3 ms·

Chemicals like BPA and GMOs aren't equivalent in any sense.

daughart 12y ago
Thanks for the down-vote, but seriously do you have an argument here? Even Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GMOs merely express a modified version of an enzyme that allows them to synthesize essential amino acids even in the presence of the pesticide. There is no rational argument for why modifications to the DNA region that regulate production of the enzyme or modifications to the enzyme could be dangerous in any way... Even when ingested, these macromolecules would be digested rather than absorbed, as in the case of a bioactive small molecule that is readily absorbed from consumer plastics (e.g. BPA). FUD...
- Retric 12y ago
  Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. PS: My sister created GMO's for a while in her words the process is way less controlled than generally portrayed.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. Both the processes and the regulatory compliance requirements around GMOs provide a lot stronger (though, still, not perfect) assurance of that for GMOs than the processes and (near complete lack of) regulatory clearance requirements around crop modifications that result in rapid genome changes but which are considered "traditional breeding" rather than "GMO" because they don't involve directly inserting genetic material from a different organism. (I have an immediate family member who works doing both kinds of crop modifications, and has been involved providing science support for regulatory clearance of products, as well.)
  - daughart 12y ago
    Who cares even if it's not well controlled and changes many things? DNA mutates all the time with little effect. Every human born has a few novel mutations. There's no argument from this to a comparison with bioactive small molecules.
    - Retric 12y ago
      The gap between for example some pesticides and nerve agents is not necessarily all that large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate Unlike normal mutations genetic modifications can change a lot of things at the same time and are often focused around biologically active chemicals. That's not to say that GMO foods are unsafe just that new modification are far from risk free and should have stringent review before using them to feed 100+ million people. If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical. Consider a recent (1992) example that has nothing to do with DNA modification. Hedysarum alpinum is now known to be toxic, but was not noted to be so in a field guide which may have contributed to Christopher McCandless death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless EXTREMELY WEAK. FAULT OF POT[ATO] SEED. MUCH TROUBLE JUST TO STAND UP. STARVING. GREAT JEOPARDY.
      - daughart 12y ago
        I agree with what you say about pesticides -- note I said BPA is not comparable with GMO, not that BPA is not comparable with pesticide. In this case, the genetically modified organism would be safe, but chemicals used to treat the organism could be harmful. > If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical. I don't think this is true. Metabolic engineering is really hard. In other words, getting an organism to produce a new small molecule is really hard. If it weren't, we would have large scale biosynthesis of lots of stuff, instead of relying on chemical synthesis or isolation. Most enzymes have very specific functions. E.g. an enzyme will add a carbon at a particular location on a very specific substrate molecule. There's not really the possibility for unforeseen byproducts. What you describe isn't really plausible, which is why biologists agree GMOs are safe. A plausible hypothetical for how something bad could happen, and then not be noticed until the product is fed to millions of people, probably doesn't exist (based on the fact that one has yet to be proposed). The only exception I know is allergenicity, but this is a general risk. People are allergic to stuff. Any new product is potentially allergenic. All of a sudden quinoa is in vogue.... people could be allergic to quinoa. No unique risk. The toxicity of _Hedysarum alpinum_ is an evolved trait, like most toxicities, that confers some benefit to the host organism. It's hard to accidentally create a beneficial new trait in organisms. It's even an academic problem in the field--evolution of novelty. Most genetic changes you make either break stuff or if you're lucky do one specific thing.

Thanks for the down-vote, but seriously do you have an argument here? Even Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" GMOs merely express a modified version of an enzyme that allows them to synthesize essential amino acids even in the presence of the pesticide. There is no rational argument for why modifications to the DNA region that regulate production of the enzyme or modifications to the enzyme could be dangerous in any way... Even when ingested, these macromolecules would be digested rather than absorbed, as in the case of a bioactive small molecule that is readily absorbed from consumer plastics (e.g. BPA). FUD...

Retric 12y ago
Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. PS: My sister created GMO's for a while in her words the process is way less controlled than generally portrayed.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Your assuming GMO's where modified in exactly the way intended. Realistically, attempting to insert segment X into something’s DNA and verifying the organism produces Y in no way insures that the only DNA modification was inserting X or that the only change from X is producing Y. Both the processes and the regulatory compliance requirements around GMOs provide a lot stronger (though, still, not perfect) assurance of that for GMOs than the processes and (near complete lack of) regulatory clearance requirements around crop modifications that result in rapid genome changes but which are considered "traditional breeding" rather than "GMO" because they don't involve directly inserting genetic material from a different organism. (I have an immediate family member who works doing both kinds of crop modifications, and has been involved providing science support for regulatory clearance of products, as well.)
- daughart 12y ago
  Who cares even if it's not well controlled and changes many things? DNA mutates all the time with little effect. Every human born has a few novel mutations. There's no argument from this to a comparison with bioactive small molecules.
  - Retric 12y ago
    The gap between for example some pesticides and nerve agents is not necessarily all that large. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate Unlike normal mutations genetic modifications can change a lot of things at the same time and are often focused around biologically active chemicals. That's not to say that GMO foods are unsafe just that new modification are far from risk free and should have stringent review before using them to feed 100+ million people. If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical. Consider a recent (1992) example that has nothing to do with DNA modification. Hedysarum alpinum is now known to be toxic, but was not noted to be so in a field guide which may have contributed to Christopher McCandless death. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless EXTREMELY WEAK. FAULT OF POT[ATO] SEED. MUCH TROUBLE JUST TO STAND UP. STARVING. GREAT JEOPARDY.
    - daughart 12y ago
      I agree with what you say about pesticides -- note I said BPA is not comparable with GMO, not that BPA is not comparable with pesticide. In this case, the genetically modified organism would be safe, but chemicals used to treat the organism could be harmful. > If for no other reason than they can produce a lot of a completely unknown and unresearched chemical. I don't think this is true. Metabolic engineering is really hard. In other words, getting an organism to produce a new small molecule is really hard. If it weren't, we would have large scale biosynthesis of lots of stuff, instead of relying on chemical synthesis or isolation. Most enzymes have very specific functions. E.g. an enzyme will add a carbon at a particular location on a very specific substrate molecule. There's not really the possibility for unforeseen byproducts. What you describe isn't really plausible, which is why biologists agree GMOs are safe. A plausible hypothetical for how something bad could happen, and then not be noticed until the product is fed to millions of people, probably doesn't exist (based on the fact that one has yet to be proposed). The only exception I know is allergenicity, but this is a general risk. People are allergic to stuff. Any new product is potentially allergenic. All of a sudden quinoa is in vogue.... people could be allergic to quinoa. No unique risk. The toxicity of _Hedysarum alpinum_ is an evolved trait, like most toxicities, that confers some benefit to the host organism. It's hard to accidentally create a beneficial new trait in organisms. It's even an academic problem in the field--evolution of novelty. Most genetic changes you make either break stuff or if you're lucky do one specific thing.