3 ms·

Very interesting article. I wonder about the second and third order effects of genetic engineering, but I would say I’m optimistic about a tree that’s engineere

Very interesting article. I wonder about the second and third order effects of genetic engineering, but I would say I’m optimistic about a tree that’s engineered to survive a blight, whereas engineering crops so they can survive being soaked in cancer-causing poison that kills everything else in the field —- and then eating them —- seems far more concerning.

xxpor 6y ago
You should really read more about how modern herbicides work. Glyphosate disrupts a specific enzyme that only plants use. That's why genetic engineering works so well for resistance to it, you can simply eliminate the vulnerability. The issue isn't that it's cancer causing (there's next to no chance it is, the issues are with the surfactants). The real issue is that weeds are evolving to also have glyphosate resistance, as would be expected when such evolutionary pressure is applied.
- scythe 6y ago
  The concerning thing about glyphosate from a biochemistry standpoint is that it's a very small molecule. As any engineer knows, small objects fit in lots of holes. It's also got a phosphonic acid component which is not a normal motif in biology and could (maybe) disrupt the function of any protein that happens to bind to it. The intention of glyphosate is reasonable, but the effect can be different.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Isamu 6y ago
This is traditional cross breeding, not genetic engineering per se. Although I have to wonder why one way seems natural and the other not, when they are both guided by human intervention.
- space_fountain 6y ago
  No actually. The article mentions it closer to the end, but what seems like it has a good shot of beating the blight is pulling in genes from wheat which apparently can produce chemicals to neutralize the acid the fungus uses to digest and kill the tree.
  - Isamu 6y ago
    Thanks, I thought this was about the cross breeding that the American Chestnut Foundation has done for decades, but they are now advocating a mixed approach with GE as well.
- SyzygistSix 6y ago
  Because one of these involves cross breeding similar species and the other includes things like implanting fish DNA in a tomato? I'm not opposed to GMOs per se but this is the main difference that I see.
samatman 6y ago
On the other hand, engineering corn to produce Bt toxin, which is harmless to mammals, such that less broad-spectrum insecticide must be applied to get the crop to harvest, seems like a straightforward win. The toxin only affects insects which actually eat the corn, so it shouldn't be contributing to the alarming crash in insect population we've been seeing worldwide.
- burlesona 6y ago
  I think that's a compelling argument, but I find I'm still cautious about anything that we're eating, especially as a staple good. It's just extremely difficult to _know_ what the long-term effects of any significant change in diet will be for any creature, and in particular for us humans it's hard to be an outside observer since by definition we don't live long enough to observe multiple generations. There have been a lot of things that science thought were "harmless" or even "good for us" in the 20th century which we later realized was quite harmful. I see no reason to think that we've passed some magic threshold where we no longer make such mistakes.
- acomjean 6y ago
  They added BT-toxin to potatoes years ago. I think major buyers didn’t like it, organic growers were worried insects growing resistant to it (they spray it). But compared to the really toxic chemicals used in “regular” farming it seems like a win. A little old but pretty interesting piece on gmo crops, different farming techniques: one question the piece brings up, which is who is who if anyone is regulating these things for safety. 20 years later I don’t know if things have changed. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-t... The article also compares growing gmos to software licenses: “The guide put me in mind not so much of planting potatoes as booting up a new software release. By ''opening and using this product,'' the card stated, I was now ''licensed'' to grow these potatoes, but only for a single generation; the crop I would water and tend and harvest was mine, yet also not mine.”
  - Kalium 6y ago
    > which is who is who if anyone is regulating these things for safety Great question! Perhaps it's been asked before: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php This seems like the most relevant bit: > The FDA regulates the safety of all human and animal food products in the US (other than meat, poultry, and eggs), as well as drugs and biological products. As to licensing: It may be worth considering that while a quite jarring experience for a home gardener, the prospect of buying seed anew every year is likely a familiar one to most modern farmers.

xxpor 6y ago

You should really read more about how modern herbicides work. Glyphosate disrupts a specific enzyme that only plants use. That's why genetic engineering works so well for resistance to it, you can simply eliminate the vulnerability. The issue isn't that it's cancer causing (there's next to no chance it is, the issues are with the surfactants). The real issue is that weeds are evolving to also have glyphosate resistance, as would be expected when such evolutionary pressure is applied.

scythe 6y ago
The concerning thing about glyphosate from a biochemistry standpoint is that it's a very small molecule. As any engineer knows, small objects fit in lots of holes. It's also got a phosphonic acid component which is not a normal motif in biology and could (maybe) disrupt the function of any protein that happens to bind to it. The intention of glyphosate is reasonable, but the effect can be different.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Isamu 6y ago

This is traditional cross breeding, not genetic engineering per se. Although I have to wonder why one way seems natural and the other not, when they are both guided by human intervention.

space_fountain 6y ago
No actually. The article mentions it closer to the end, but what seems like it has a good shot of beating the blight is pulling in genes from wheat which apparently can produce chemicals to neutralize the acid the fungus uses to digest and kill the tree.
- Isamu 6y ago
  Thanks, I thought this was about the cross breeding that the American Chestnut Foundation has done for decades, but they are now advocating a mixed approach with GE as well.
SyzygistSix 6y ago
Because one of these involves cross breeding similar species and the other includes things like implanting fish DNA in a tomato? I'm not opposed to GMOs per se but this is the main difference that I see.

samatman 6y ago

On the other hand, engineering corn to produce Bt toxin, which is harmless to mammals, such that less broad-spectrum insecticide must be applied to get the crop to harvest, seems like a straightforward win. The toxin only affects insects which actually eat the corn, so it shouldn't be contributing to the alarming crash in insect population we've been seeing worldwide.

burlesona 6y ago
I think that's a compelling argument, but I find I'm still cautious about anything that we're eating, especially as a staple good. It's just extremely difficult to _know_ what the long-term effects of any significant change in diet will be for any creature, and in particular for us humans it's hard to be an outside observer since by definition we don't live long enough to observe multiple generations. There have been a lot of things that science thought were "harmless" or even "good for us" in the 20th century which we later realized was quite harmful. I see no reason to think that we've passed some magic threshold where we no longer make such mistakes.
acomjean 6y ago
They added BT-toxin to potatoes years ago. I think major buyers didn’t like it, organic growers were worried insects growing resistant to it (they spray it). But compared to the really toxic chemicals used in “regular” farming it seems like a win. A little old but pretty interesting piece on gmo crops, different farming techniques: one question the piece brings up, which is who is who if anyone is regulating these things for safety. 20 years later I don’t know if things have changed. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-t... The article also compares growing gmos to software licenses: “The guide put me in mind not so much of planting potatoes as booting up a new software release. By ''opening and using this product,'' the card stated, I was now ''licensed'' to grow these potatoes, but only for a single generation; the crop I would water and tend and harvest was mine, yet also not mine.”
- Kalium 6y ago
  > which is who is who if anyone is regulating these things for safety Great question! Perhaps it's been asked before: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/usa.php This seems like the most relevant bit: > The FDA regulates the safety of all human and animal food products in the US (other than meat, poultry, and eggs), as well as drugs and biological products. As to licensing: It may be worth considering that while a quite jarring experience for a home gardener, the prospect of buying seed anew every year is likely a familiar one to most modern farmers.