditional 'genetic modification' as you call it (if you can call it that) is purely a matter of manual selection of crops with wanted traits. this is entirely different then modifying the actual genome on a macro-molecular level.

[Loonman]

102. Exactly

I'm not making the "franken-food" argument, others are.

Different methods, same results.

[rman]

145. not exactly; not the same result

The products of genetic engineering would never occur naturally.
That's i big unknown, a "know unknown" as Rumsfeld would say.
We shouldn't be gambling with it.

And then there are certain undesired "known knowns". Such as owners of ajecent fields that get 'contaminated' with GE crops being sued for violation of some patent on the DNA of the GE crop.
Also 3rd-countries world only being allowed to use ie GE grain or corn to make flour, not to save some to produce their own crops. Thus remaining dependend on the US because of patents on modified genes.
Capitalism at its best; make buck at the expense of others.

[IrateCitizen]

104. It's important to look at who is controlling the process...

Many good points have been made throughout this thread, on both sides. I admit that I am a person who is extremely distrustful of the push toward GM foods, but for different reasons than many might think. I look at it not in terms of simple monopolistic capitalism or providing bountiful harvests for the world -- but rather, in a way that looks at how we, as humans, interact with the planet of which we are just a small part.

The genetic modification that you speak of occurring for 4,000 years is far different from what is occuring today. In fact, I would say that they are so different that it is far from correct to equate them. The modifications that started some 9,000 years ago when humans first started settling in agricultural communities and modifying native species to create domestic ones -- the breeding of plants that eventually evolved into domestic wheat and other cereals, for example -- were done according to the rules that were still set forth by nature. While advances in farming techniques, such as irrigation and the development of the plow, certainly helped to increase yields and influence the manner in which different strains of plants and animals were bred; all of these changes were still subject to the basic rules of nature. Species could not be combined that were not naturally compatible. If a combination resulted in a species that ravaged the soil rather than replenishing it, it was not viable as a useful species.

Additionally, the very people who were carrying out these experiments for about 8,950 years were the same farmers who had a vested interest in maintaining stewardship of the land and environment on which they depended for a living. If they were careless and produced strains that ravaged their soil, if they polluted their water supply with chemical pesticides and fertilizers -- they would not only be wrecking the lives of those around them, they would be wrecking their own as well.

But, today, all of the rules have changed dramatically. Rather than breeding species that are naturally compatible, we have taken to inserting and splicing the genes of organisms that, in a natural process, would be completely incompatible. We have gone from farmers controlling this process -- people who are close to and dependent upon the land for their survival -- to corporate executives and shareholders, along with the scientists who depend on grants from those same corporations for their research. The controlling interest in this Brave New World is not one that is intimately concerned with the health of the soil and water for their direct livelihood. The controlling interest today has no qualms about agricultural practices that will boost the next quarter's profits, even as it may ravage the soil and pollute the water in the process. The controlling interest today does not see the greater environment and ecosystem as an interdependent web of life upon which they are intimately dependent, but rather as a detached entity that is to be manipulated and used in the name of "profit" and "progress".

Forgive me for sounding like an alarmist here, but I really can't help it. Everything I see around me indicates to me that so many of us have become so detached from the greater environment of which we are a part, and upon which we are dependent upon our very survival, that I cannot help but feel alarm. We are cutting down our natural forests at alarming rates. We are creating the greatest mass extinction across the planet since the end of the age of the dinosaurs. We are decreasing agricultural and environmental biodiversity at a time in which we should be ringing alarm bells and seeking ways to re-establish it. In short, we are tearing asunder the web of life all around us, and it is only a matter of time before we cause the collapse of our own small thread as well.

Just in analyzing the prevailing motives of those who seek to perpetuate the widespread use of GM foods, I cannot help but feel anxious. It is, IMHO, a prime example of what happens when profit and scientific "progress" are sought with little or no regards to reflection on ethical, moral, and even spiritual consequences. The dustbin of history is littered with far too many examples of similar abuses, the effects of which were often discovered only after significant damage had been done.

[dfitzsim]

109. BT in Tomatoes, Corn, and Potatoes

BT has been used for thousands of years by farmers, incluing organic farmers, as a way to control pests. It has been used judiciously as it is very toxic and can't be applied anywhere near harvest time - but it has the advantage of having a very short toxic life and does not penetrate the fruit - so if used appropraitely, is very safe indeed (which is why organic growers use it).

Monsanto has developed crops that have BT in their leaves in order to reduce the amount of needed pesticides. Sounds good. But even Monsanto admits that pests will become resistent to BT in about ten years. So, in ten short years, a safe and natural pesticide that has been used for more than one thousand years, will be made useless by genetic modification.

Then Loonman and Treepig will no longer need to argue the case for GM foods as we will have to keep modifying our foods in order to stay ahead of the pests.

[treepig]

113. it's just common sense that more than one pesticide

be used to avoid the development of resistance.

plants themselves don't just sit there defenseless, waiting to be eaten, they produce a huge arsenal of chemical defenses, see

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html#Fig.%202

for details.

a better approach than monsanto's mono-culture approach would be to develop dozens or hundreds of crops that each over-express certain combinations of these natural pesticides. such an approach could be done over generations by selective breeding, or it could be done in one generation by genetic engineering methods. in either event the outcome would be the same, just the methodology would be different.

[IrateCitizen]

116. I can't believe you attempt to equate these two processes

... develop dozens or hundreds of crops that each over-express certain combinations of these natural pesticides. such an approach could be done over generations by selective breeding, or it could be done in one generation by genetic engineering methods. in either event the outcome would be the same, just the methodology would be different.

I had to read this several times to make certain my eyes weren't fooling me!

In the first case, you are talking about a phenomenon in which naturally compatible species, or different strains of the same species, are bred together to induce certain characteristics. Those resultant organisms are then subject to the process of natural selection, so that nature can ensure that they are compatible with the surrounding ecosystem.

In the second case, you are talking about a phenomenon in which two organisms are combined that may be completely incompatible in nature, and then they are released upon the environment, with no knowledge as to how they will affect the surrounding ecosystems.

Inducing completely unnatural processes do not induce the same outcomes as managing natural processes. To try and present these two scenarios as equivalent but just happening on different time frames is either intellectually dishonest, or the result of attempting to portray events as happening in a vacuum, independent of the environment around them.

[treepig]

120. natural selection has essentially no role in selective breeding

in fact, the whole point of selective breeding to to circumvent natural selection.

believe, NONE of the the 270 million or so turkeys raised each year in the usa could survive "natural selection" (to give one example).

now back to the pesticides that are naturally made by plants, here's a few examples:



http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html#Fig.%203

each of these various chemicals is made by a pathway of gene products, what selective breeding (or natural processes) will do is "mix and match" the enzymes along these pathways to produce entirely new "natural" pesticides.

what the genetic engineer can do is speed up this process by taking the genes that comprise these biosynthetic pathways and "mixing and matching" them, using essentially the same molecular mechanisms (i.e., restriction endonucleases, viral transfer vectors, recombinases, etc) as the plants and generate the new forms of the pesticide much quicker.

of course you're going to object that the new forms of pesticides are untested. well, if you're an organic gardener you should be especially concerned because plants are constantly over-producing, and producing new pesticides that have never been tested. very scary!

[treepig]

132. to elaborate on this approach

consider how bacteria produce antibiotics from simple molecules such as acetic acid:



basically, there is a cluster of genes that produces a metabolic pathway of enzymes that converts a simple molecule (acetic acid) into a complex molecule, in this case actinorhodin.

ok, there's another species of streptomyces that also uses acetic acid to produce an antibiotic (now medermycin), but using slightly modified versions of these genes (denoted on the diagram with an "x").



now it just happens that these genes exist on plasmids allowing one or more to be shuttled between the two species of bacteria out in the natural environment. by mixing and matching genes this way, the bacteria produce new forms of antibiotics, such as these ones:



when the bacteria mix and match genes in the natural world, it's a rather inefficient, haphazard process. therefore only a few of the many possible forms of new antibiotics have been found; three are shown above. considering that there are 12 genes in this pathway, theoretically, 2e12 combinations (or 4,096) different products can be made by systematically varying all possible genes along these pathways. genetic engineers can do this mix and matching very efficiently compared to nature, but use the exact same methods (transfer of genes via plasmids).

so what i was proposing above is that plants be endowed with new forms of pesticides by mixing and matching the genes that produce these chemical (for example):



nature's eventually going to do it anyway!!

[not systems]

110. Label all GMO food.

Let the market rule.

The pro-GMO posters can eat a GMO only diet if they choose.

By not labelling these foods the GMO industry misleading the marketplace.

Let them compete in a market of full disclosure.

A free market requires access to information these companies have
used political influence to suppress the free information necessary
for a market to work.

Corporations should belly up the free market bar and get a taste
of consumer choice.

Until all GMO food is labelled I can only conclude that the a
informed consumer is the last thing the GMO industry wants.

[Loonman]

111. That's great

But it has nothing to do with the top subject.

Hey, if it makes y'all feel better to attack myself and treepig, go right ahead.

[not systems]

114. Modifed line.

Now it says pro-GMO posters.

This has everything to do with the threads above.

Your initial posted link concludes

"People are fearful of the food they eat," said Fedoroff, "but civilization has been built on genetically modified plants. We wouldn't have civilization without it."

You and this article attempt to link selective breeding with
direct gene modification.

This is presented as information need for an informed public
to form the "correct" opinions about GMO crops.

If the GMO industry want an informed public they should
start by complete labelling of all GMO crops.

I'm sure you as all reasonable people will agree that full
disclosure is needed.

[MrPrax]

117. How come all of this...

stuff, whether it be, steroids, hormones, 'irradiation', BHT, GMOs, etc etc have little to do with the health and quality of food, but are almost entirely to do with 'profitability'.

Why is health, even by some people's acceptable standards of risk, even being debated when the only 'gain' if profitability of the food industry? Are we still stuck on this nonsense that the world starves because it doesn't have enough food...seems the Vatican has bought this one hook, line and sinker.

I presume this is the point of this thread...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1083646,00.html among other links to the Vaitcan/GMO love-in...
Imagine the Vatican at the 'vanguard' of cutting-edge technology!!

[DemCam]

122. What's wrong with profitability, for pete's sake?

Is everyone here self-employed? Who do we work for on DU. I'm curious.

I hate scamming corporations in the sense of Enron...but good businesses who are innovative and profitable employ us....and yes...feed us.

[MrPrax]

134. Just as suspected...

Things like this usually cause 'ideological' responses over anything factual...
I never thought that profit should take precedence over profitability...with that type of thinking, one could justify keeping bad or dangerous drugs on the market, simply because someone might lose their job...
But it is a waste of time...I don't think that health, quality and profit are mutually exclusive. I do think there are much more important concerns that should override 'profit' motive. Unfortuantely our system tends to be 'profit' motived and essentially 'mutually exclusive'.

As far as 'feeding' us...there really isn't a shortage of 'food' per se, but a very bad way of distribution caused by 'profit' motives.

But you wish to suggest that if a starving person doesn't have the cash, then they should starve.

Just be clear IF YOU MESSAGE back what it is your defending...immorality.
(not, 'scams', or self-employment, or 'innovation' or human reliance on food)

http://www.interwebnet.org/

[Liberal Classic]

123. Opposition from a biological or a legal standpoint

I oppose some of the legal devices used to protect engineered foods. For one thing how do we patent a gene? There's a little issue of celestial prior art going on. None of the genes used do not exist out of nature, they're not actually invented just spliced in. It is the technology involved to hybridize chromosomes that should be protected by patent law, not the genes themselves. This practice leads to farmers not being allowed to save seed for next year's planting, accusations of cross-fertilization, destruction of a crop for patent violations and the like. None of these legal practices are beneficial to the farmer's market.

From a biological standpoint, however, it is important to know that you and I share roughly 50% of every genomic sequence with plants! A jellyfish is not really as different than a corn plant as is commonly thought. All life is greatly related even from us to a bacterium. There's no way of knowing if 10,000 years of selective breeding or cross fertilization would not have produced a plant with protien to produce a natual insecticide similar to that found in jellyfish, and since many plant species contain different chemical defenses against insects naturally. There's no way to know for sure, but it is not scientifically valid to call it un-natural. The genes themselves are in fact naturally occuring, it's just a matter of identifying them. Genetic splicing is simply a shortcut to cross fertilization and selective breeding.

The other thing to consider is that these plants have been grown for many years in farms for years now, and there has been no empirical damage to the environment. I read something like They haven't caused any species extinction, and wildly mutated plants or insects as a result. Certianly if you consider the environmental impact of artificial chemical spraying as compared with producing a pest-resistant strain it is more damaging to spray. One does have to be aware that some wild grasses can be cross polinated with wheat, for example. Some thought must be put into which crops to plant where, but this has always been true.

[Loonman]

124. link to Silverhair's thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=710463

Thread is locked

[Silverhair]

130. Seems someone is ALWAYS opposed to any scientific ...

advance or research.

The Super Conducting Super Collider that was to be build a little south of Dallas, TX was killed. A lot of folks that didn't know a thing were screaming about it.

Electro Magnetic Field experiments that were to take place in the Gulf of Mexico were opposed by know-nothings. These experiments measured the EMF pulse from a giant electrical flash. The purpose was to develop ways to shield sensetive electronic equipment from military EMF pulses.

Improved rice. I don't have specifics, so I am subject to factual correction by those more knowledgable on this item. I read about a straing of rice that is artificially enriched with something that helps prevent a major cause of childhood blindness in third world nations. What's wrong with that?

Pest resistant crops. GM is a lot better way to fight pests than is pesticides.

It seems that there is a great deal of opposition to science itself that comes from fear and ignorance of the science involved.

[treepig]

133. what about vaccines produced in gm bananas?

Currently, there is much research being done in the banana fruit. Why, you ask? The banana is one of the many potential fruits or vegetables used in edible vaccines. To find out which plant would be the best for vaccines, much research must be done. For example, analyzation of the banana plant is being done in terms of gene expression during development and ripening (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). One must determine the proper genes which will be used in producing the antigen causing the immune response in the body when the vaccine is eaten. This research also includes the promoters of genes in the fruit. Researchers "have characterized the promoter elements of these genes," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). All this information is used to "regulate the expression of genes encoding candidate oral vaccines," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). Many genes have been identified in the banana fruit that are up-regulated in ripening fruit (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site). That is, in the production of vaccines, we can look at the genes involved in fruit ripening. As the plant grows and ripens, the antigen introduced in the fruit, can be expressed. "'The key is to understand how a promoter will behave in the fruit,'" (Smaglik, P., The Scientist, 1998). Using the promoters of these specific genes, one can increase the production of the agents causing immune responses as the fruit matures. "We now have DNA constructs that link the promoters to genes for vaccine antigens," (Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research web site).

There are many reasons why bananas are being used as an oral vaccine. Because many diarrheal diseases are found in third world developing countries, the banana vaccine has been directed to such areas. Not only do children enjoy eating bananas, the fruit grows in many of the areas which require these anti-diarrhea vaccines. Bananas don't have to be cooked, they are eaten raw. This is good for the inserted proteins because if the plant were to be cooked, this protein would be denatured and become inactive.

more at http://dragon.zoo.utoronto.ca/~jlm-gmf/T0401B/

vaccines and gm food together? oh my, how are we going to stop this evil? a step in the right direction is to recognize that this work is being sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - so turn off that damn PC right now!!

[Silverhair]

135. Posters have partially changed my mind. Thanks DUers.

On further reflection, GM is different in the depth & breadth of its effects than anything we have done before. A GM strain can do "instantly" what nature hasn't been able to do at all. Some of those, like a really blue rose, or a mammal with green fur, (Not been done yet. Just using an example.)should be totally harmess. Yet even those examples, would permenent and capable of spreading.

A polluted river can be cleaned. Global air pollution can be undone, although the effort is hurculean, but needed. But a GM strain the gets loose will be subject to the law of unintended consequenses, and is forever. There have been many things that we have seen before that we thought were great boons to humanity, only to discover that they had had problems in their own right(DDT) or even increased a problem. Antibiotics have produced super-bugs.

At this point, I don't have any solutions or suggestions. I am having to rethink my position (I do that sometimes.) and that will take some time. Lots of it.

[Loonman]

136. Just keep in mind

The article stated a fact.

The discussion here is based on rhetoric.

[treepig]

137. in reality, a gm strain that gets loose

will be subject to natural selection in what ever environment it ends up in. and chances are overwhelming that if it's any environment except the completely artificial environment provided by the farmer, the gene will be most "unfit" and quickly eliminated from the population. it is quite telling that you use the example "Antibiotics have produced super-bugs" - that's my point exactly, life adapts to its environment!!

furthermore, all genes now introduced into the envirnment, are already loose in the environment. and whether you believe it or not, mother nature has provided many mechanisms for genes to transfer between individual within species, across species, and even across kingdoms. moreover, it is a complete lie to say that a "GM strain can do instantly what nature hasn't been able to do at all" - genetically engineering done in the lab entirely relies on molecular tools provided by nature.

[Silverhair]

139. Book or article suggestions anybody? Please.

Thank you for your comments. Once I start reconsidering my position on something I forbid myself to come to an quick decision, (Unless I have some sort of time constraint, which I don't here.) I would appreciate any book suggestions or article links.

[treepig]

140. quite frankly, if you have the time,

go to the original research and come to your own conclusions.

try the national institutes of health search engine:

http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed

hint - if you come up with too many hits - add the word "review" to the search - then you'll get review articles that summarize a few hundred original research articles - but these summaries are also peer-reviewed for accuracy (so they're not like the bunk you pull up from a google search)

[Silverhair]

141. Bookmarked it. n/t

[Shadoobie]

142. Hit the nail on the head

I agree with your stance. We don't know enough about the long term implications of GM foods. The examples that you listed are well known and so people are beginning to realize that the decision we make regarding technology do have consequences. This is effecting not only the debate on GM foods but also other areas such as nanotechnology.

What caught my eye, though, was your comment about making a mammal with green fur. Have you seen this?



Transgenic Monkeys Produced by Retroviral Gene Transfer into Mature Oocytes by A. W. S. Chan, etal
Volume 291, Number 5502, Issue of 12 Jan 2001, pp. 309-312.

The green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene from a jellyfish was transferred to a rhesus monkey.

-Greg

[treepig]

143. what about the glow-in-the-dark mouse?

or the featherless chicken?



oh, forgot to add that the chicken is not genetically modified via laboratory procedures, but rather by natural breeding:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2000003.stm

[Silverhair]

147. Cats vote "Yes".

I can see the world's cat population, (GM enhanced to be able to communicate easily with humans & vote. However, as they already think they are superior, they would not want to dumbed down to human level. Those people who are owned by cats will understand.) discussing the glow-in-the-dark mouse issue.

Cat 1: A bit of an odd taste, but so easy to hunt.
Cat 2: But that is causing our hunting skills to diminsh. We were doing fine as we were.
Cat 3: They are convience food. Fast food isn't good for you.
Cat 4: Mouse? Hunt? My dears. Such unrefined taste. Haven't you trained your humans to serve you?

[Silverhair]

144. Just what the world needs. A flourescent monkey!

OK, sometimes there are other things that are being checked out, and the glow-in-the-dark aspect is a side effect. I don't know about that so I'll go slow in my judgement. But my first, gut reaction is, WTF?? Did some researcher have time on his hands, or wanted something really weird for his research paper? :+

[welshTerrier2]

146. 4000 year old corn ???

i think i may have been served some of this in my company's cafeteria today ...

the guy behind the counter swore it was only 3,000 years old but i think he was just trying to use up the rest of his supply ...