Genetic Modification in Food

[Ruckus]

There is no way for a body to know which genes it's closely related to vs. when it is not. It can't run an evolutionary tree and make that type of determination. I mean you and an apple probably share about half your genes. It's all just combinations of ACGT. Very simple changes - including a SINGLE BASE change can result in radically different product (we know very serious diseases where the difference between a perfectly healthy person and an extremely sick one is a single base pair change - one G to C or something like that). So there is very little advantage to being 'close'. In fact, it's probably a disadvantage, because a single mutation can sometimes create a product that's very similar in some ways (e.g it can interact with lots of things in the body it used to) but is in fact much worse - because now it stops the activity of all the things it used to interact with.

True in itself, but it isn't relevant to the point I was making.

Yes, there are many regulatory genes - but I am not sure what that has to do with anything. If we insert a gene correctly, the regulatory genes will express that gene and we'll have a product (e.g Vitamin A). Or it might not be expressed, or expressed at a lower rate, and then we might have no (or very little) Vitamin A.

The thrust that I think you're making - that somehow the interaction of genes may create a bran new unexpected metabolite different, and yet dangerous, and yet would simply not be detected in a chemical analysis is pretty unlikely. Or rather, as I said, I don't know by what mechanism such a thing would be more likely than cross breeding species.

The point I was making was to do with the presence of "correlated gene arrangements" in organisms. An example of this are things called Hox genes which "are a group of related genes that determine the basic structure and orientation of an organism". They're basically a highly conserved group of genes that serve an overall common function. If any of the genes within the 'set' is disrupted, it can lead to significant changes. The genome of an organism is more than just a collection of individual genes operating in isolation - it's an arrangement of individual genes and related gene groups which interact in complex ways. And the point about 'inserting a gene correctly' is very relevant here too. I think it's one of the main issues raised with GE. Some of the studies I read indicated that there have been cases where recDNA has been inserted into the 'functional' part of a gene/gene group, silencing it's expression. Or alternatively, sometimes additional, unintended, genetic material is inserted with the intended DNA interrupting other sequences. I would imagine these kind of things wouldn't occur very often via natural processes. But, really, it's a point of concern, but the solution is obviously just to make sure the methods used are sound, and there is a complete understanding of where the gene is being inserted and the surrounding genes. Not insurmountable problems by any means, but ones that would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

 

[silentstriker]

The point I was making was to do with the presence of "correlated gene arrangements" in organisms. An example of this are things called Hox genes which "are a group of related genes that determine the basic structure and orientation of an organism". They're basically a highly conserved group of genes that serve an overall common function. If any of the genes within the 'set' is disrupted, it can lead to significant changes. The genome of an organism is more than just a collection of individual genes operating in isolation - it's an arrangement of individual genes and related gene groups which interact in complex ways. And the point about 'inserting a gene correctly' is very relevant here too. I think it's one of the main issues raised with GE. Some of the studies I read indicated that there have been cases where recDNA has been inserted into the 'functional' part of a gene/gene group, silencing it's expression. Or alternatively, sometimes additional, unintended, genetic material is inserted with the intended DNA interrupting other sequences. I would imagine these kind of things wouldn't occur very often via natural processes. But, really, it's a point of concern, but the solution is obviously just to make sure the methods used are sound, and there is a complete understanding of where the gene is being inserted and the surrounding genes. Not insurmountable problems by any means, but ones that would require evaluation on a case-by-case basis.

Why do you say that? As I mentioned before, random mutations happen all the time. The silencing, upregulating, or deregulating genes in all sorts of ways is happening in your body right now (and forms the basis of most cancers actually). And of course, mutations that yield a change in function is the basis of all evolution. Say you insert a gene in a lab that turns off the function of another gene. How is that different from a natural mutation doing the same thing, or a change via breeding that does the same thing? The last apple you ate probably had quite a lot of mutations in the various cells, all of it altering the function somehow. Your stomach and intestines are pretty good at it all down into the things that it can use. If we couldn't eat food with mutations (even big ones), or slightly different products, we wouldn't survive very long as a species. Think about how much of your food probably had cancer.


All of this has really nothing whatsoever to do with using it as food.

 

[Ruckus]

Why do you say that? As I mentioned before, random mutations happen all the time. The silencing, upregulating, or deregulating genes in all sorts of ways is happening in your body right now (and forms the basis of most cancers actually). And of course, mutations that yield a change in function is the basis of all evolution. Say you insert a gene in a lab that turns off the function of another gene. How is that different from a natural mutation doing the same thing, or a change via breeding that does the same thing?


All of this has really nothing whatsoever to do with using it as food.

It's not different from a natural mutation or change doing the same thing, but we've essentially come full circle now (from post 73): "Unintended effects are just a natural product of genetic processes, so it doesn't clarify much in itself. I'd want to to know things like if the frequency is the same, and if the diversity and type of potential unintended effects is in any way different for recombinant DNA". Just because it can happen naturally doesn't mean anything, for two reasons: 1. Is the nature of it the same - Does it happen as often? Do exactly the same changes happen (e.g. using recDNA you could insert a gene right in the middle of something else. Is that type of 'error' likely to occur naturally?) Etc. ? 2. If everything is literally exactly the same (something that can only be ascertained after more long term studies of GE), it still doesn't mean that it should give the all clear to GE. If bad strains of food can be generated by either means (and literature shows they can), then more appropriate regulation needs to be put in place across the board.

 

[silentstriker]

It's not different from a natural mutation or change doing the same thing, but we've essentially come full circle now (from post 73): "Unintended effects are just a natural product of genetic processes, so it doesn't clarify much in itself. I'd want to to know things like if the frequency is the same, and if the diversity and type of potential unintended effects is in any way different for recombinant DNA". Just because it can happen naturally doesn't mean anything, for two reasons: 1. Is the nature of it the same - Does it happen as often? Do exactly the same changes happen (e.g. using recDNA you could insert a gene right in the middle of something else. Is that type of 'error' likely to occur naturally?) Etc. ? 2. If everything is literally exactly the same (something that can only be ascertained after more long term studies of GE), it still doesn't mean that it should give the all clear to GE. If bad strains of food can be generated by either means (and literature shows they can), then more appropriate regulation needs to be put in place across the board.

1. No, the frequency of errors in nature is much higher. A natural mutation can happen anywhere. When a mutation occurs, the gene is now different: it could have none, some or a massive effect. In nature, you're constantly breeding - so you have the chance of introducing errors in every generation. In GE, you have more control because many times you're using the same batch of seeds in every generation. Also after you insert a gene, you don't just hope it worked - you sequence it to make sure it went where you wanted it. So that's just about the most fundamental error check that you can get.
2. What do you mean by bad strains of food? Can you give an example of something that was undetected that required some testing? I'm sure it has happened but a concrete example would help me understand the situation. Mutations can and do occur every time a cell divides - I think making people genetically test every piece of food before they eat it is kind of an 'out there' proposition and completely infeasible.

 

[Ruckus]

I was refering to a common practice in conventional breedinug where the producers self regulate their crops and make sure they dont contain toxic levels of specific things. cant give uva link at this stage cause im doing this via phone but its not uncommon for particular strains to produce secondary toxins as a result of the breeding process. bad strains are obviously eliminated but its not vrry stringent tbh.

 

[uvelocity]

 

[Top_Cat]

Never observed Greens being particularly anti-scientific tbh.

Here you go.

http://research.sustainablefoodtrus...fc48e0c08378cd577ad7a6e97d595/Final-Paper.pdf

That this study passed through peer-review and was published in a journal with an impact factor is an abomination. I won't bother with discussing it, people who actually work in the field have already taken down the incredibad/non-existent design, analysis and even the plots used.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I mostly meant that in the sense that they're no worse that any other political party so you can't label them as being the "anti science party" - the whole of politics is pretty anti-science.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I also have said I don't have an enormous problem with GE being used in future, but I'm not going to buy into the "It's going to save the world so we should rush it through everything" line. GE is about making money, and poor/starving/sick people don't tend to have bottomless wallets. I'm not using the "evil corporations" line - I'm saying private commercial ventures shouldn't automatically earn the trust of the public. Save a few exceptions here and there, GE needs to bust through a few walls of scepticism IMO.

What's everyone's opinion about life-form copyrights and patents? Definitely my main concern regarding GE.

 

[silentstriker]

I also have said I don't have an enormous problem with GE being used in future, but I'm not going to buy into the "It's going to save the world so we should rush it through everything" line. GE is about making money, and poor/starving/sick people don't tend to have bottomless wallets. I'm not using the "evil corporations" line - I'm saying private commercial ventures shouldn't automatically earn the trust of the public. Save a few exceptions here and there, GE needs to bust through a few walls of scepticism IMO.

What's everyone's opinion about life-form copyrights and patents? Definitely my main concern regarding GE.

Considering the company in question has already made it available for free to people who are too poor to buy it, what exactly shouldn't we be rushing?

The company did it because they wanted to a) show people it is indeed safe, and 2) it's not like the people in question would be big consumers anyway. The money is in the developed world, until other countries come out of poverty.

People are basically saying we should keep letting people die of preventable vitamin deficiency because they feel "a bit icky" about the concept.

It's an absolute crime. First world priveleged people spreading lies under the guise of trying to help. If they ever had their kids starting to get massive vitamin a deficiency, they'd feed them GE foods faster than Monsanto could deposit the money into the bank.

 

[Spark]

I mostly meant that in the sense that they're no worse that any other political party so you can't label them as being the "anti science party" - the whole of politics is pretty anti-science.

No other party is so utterly self-righteous about the primacy of science when they believe it's on their side.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

That's definitely worthy of an exception then. Each case needs to be done on it's merits though, plenty of skepticism is called for.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

No other party is so utterly self-righteous about the primacy of science when they believe it's on their side.

Very subjective call there imo.

 

[silentstriker]

What's everyone's opinion about life-form copyrights and patents? Definitely my main concern regarding GE.

If they create a new genomic sequence, and it works, I've no problem with them patenting it for a while. No incentive otherwise.


There are a few other issues I have though with patenting DNA sequences and such, but in terms of if you create a new strain of food, yea, I don't mind if they patent it.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I'm basically the same, but there needs to be strict limits on patent length. We've hit a point where they can be held near indefinitely in many cases, which ends up stunting creativity, research, and development rather than promoting it.