Genetically Enginneered Food - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Non-SMAC related
  Genetically Enginneered Food

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Genetically Enginneered Food

Major Bloodnok posted 06-12-99 11:46 AM ET
Arghh the Tabloids have bitten this in the face. One lousy ****ing report and people start bleating that they are unsafe.
We have been engineering food for thousands of years. If we wanted to go back to the 'old ways' we would still be eating ****ing grass! instead of wheat(ancestor of wildgrass, bred for its yield).
Why must we have eternal food scares? If peoples used their brains instead of their newspapers they would realise that it is safer to have insect killing plants instead of gallons of insecticide, which were in last years food scare. They moan that these plants will cause adaptations in the insects, of course they don't remember the Red diamond Hypothesis (look it up!)
They are thoroughly tested.

Tyrade over. Please respond.
Provost Harrison posted 06-12-99 12:24 PM ET
Biotechnology is a new area. We have indeed bred crops for many years, yes. However,we have a technique of introducing DNA into organisms directly. I believe that Pusztai's findings were certainly incomplete, but surely this should prompt fresh research, even if just to allay the public's fears. You know how sensationalism works.
It is a new and rapidly expanding field, but one, I feel that will be abused in the hands of the capitalists. Monsanto and it's terminator gene (!).
My point is not against the technology. Technology is what humans do best, after all. My problem is it's abuse by such companies. It is true, we do not know the full ecological or health consequences of these modifications, although I, personally, doubt their harmfulness, conclusions should not be reached without proper research. This will not occur, however. There are too many vested interests.
Also remember, nature finds a way - evolution. Bt-toxin engineered cotton plants should have a resistance to boll-weevils. The pace of the development of resistance was faster than anticipated. A selection pressure just encourages the proliferation of resistant strains. Really, I thought that we would have learnt this lesson with antibiotics. Most antibiotics will be obsolete very fast due to the feeding of cattle with multi-antibiotic treatments. How do bacteria gain multiple antibiotic resistance you may ask? Isn't it too statistically difficult you may ask? No, plasmid based conjugation, where plasmids (DNA peripheral to the main chromosome) are transferred between bacteria which confer resistance. It only requires very few bacteria to 'acquire' the right combination plasmids before they are multiply resistant and proliferate. There needs to be a more ethical and balanced approach to the use of resistance.
Thue posted 06-12-99 12:39 PM ET
It is a bit hysterical.
Did you know that, in able to create short-straw wheat, scientist irradiated some seeds. Now that sounds more dangerous to me than controlled gene splicing.
Not that plants and animals haven't allways been hit by radiation natually.
Crossbreeding species seems like another accepted area.
It's not that I am saying Genetically Enginneered Food is allways harmless, but the risks are nothing new(or larger it seems to me; it's a bit more potent but you also have greater knowlegde of the posible consequences) compared to what you did before.
Provost Harrison posted 06-12-99 01:32 PM ET
Precisely, but is no substitute for full investigation. It can't hurt now, can it? (except for some lab rats). And some of the propositions (by scientists, as well!) of why GM foods may be harmful, like DNA entering into cells from the ingested food.
So why aren't I expressing bovine genes? It just isn't qualified. And it is only, on the scale of things, a small genetic manipulation. So I express Bt toxin? It's harmless to me, totally (proven!). It just means there won't be many moths near me
But absolutely, it isn't a risk that we haven't seen before! My concerns are mainly exploitational in nature (eg, Monsanto's terminator gene)
Famous Eccles posted 06-12-99 01:41 PM ET
You are right about exploitation, terminator gene is good science (well designed) but a killer for any third world country that wants famine resistance crops.
Q Cubed posted 06-12-99 02:30 PM ET
bloodnok: it's tirade.
anyway, i don't blame any of you for being exceedingly annoyed. the masses of the population are easily deceived, and fooled, by those who would seek to halt progress. There's the fundamentalists, who don't want biotechnology because it's "playing god" (yeah, right. when we get the ability to CREATE entirely NEW organisms from nothing, then complain. now, all we're doing is modifying creation). There's the conservatives who oppose it because their brains can't cope with the change. There's the luddites -'nuff said.
So, with all of these, it's easy to slip a few suggestive words to the weak-minded, whose fear would breed more fear to those who are a little stronger in the head.
Alas, that adds up, and science has been stopped far too many times by those idiots who disdain progress because it may change the status quo. Without them, we'd be far into the Diamond Age by now.
Q Cubed posted 06-12-99 02:32 PM ET
Oh, and Mosanto's shooting itself in the PR foot with the terminator gene.
And, yes, there have been some misfortunes with biotechnology - but cut it a little slack, it's a baby technology.
Philip McCauley posted 06-13-99 10:18 PM ET
I've never understood the dislike people have of 'playing god' with genes. Everyone practices eugenics in their own fashion. I mean, you choose to settle down with someone because you think that together you can produce and raise a family. By doing that, you're practicing human gengeneering by means of selective breeding. We got dogs by domesticating and selectively breeding wolves. Why complain now because someone wants to speed the process along?
(If you know where I'm pulling this from, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. )
Koshko posted 06-13-99 10:36 PM ET
You name it, and it might have caused Cancer in lab rats. I'll keep eating what I like until I die.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Genetically Enginneered Food
Major Bloodnok	posted 06-12-99 11:46 AM ET Arghh the Tabloids have bitten this in the face. One lousy **ing report and people start bleating that they are unsafe. We have been engineering food for thousands of years. If we wanted to go back to the 'old ways' we would still be eating **ing grass! instead of wheat(ancestor of wildgrass, bred for its yield). Why must we have eternal food scares? If peoples used their brains instead of their newspapers they would realise that it is safer to have insect killing plants instead of gallons of insecticide, which were in last years food scare. They moan that these plants will cause adaptations in the insects, of course they don't remember the Red diamond Hypothesis (look it up!) They are thoroughly tested. Tyrade over. Please respond.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-12-99 12:24 PM ET Biotechnology is a new area. We have indeed bred crops for many years, yes. However,we have a technique of introducing DNA into organisms directly. I believe that Pusztai's findings were certainly incomplete, but surely this should prompt fresh research, even if just to allay the public's fears. You know how sensationalism works. It is a new and rapidly expanding field, but one, I feel that will be abused in the hands of the capitalists. Monsanto and it's terminator gene (!). My point is not against the technology. Technology is what humans do best, after all. My problem is it's abuse by such companies. It is true, we do not know the full ecological or health consequences of these modifications, although I, personally, doubt their harmfulness, conclusions should not be reached without proper research. This will not occur, however. There are too many vested interests. Also remember, nature finds a way - evolution. Bt-toxin engineered cotton plants should have a resistance to boll-weevils. The pace of the development of resistance was faster than anticipated. A selection pressure just encourages the proliferation of resistant strains. Really, I thought that we would have learnt this lesson with antibiotics. Most antibiotics will be obsolete very fast due to the feeding of cattle with multi-antibiotic treatments. How do bacteria gain multiple antibiotic resistance you may ask? Isn't it too statistically difficult you may ask? No, plasmid based conjugation, where plasmids (DNA peripheral to the main chromosome) are transferred between bacteria which confer resistance. It only requires very few bacteria to 'acquire' the right combination plasmids before they are multiply resistant and proliferate. There needs to be a more ethical and balanced approach to the use of resistance.
Thue	posted 06-12-99 12:39 PM ET It is a bit hysterical. Did you know that, in able to create short-straw wheat, scientist irradiated some seeds. Now that sounds more dangerous to me than controlled gene splicing. Not that plants and animals haven't allways been hit by radiation natually. Crossbreeding species seems like another accepted area. It's not that I am saying Genetically Enginneered Food is allways harmless, but the risks are nothing new(or larger it seems to me; it's a bit more potent but you also have greater knowlegde of the posible consequences) compared to what you did before.
Provost Harrison	posted 06-12-99 01:32 PM ET Precisely, but is no substitute for full investigation. It can't hurt now, can it? (except for some lab rats). And some of the propositions (by scientists, as well!) of why GM foods may be harmful, like DNA entering into cells from the ingested food. So why aren't I expressing bovine genes? It just isn't qualified. And it is only, on the scale of things, a small genetic manipulation. So I express Bt toxin? It's harmless to me, totally (proven!). It just means there won't be many moths near me But absolutely, it isn't a risk that we haven't seen before! My concerns are mainly exploitational in nature (eg, Monsanto's terminator gene)
Famous Eccles	posted 06-12-99 01:41 PM ET You are right about exploitation, terminator gene is good science (well designed) but a killer for any third world country that wants famine resistance crops.
Q Cubed	posted 06-12-99 02:30 PM ET bloodnok: it's tirade. anyway, i don't blame any of you for being exceedingly annoyed. the masses of the population are easily deceived, and fooled, by those who would seek to halt progress. There's the fundamentalists, who don't want biotechnology because it's "playing god" (yeah, right. when we get the ability to CREATE entirely NEW organisms from nothing, then complain. now, all we're doing is modifying creation). There's the conservatives who oppose it because their brains can't cope with the change. There's the luddites -'nuff said. So, with all of these, it's easy to slip a few suggestive words to the weak-minded, whose fear would breed more fear to those who are a little stronger in the head. Alas, that adds up, and science has been stopped far too many times by those idiots who disdain progress because it may change the status quo. Without them, we'd be far into the Diamond Age by now.
Q Cubed	posted 06-12-99 02:32 PM ET Oh, and Mosanto's shooting itself in the PR foot with the terminator gene. And, yes, there have been some misfortunes with biotechnology - but cut it a little slack, it's a baby technology.
Philip McCauley	posted 06-13-99 10:18 PM ET I've never understood the dislike people have of 'playing god' with genes. Everyone practices eugenics in their own fashion. I mean, you choose to settle down with someone because you think that together you can produce and raise a family. By doing that, you're practicing human gengeneering by means of selective breeding. We got dogs by domesticating and selectively breeding wolves. Why complain now because someone wants to speed the process along? (If you know where I'm pulling this from, nudge, nudge, wink, wink. )
Koshko	posted 06-13-99 10:36 PM ET You name it, and it might have caused Cancer in lab rats. I'll keep eating what I like until I die.