http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUt_pp3NUUc&feature=player_embedded

“A different perspective on GM food”, David Schubert
http://www.stopogm.net/sites/stopogm.net/files/DifferentPerspective.pdf

rezistnzisfutl, the Schubert article will explain in more readable terms what the safety issues are as regards human consumption. This is very important as biotech companies like Ventria Bioscience are growing engineered rice with human dna to produce human proteins. I can’t find a justification for this, can you?

I’d like to address some of the concerns you’ve expressed, especially because a lot of people have the same concerns:

“…if any technology can be included to help grow foods in arid, isolated, or otherwise unfertile land, then why limit it?”

No one would argue with that, but you seem to be suggesting that one of those technologies is transgenic engineering. Which transgenic crops are you referring to in this statement? and remember: not all GMO is transgenic GMO

” I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we give big corporations carte blanche, and I think everyone here is all for more research and proper regulation, but there simply is no good reason at this point to curtail the use of GMOs, much less halt them altogether.”

Corporations do their own safety tests, “equivalency” tests, etc. and tell the FDA: “this ones good to go!” Many scientists think this is a good reason to curtail transgenic organisms, especially when coupled with the unevaluated results, We all support “more research and proper regulation” – what do we mean when we say that if not independent research and stronger regulation than is currently in place?

Schubert:
“… first, introduction of the same gene into two different types of cells can produce two very distinct protein molecules; second, the introduction of any gene, whether from a different or the same species, usually significantly changes overall gene expression and therefore the phenotype of the recipient cell; and third, enzymatic pathways introduced to synthesize small molecules, such as vitamins, could interact with endogenous pathways to produce novel molecules. The potential consequence of all of these perturbations could be the biosynthesis of molecules that are toxic, allergenic, or carcinogenic. And there is no a priori way of predicting the outcome.”

Since there are no transgenic plants that offer any benefits over traditional hybrids, or even marker-assisted breeding of hybrids. (outside of pesticide-resistance, but the jury’s still out on whether or not the consequences of acquired resistance in weeds and other pests is worth the ease of use and temporary reduction in toxicity) There are broader problems, but transgenic crops aren’t one of the solutions, again: although some crops that are called GM are part of the solution.

“Do we simply accept the word of big corporations? Of course not. Should there be continued research and thoughtful use of regulation of food crops, GMO and otherwise? Absolutely. I think it’s an excellent idea to continue to foster and develop technologies that can, and do, help.”

amen to that brother

I encourage people to examine which crops are transgenic (as opposed to other forms of GE) and what the purported benefits are from those plants. What are the purported problems? how and from whom do we get the information to decide? What are the current regulations? Are they appropriate to the risks inherent in transgenic species? To me, there’s no good reason for transgenic crops: they’re risky to public health and too expensive. And right now, with a company like Monsanto in control of most of the transgenic plants on the market and in the ground, they’re posing serious problems for biodiversity and food security.

rezistnzisfutl-
If there is a political will to feed someone; anyone, anywhere in the world, under any circumstance– There will be volumes of food made available from purely charitable sources.
The reason these people don’t get fed is there is a political will to deny them.

Check with the Red Cross.

I would agree that this area (genetic modification) holds fantastic promise, who knows– perhaps one day we will have GMO humans who can actually walk and chew gum at the same time!
Imagine what the plants will be like– not swaying in the breeze, but doing the mamba. Yes, I want to look out at my GMO wheat field that has been bred to do the mamba in the breeze instead of just swaying.
The possibilities are endless…

Sorry- those examples might seem like I’m making fun of the idea. Actually I’m just having fun with the idea.

In the meantime, when a company says their product will reduce herbicide use and it actually produces ‘superweeds’, can we ask them to clean up the mess and to show that the other claims they are making are actually true?

It seems there are lots of people now, and the shortages of food are political problems, not supply.

While there likely is some truth to that, it really depends on the region in question, the geography, regional socioeconomics, climate, relative isolation from adequate farmland, available technology, etc..

It’s not such a simple question as to write the problems off to one issue.

Transversely, if any technology can be included to help grow foods in arid, isolated, or otherwise unfertile land, then why limit it? I don’t think anyone here is suggesting we give big corporations carte blanche, and I think everyone here is all for more research and proper regulation, but there simply is no good reason at this point to curtail the use of GMOs, much less halt them altogether. Furthermore, it’s unreasonable to demand 100% safety and efficacy in all purported situations.

Do we simply accept the word of big corporations? Of course not. Should there be continued research and thoughtful use of regulation of food crops, GMO and otherwise? Absolutely. I think it’s an excellent idea to continue to foster and develop technologies that can, and do, help.

thank you

I’m not sure what each of these techniques consists of, but reading the paper (as best a could) left me the impression that there has been very little study done in these areas- the attempts to show ‘equivilence’.

And that might be the point, right? How can something that has been studied so little be ‘over-regulated’?

BTW- I don’t think we need these GMO’s to feed people. It seems there are lots of people now, and the shortages of food are political problems, not supply.
I think if one removes that premise or claim from the GMO literature we are left with ‘sciency sounding’ marketing materials making claims that have not been all that accurate.

“..just two annual doses of high-potency supplements, costing less than US $0.04 per child, can prevent and correct the deficiency.”

http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Vitamin_A_Supplementation.pdf

I suspect his supplementation cost figures are erroneous. If his Golden Rice figures are correct, it seems Golden Rice is already a poor investment.
(but an invaluable investment for transgenic PR if it works)

(JETHRO TULL – BAKER STREET MUSE)

“Currently, only key compounds, such as macro- and micro-nutrients, anti-nutrients and plant specific toxins are included in comparative analyses (KUIPER et al., 2002), and targeted analytical assays are employed for their assessment. This approach requires the a priori knowledge of the possible unwanted species, and unpredicted toxins or allergens cannot be detected. Moreover, the limits beyond which differences have to be considered as “sizeable” are not well-defined, leading to somewhat subjective judgments (HODGSON, 2006). For these reasons, the concept of “substantial equivalence” as originally proposed was soon criticized as being a pseudo-scientific concept, not properly defined and inadequate to serve as a safety assessment tool (MILLSTONE et al.,1999).”

“Despite the huge potential of proteomics and the outstanding importance to improve the concept of substantial equivalence, the studies published in this field are scanty.”

here’s the one i linked to earlier:
Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18393457

and here’s another one
Unintended changes in protein expression revealed by proteomic analysis of seeds from transgenic pea expressing a bean alpha-amylase inhibitor gene.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19725077

thanks!