5 ms·

This very brief article doesn't really cover much at all, only covering that we generally know that a GMO food won't kill you if you eat it. While there are a

by zzzeek 13y ago

This very brief article doesn't really cover much at all, only covering that we generally know that a GMO food won't kill you if you eat it. While there are a minority of individuals who needlessly worry about this, this isn't really the issue. It certainly does not address the key issue of whether or not Monsanto should be leading the field. The real concerns involve sustainable agricultural concerns such as pesticide resistance or overuse, gene contamination, and freedom of research, and specifically if Monsanto the company has really shown themselves to be the most responsible steward to retain near-monopolistic control over the execution of these sensitive practices, as well as a vast proportion of the world's seed supply. For lots of in-depth discussion on these issues, I recommend this series by the Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/ http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... Articles specific to Monsanto are here: http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/promoting-resistant-pests.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/spreading-gene-contamination.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/genetic-engineering/suppressing-research.html http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-... Disclaimer: I am not a farmer, or a scientist, or someone who knows anything at all. I am merely pointing out that this article says nearly nothing useful, and referring to a series of articles by a reputable, if not opinionated, organization of experienced scientists and researchers.

splawn 13y ago
I agree with you. Also, I want to point out that your list of real concerns would still be valid in absence of GMO tech.
moens 13y ago
Also, while reading these, take the time to watch "Kingdom of Men" again to get a feel for what the real issue actually looks like. Living organisms appear (IMO, and subtly in other research) to be able to detect code base tampering, and reject it. How do they reject it? Infertility. I am a farmer and it is difficult as hell to create a non-GMO farm (non-GMO contaminated mulch and compost, non-GMO animal feeds, non-GMO source animals, non-GMO seed). The OP is correct in all points about Monsanto's power over seed production, but misses what SciAm (and almost everyone else) misses: Genetic material is code being used in a production environment! As such it needs to be protected. Code contamination (forks) need to be registered publicly and isolated with extreme prejudice from the production environment. We didn't write the code, and as far as I am concerned, I feel that Monsanto as a policy maker (by default or by lobbing) and any of the most advanced geneticists are script kiddies on a Galactic scale. We will get to adequate understanding it time, but that time is not now. Who gives a fk if you or your grandmother can live a longer or more pain-free life if the result is a global genetic seg-fault? I don't. My answer is to set up my own isolated farm, as free of GM as I can make it. As I see it, existing organisms do have a genetic conversation (via viruses and other single cell organisms) and will resist and correct some amount of genetic contamination. Honestly I have my doubts that even this will work, but its the most I can do. Food for thought.
- jeena 13y ago
  I'm not sure I follow, you say "Genetic material is code being used in a production environment!" as far as I understand it we have been researching for decades and haven't found real problems, at least not more then with older alternatives like radiation and chemicals to speed up the production of genetic changes. It confuses me that people are ok with, like the article calls it, the shotgun approach (radiation, chemicals) but not with the surgeon approach (using a scalpel and replacing only the genes we want to), I honestly don't understand why.
  - moens 13y ago
    I am not saying that we should eliminate genetic research. I am saying that we need to isolate genetic modification from the general genetic pool until we understand what we are doing. Until half a year ago "we" (geneticists) thought that upwards of 80% of the genome was junk DNA... oops, I guess not. I think that we have to be a little more cautious. A lot more cautious. If (as I feel is the case) genetic material is code, and we (all Earth based life) is a production environment... I just cannot express how sloppy I feel we have been in the last 20 years. Policy, research, implementation... its not like we don't know how to run a clean software environment, how to do safe development... but in the genetic world? Hack, reverse engineer, install trap doors, holy fuck, we brought down a root level dns server? Cool! We are awesome! We must be geniuses! We are 13 and loving it.
    - hga 13y ago
      "Until half a year ago "we" (geneticists) thought that upwards of 80% of the genome was junk DNA... oops, I guess not." That wasn't my impression when I left this field for chemistry in 1989. Back then "we" were saying "this doesn't code for specific proteins, is it junk, or does it have function?" The consensus then was "junk", and the recent claim otherwise is speculative as I read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#Junk_DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#Junk_DNA The flip side is by then we were realizing that DNA moves around a lot more than we'd though, and transgenic organisms were common in nature ... or at least tries, Nature is much more a script-kiddie than us and most of those "attempts" fail.
Blahah 13y ago
All of the concerns you raise are with the agricultural system in general, not with GM crops. There are some valid points in the OP, but poorly articulated and unsupported. Not a helpful contribution to the discourse.
- zzzeek 13y ago
  I did not in fact refer to these concerns as specific to GMO (though the UOCS series places it under "genetic engineering"). I'm a lot more concerned about Monsanto's monopolistic role within the global food supply as a whole rather than GMO specifically.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't accusing you, just clarifying for readers.

by zzzeek 13y ago

splawn 13y ago

I agree with you. Also, I want to point out that your list of real concerns would still be valid in absence of GMO tech.

moens 13y ago

Also, while reading these, take the time to watch "Kingdom of Men" again to get a feel for what the real issue actually looks like. Living organisms appear (IMO, and subtly in other research) to be able to detect code base tampering, and reject it. How do they reject it? Infertility. I am a farmer and it is difficult as hell to create a non-GMO farm (non-GMO contaminated mulch and compost, non-GMO animal feeds, non-GMO source animals, non-GMO seed). The OP is correct in all points about Monsanto's power over seed production, but misses what SciAm (and almost everyone else) misses: Genetic material is code being used in a production environment! As such it needs to be protected. Code contamination (forks) need to be registered publicly and isolated with extreme prejudice from the production environment. We didn't write the code, and as far as I am concerned, I feel that Monsanto as a policy maker (by default or by lobbing) and any of the most advanced geneticists are script kiddies on a Galactic scale. We will get to adequate understanding it time, but that time is not now. Who gives a fk if you or your grandmother can live a longer or more pain-free life if the result is a global genetic seg-fault? I don't. My answer is to set up my own isolated farm, as free of GM as I can make it. As I see it, existing organisms do have a genetic conversation (via viruses and other single cell organisms) and will resist and correct some amount of genetic contamination. Honestly I have my doubts that even this will work, but its the most I can do. Food for thought.

jeena 13y ago
I'm not sure I follow, you say "Genetic material is code being used in a production environment!" as far as I understand it we have been researching for decades and haven't found real problems, at least not more then with older alternatives like radiation and chemicals to speed up the production of genetic changes. It confuses me that people are ok with, like the article calls it, the shotgun approach (radiation, chemicals) but not with the surgeon approach (using a scalpel and replacing only the genes we want to), I honestly don't understand why.
- moens 13y ago
  I am not saying that we should eliminate genetic research. I am saying that we need to isolate genetic modification from the general genetic pool until we understand what we are doing. Until half a year ago "we" (geneticists) thought that upwards of 80% of the genome was junk DNA... oops, I guess not. I think that we have to be a little more cautious. A lot more cautious. If (as I feel is the case) genetic material is code, and we (all Earth based life) is a production environment... I just cannot express how sloppy I feel we have been in the last 20 years. Policy, research, implementation... its not like we don't know how to run a clean software environment, how to do safe development... but in the genetic world? Hack, reverse engineer, install trap doors, holy fuck, we brought down a root level dns server? Cool! We are awesome! We must be geniuses! We are 13 and loving it.
  - hga 13y ago
    "Until half a year ago "we" (geneticists) thought that upwards of 80% of the genome was junk DNA... oops, I guess not." That wasn't my impression when I left this field for chemistry in 1989. Back then "we" were saying "this doesn't code for specific proteins, is it junk, or does it have function?" The consensus then was "junk", and the recent claim otherwise is speculative as I read it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#Junk_DNA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_DNA#Junk_DNA The flip side is by then we were realizing that DNA moves around a lot more than we'd though, and transgenic organisms were common in nature ... or at least tries, Nature is much more a script-kiddie than us and most of those "attempts" fail.

Blahah 13y ago

All of the concerns you raise are with the agricultural system in general, not with GM crops. There are some valid points in the OP, but poorly articulated and unsupported. Not a helpful contribution to the discourse.

zzzeek 13y ago
I did not in fact refer to these concerns as specific to GMO (though the UOCS series places it under "genetic engineering"). I'm a lot more concerned about Monsanto's monopolistic role within the global food supply as a whole rather than GMO specifically.
- Blahah 13y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't accusing you, just clarifying for readers.