My problem with Genetic Modification in general...

[Solon]

To be honest, I don't really care if scientists study or even apply genuine improvements to foods or animals for improving yield or quality. That is not the issue for me, I think genetic therapy, when properly applied holds great promise in medicine as well. Its not so much the science, but certain policies, in both government and corporations, that disturb me. I'll give my list below:

1) I don't like the idea that genetic modified crops can be patented, and the patents enforced in court. This to me is a big problem, for there are farmers that don't even own the seeds, they are given contracts forbidding them from replanting seeds that GM plants produce naturall, till a suicide gene is made. Not to mention the crossbreeding and spreading that occurs in nature, that all surrounding farms have to comply with company wishes, or get sued, for stealing that crop's genetic code. Also of great concern is the precedent this sets for genetic therapy, what if companies can own patents on these too? Will they sue patients who have children after the therapy, because they carry unauthorized copies of a patented product? How much power should these companies have over our lives?

2) Another problem I have is the application of these genetic "improvements" that companies put in their products. Seriously, is it neccessary to have glow in the dark fish? Or how about Monsanto designing grain that is Round-up, a Monsanto product, resistant so they can sell more of it to farmers? These seem to be frivolous uses of a powerful technology, and unnecessary for the health or benefit of all of us.

3) Somewhat related to number two, but the health risks from such products can be real. We have already seen this in cross bred animals of all sorts, look at many pure bred dogs or cats, where certain traits, that are undesirable in the species, are purposefully bred into them that lead to health risks to the animals, and shorter lives on average(less so in cats). Is it really a benefit to the animals that we breed dwarfism, which leads to heart problems, or other traits we think are desirable? Mutts usually live longer, sometimes much longer, than many purebreds, yet people still crave them like crazy.

What are the consequences of, lets say, a person allergic to Peanuts who eats, unknowing, a strain of corn with Peanut DNA in it? What if a specific enzyme, or chemical is present in the corn that leads that person to have a fatal reaction?

These are questions I have problems with, to be honest, I feel that, at the very least, these issues need to be openly examined, and for the public to be fully informed as to what they are eating.

[ck4829]

1. Here are some solutions and some things to think about

I don't think using plants that don't have usable seeds is a good idea. If companies wish to continue making a profit with the farmer, they should enter into a contract where the Farmer pays the company for 5 years worth of seeds.

I also think we need to be serious when we make genetic modifications. No, Glow in the Dark fishes are not necessary in any way. I think we need to stick with plants first. We should find ways to make food crops abole to grow in dry hot lands, make them able to produce more food, and make them generally larger.

We should also stick away from cross-breeding. This also won't help Genetic modifications in any way.

And the peanut thing. That is a real concern, but I think we will hopefully find ways around it.

[Maine-i-acs]

2. Some observations ...

Glow in the dark fish? A waste of good science.

Breeding dogs into a state of frailty? Ridiculous and dangerous.

Monsanto protecting their patents? Necessary evil. If you wrote a book would you want someone to photocopy it and sell it?

Herbicide Roundup - By having roundup resistant corn or soybeans, the farmer can spray the crops early in the growing cycle. The weeds are knocked down allowing the plants to mature without competition. Overall the use of herbicides is reduced this way. Without roundup resistance the farmers have to resort to a wider variety of herbicides, use them later in the growing cycle, and use more labor-intensive mthods to knock down the weeds.

I don't have an opinion either way on this, I think genetic modification has its place in science, when used appropriately!

[mstrsplinter326]

3. Genetic Engineering: Playing God

It does have medical applications that should not be ignored.

Geneticially modified food is WRONG! You cannot choose between modified and not modified: Seeding plants first pollenate, the wind spreads that pollen everywhere, and infects every plant with in miles. Moreover no labels are on food that are modified.

I'm not saying you cant have your God-food, but I don't want it. Keep it out of my food.

[Maine-i-acs]

4. GMOs should definitely be labeled

But at that point the American consumers will have sticker-shock - at least the ones that read labels.

Most corn and soy is GMO now.

GMO free crops get a higher price because they are exported to the Asian and European markets where there are labeling and import regulations.

The GMO crops are primarily diverted to Animal feed, ethanol plants, and US consumers!

[Eurobabe]

8. I don't like GMOs and genetic engineering

because they disrespect nature in general.

re: Genetic engineering. This may be harsh, but there is a reason why things die and break, its part of a natural cycle of life. Disturb that and you unbalance the yin and yang.

Problem I have with GMOs, they are made for economic control and exploitation of people. We could end up screwing ourselves in the end.

I don't like it when science thinks it has all the answers.

[smelcher]

5. patents

OK, patents protect the inventor for a period time described by the legislature. With out patent protection why would any company invest billions of $'s to refine this trait if it could possible be made public by the next growing season is self defeating?

As an aside, most patents are good for 17 years, with extensions given for an extra ten years for cause. Maybe a contrast to copy right laws would be neat. Like no one can use any song recorded without paying a copy right for the life of the artist plus (roughly) 25years so why is a scientist's creation good for 17 years, but a song is protected almost inperpituity?

Glow in the dark fish? This obviously a clue as to your knowledge of this subject

Back to the facts, To grow soybeans it was common to use 1 pound of a product like trifuralin to control grasses, along with about a 1/3 of pound of a metrabuzine, than an application of bentazone at a mini mun of 1 pound per acre,sometimes double that.

Now, two applications of Roundup do a better job and the total use is around 1 Pound per acre. Also Roundup has absolutely no soil presence and has NEVER been detected in ground water.

To add to that, corn borer resistant corn has reduced the annual usage of organophasphate insecticides by millions of pounds.

# 3 The cross breeding of animals and plants has not any relation to the genetic implantation of specific gene to achieve specific results.


And the last. People are not allergic to peanuts. People are allergic to a specific protein that is created by peanuts. There a a finite number of proteins. Most of these proteins ar found in most foods we eat. The difference is that the concentration of a specific protein in the peanut is high enough to cause an allergic reaction in susceptible people. If some one used genetic engineering to plant a peanut protein in a corn plant, allergic reactions would be a major portion of study before released.

[Maine-i-acs]

7. Thanks smelcher - and welcome to DU!

Nice to read your comments. GMO's aren't all evil. Borer-resistant maize is a great example of how GMOs help reduce environmental contamination in general.

[DrWeird]

6. Not sure I understand your objections.

1. Inventions get patents. That's a good thing, right? Developing GMOs takes a lot of time and money, and the people who do it should be awarded a patent. If a farmer is going to choose to purchase a companies product, he should abide by the terms, right? He shouldn't infringe on the patent by making a bunch of illegal copies. It's like buying a cd and then burning a million copies. Gene therapy? I don't see how that's any different then patents on medication. The company who invents it gets a patent, makes the drug, cures the people, makes a profit, and then generic manufacturers can produce the drug if they want to. The fear that a cured patent will be a slave to the biotech company is going a bit overboard, isn't it?

2. Glow in the dark fish? Very important to research. We've got the fish left over, why not sell them as pets. We've been genetically modifying dogs for a few thousand years, they still make good pets. Round-up ready plants? A very useful product. You can spray your farm with herbicide without killing the crop. I have no idea why people think this is a bad thing.

3. Now you're talking about artificial selection. I also perfer mutts, but I'm not upset about my neighbors pure bred dalmation. It's well cared for and it's not going to have to survive in the wild. Same thing with food crops. They've been breed to be big and nutritious and tasty. As such they don't survive well on their own. Why are easily overcome by weeds, have problems with disease resistance, etc. But again, that's due to artificial selection, and I assume you don't have a problem with that. Indeed, GM can fix a lot of those problems that have come up due to artificial selection.

Peanut genes? That's a valid concern. Which is why I think GM foods should be tested before they go to market. And they are.

[Sufi Marmot]

9. Glow-in-the-dark fish...

As Dr. Weird alluded, the glow-in-the-dark fish were the result of technology developed to visualize the localization of specific proteins. This technology is widely used in biomedical research as well as in general basic research, and has been applied to many organisms. I'm not sure I like the idea of creating and selling GFP-modified animals as pets, but the technology itself has been around for a (relatively) long time and is indispensible in biological research.

-SM