4 ms·

I don't like that the article appears to conflate "GMO" with plants that have been genetically altered with genes from an entirely different kingdom of life spe

I don't like that the article appears to conflate "GMO" with plants that have been genetically altered with genes from an entirely different kingdom of life specifically so they won't die when sprayed with glyphosate. Lots of genetic modifications in the lab are nothing more than a faster version of guided hybridization. Even in Roundup Ready corn and beans, I suspect it's the glyphosate itself that's a much bigger issue for human health than using bacterial genes in the plants to make them tolerate it.

hinkley 7y ago
I'm not against accelerated husbandry (although I do take to heart some warnings about selective breeding needing ethics too - see congenital defects in purebred dogs). Gene testing chestnut hybrids to cull the ones without the blight genes would be much safer than what they do now, which is test infect the plants. That's how you get a pathogen to adopt a new host. And that's my main complaint with transgenics, which perhaps we should use that word instead of GMO. We are not exhibiting an 'abundance of caution' in this work. We have major illnesses crossing over from birds and pigs all through our history. Some pretty bad ones in recent times. Moving genes between these species (which we are doing, to try to make more pig organs biocompatible with humans) could be very, very bad. Do we have a good model for what gene groups can increase the likelihood of viruses crossing between species? If this information exists they should be shouting it from the rooftops. But they aren't, which suggests that no such practices are being observed. If the next H1N1 turns into the Spanish Flu, 'I told you so' just isn't going to cover it.
- cestith 7y ago
  The worst factor in the "Spanish" Flu was likely conditions in the battlefields of World War I rather than the pathogen itself. Hogs and chickens were kept close to troops so their mess could feed them under the tight land constraints of trench warfare, and those troops were cramped together, wet, cold, and undernourished. They then suddenly got redistributed into the general European population after hostilities ceased. But I digress. If someone wants to take a juicier tomato and a tomato with more flavor and combine them to make a hybrid tomato, I don't so much care about a genetically modified tomato that could have eventually been hybridized in the greenhouse. As things get further from that, I have more reservations and I think we should look a little closer. Across species is a little more concerning. Across families moreso still, and so on as we talk about bigger and bigger jumps. You make a good case about our own genetics specifically, too. Things that alter our DNA or the DNA of things we already share diseases with (other primates, horses, hogs, for example) should probably get more attention to possible risks and side effects.
zadkey 7y ago
Generally I tend to agree. Generally I am pro genetic enhancements. But I do recall there was one type of genetically modified corn that was made to produce a specific chemical that caused insects' stomachs to explode. Supposedly it was there to reduce the need for pesticides. I recall thinking to myself, If it does that to insect stomachs, what would it do it animals' stomachs? The other issue that we haven't fully gotten figured out is cross pollination concerns. Aside from the problem of Monsanto's suicide seeds that grow only once and can't be harvested again accidentally cross pollinating with regular seeds from nearby fields, there is another problem with people becoming legally liable for the actions of bees, butterflies and other pollinators. Some GMO's have unreasonably restrictive licensing. This has resulted in a person's field getting pollinated with by bees who were pollinating GMO plants from a neighboring field now getting sued for having plants they haven't licensed even though did not originally plant that particular variety.
- cestith 7y ago
  There is definitely a need for the law to catch up to reality. Farmers should be able to use seed from their own plants even if they've been cross-pollenated. They shouldn't be able to advertise the patented traits without paying for the patent license. I think that's a fair balance. You can't put your proprietary thing out there to automatically install itself in other people's systems then sue them for having it installed. Imagine if a software development company tried that in court.

hinkley 7y ago

I'm not against accelerated husbandry (although I do take to heart some warnings about selective breeding needing ethics too - see congenital defects in purebred dogs). Gene testing chestnut hybrids to cull the ones without the blight genes would be much safer than what they do now, which is test infect the plants. That's how you get a pathogen to adopt a new host. And that's my main complaint with transgenics, which perhaps we should use that word instead of GMO. We are not exhibiting an 'abundance of caution' in this work. We have major illnesses crossing over from birds and pigs all through our history. Some pretty bad ones in recent times. Moving genes between these species (which we are doing, to try to make more pig organs biocompatible with humans) could be very, very bad. Do we have a good model for what gene groups can increase the likelihood of viruses crossing between species? If this information exists they should be shouting it from the rooftops. But they aren't, which suggests that no such practices are being observed. If the next H1N1 turns into the Spanish Flu, 'I told you so' just isn't going to cover it.

cestith 7y ago
The worst factor in the "Spanish" Flu was likely conditions in the battlefields of World War I rather than the pathogen itself. Hogs and chickens were kept close to troops so their mess could feed them under the tight land constraints of trench warfare, and those troops were cramped together, wet, cold, and undernourished. They then suddenly got redistributed into the general European population after hostilities ceased. But I digress. If someone wants to take a juicier tomato and a tomato with more flavor and combine them to make a hybrid tomato, I don't so much care about a genetically modified tomato that could have eventually been hybridized in the greenhouse. As things get further from that, I have more reservations and I think we should look a little closer. Across species is a little more concerning. Across families moreso still, and so on as we talk about bigger and bigger jumps. You make a good case about our own genetics specifically, too. Things that alter our DNA or the DNA of things we already share diseases with (other primates, horses, hogs, for example) should probably get more attention to possible risks and side effects.

zadkey 7y ago

Generally I tend to agree. Generally I am pro genetic enhancements. But I do recall there was one type of genetically modified corn that was made to produce a specific chemical that caused insects' stomachs to explode. Supposedly it was there to reduce the need for pesticides. I recall thinking to myself, If it does that to insect stomachs, what would it do it animals' stomachs? The other issue that we haven't fully gotten figured out is cross pollination concerns. Aside from the problem of Monsanto's suicide seeds that grow only once and can't be harvested again accidentally cross pollinating with regular seeds from nearby fields, there is another problem with people becoming legally liable for the actions of bees, butterflies and other pollinators. Some GMO's have unreasonably restrictive licensing. This has resulted in a person's field getting pollinated with by bees who were pollinating GMO plants from a neighboring field now getting sued for having plants they haven't licensed even though did not originally plant that particular variety.

cestith 7y ago
There is definitely a need for the law to catch up to reality. Farmers should be able to use seed from their own plants even if they've been cross-pollenated. They shouldn't be able to advertise the patented traits without paying for the patent license. I think that's a fair balance. You can't put your proprietary thing out there to automatically install itself in other people's systems then sue them for having it installed. Imagine if a software development company tried that in court.