Genetic Engineering

[harris7]

This is a thread that was started as a debate in another.

If you would like to join please stop by its beginnings:

http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=96684&page=7

[harris7]

Bob, here is attached 2 studies.

the first shows the significant lowering in soy yield. Funny how this study directly contradicts the claims made by monsanto. This is because their studies dont take into accout the dwarfed root systems of their Round up redy soy. These small roots didn't make a big difference in green house studies but in the real world even a small drout would kill the plants off.

The second is a study on the cross contamination of US crops on remote regions in Mexico. This is the biggest danger or GM. Once you grow a grow out doors you can NEVER â??recallâ?� your produce. The geneâ??s can never be recovered. This we are making a huge risk, by releasing them.

this coupled with the lack of testing is my main point of opposition

I saw David Suzuki speak on this topic and I though his words were very wise:
Something like:

â??I have no doubt in my mind that amazing things will come from this new power of genetic modification. But we are proceeding too fast and taking to large of risksâ?�

[harris7]

Sources
Canadian Biotech action network

Beyond Factory farming coalition


Some quotes from the attached sudy (sorry i cant attach word Docs. I guess you can discredit this quote if you wish)

â??Genetically modified (GM) plant products are becoming increasingly common in the human food-chain, yet in contrast to the general acceptance of the need for the biological testing of novel foods and feedstuffs, few studies have been carried out on the possible effects of GM products on the mammalian ut mucosa.â?�
---ie lack of testing. There was a bill pass a few years ago allowing little/no testing, Iâ??ll find it. Just give me time
---Note: this is an independent study, I personally do not trust studies done by the corporation themselves. They have been shown to exclude and manipulate data. As well as changing the operational definitions to suit their needs

just look at what the industry vs independent studies had to say about aspartame
industry---100% positive
Independent--- 95% negative

Hmmm

Here are some interesting notes on the â??icidesâ?� we use. Another reason to oppose crops designed to capitalize on their use.

" the EPA considers 60 percent of all herbicides, 90 percent of all fungicides, and 30 percent of all insecticides carcinogenic"

Us Manufactures exported more than 465 million pounds of pesticides in 1990, while more than 52 million pounds were banned, restricted or unregistered for use in the United States."

"Between 1945 and 1989, insecticide use in the US increased tenfold, while crop losses from insect damage almost doubled, from 7% to 13%"


-This is from the book:
http://www.amazon.com/Little-Food-Book-Craig-Sams/dp/1932857036

Iâ??d recommend checking it out, very interesting.

[Bob the Awesome]

I'm pretty convinced on the pesticide use before I even started here, so I'm not too worried about that. You've obviously got that down.

I'm half-dead right now so I'm gonna save the studies for tomorrow, however, I do have one question for you: When you say the plants aren't tested, does this mean they literally aren't tested at all for safety, or they are just tested the same as all other plants are? And if the genetically modified plants are tested the same as organically grown plants, why is this a problem?

[harris7]

Well for tonight I’m going to end on this note, as it is important to your claims!

GM crops are more expensive than Non GMO! Straight up
It costs more to produce each soy bean, corn cob and cotton ball!

IN fact Round up ready (RR) soy is grown at a loss!

You might ask how does the industry continue? Government subsidies.

Here is a very good website that I’ve only flipped though
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/fullrep/index.htm

and here are some quotes

“Comparing yields of GM and non-GM crops is not a straightforward exercise. Yields depend on a large number of factors, and the inserted trait of GM crops is only one factor amongst others. It is worth recalling (OECD, 1999) that first generation genetic modifications address production conditions (pests, weeds), they do not increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant. In other words, referring to Bullock's classification, they do not induce a type 1 (maximum yield) technical change. Not surprisingly yield performance of GM crops against their non-GM counterparts depends on growing conditions, in particular on the degree of infestation in insects or in weeds.”

--- It seems the only people jumping to the conclusion that GM crops are super yielder are the companies them selves
-- you can see actual figures are yield.

In cases in which yield may be larger per hectare the cost is much much higher
-for example BT corn. There is some evidence of higher yields but it is Not conclusive. But they cost much more to produce so per lb of food it costs a bundle more.

“Several studies have found evidence on yield gains for Bt corn. Based on 1996-1998 data of the Agricultural Resources Management Data, the USDA has observed that adopters of Bt corn had obtained higher yields than non-adopters. This might however been partly explained by performance differences between these two groups of farmers. Gianessi and Carpenter (1999) report about average gains of 0.73 t/ha in 1997 and 0.26 t/ha in 1998, respectively, + 9% and +3% compared to 97/98 average yield for corn.
The gap between 1997 and 1998 results can be explained by the difference in weather conditions and in insect pressure. Infestation was low in 1998. Other studies (like Alexander and Goodhue, Hyde and al., 1999) show the sensitivity of Bt performance to these two factors.”

-as well in every cell of BT corn there is BT an organic pesticide used by organic farmers. Having such large scale use of it though gmo’s will quickly select resistant types of corn borer and bring this valuable pesticide to and end. And with it the effectiveness of this GM crop. See the damage this one is causing? It’s a much bigger picture than just yield

[harris7]

When you say the plants aren't tested, does this mean they literally aren't tested at all for safety, or they are just tested the same as all other plants are? And if the genetically modified plants are tested the same as organically grown plants, why is this a problem?

By aren’t I mean not at all, or very little. They do, do some testing.

Normal crops are not tested. We know they are safe as we’ve been eating them for hundreds of years.

New products are tested. Such as new drugs, new planes and everything that is very new.
You can trust me when I say every scientist in the world thinks we should be testing GM anything b4 we use it.

Like we need to know if a GM tomato is still eatable and hasn’t become toxic.

I’ll find info on the testing tomorrow.

Ps- I am not against GM! I totally support the use of GM in producing drugs for example. The big difference for me between drugs and food is that drugs are tested and produced in a controlled environment were contamination to the natural world is very unlikely. Unlike GM crops which are tested outdoors and can easily spread via pollen.

Good night

[harris7]

I just had a wonderful idea... genetically modified cannabis... oh shit...

that is acctualy the biggest fear of the hippy world.
Same with GM hemp

[dutch.lover]

haha maybe splice weed with....raspberries! munchies and weed in one! ALRIGHTTTTTT

[Purple Banana]

LMAO. That's a great idea...

Personally, I'm not concerned about the safety of GM foods. It's essentially doing what the plant can do by itself anyway- cross breeding, albeit there's microscopic DNA work instead of pollenating differently.

[harris7]

LMAO. That's a great idea...

Personally, I'm not concerned about the safety of GM foods. It's essentially doing what the plant can do by itself anyway- cross breeding, albeit there's microscopic DNA work instead of pollenating differently.

No, it is very very very very very different.
(this is copied from the other thread)
http://boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=96684&page=7&highlight=global+warming

Iâ??m going to take the time and break this down.

Mendel bred peas,. So what were really talking about is genetic engineering and selective breeding.

I will explain the difference. But I am going to assume some knowledge of evolution, sorry if it confuses.

Genetics info you need to know:
-Phenotype --- is what genes are expressed. Ie. What the organism looks like
-Genotype----- The genetic make up of an organism. Defined by the genes present.
-Gene--- a string of DNA that codes for a particular trait. EG. Eye or hair colour.
-Allele--- different possible options a gene can have.
EG. For the Gene â??eye colourâ?� the alleleâ??s are: brown, blue, green and so on
-for each gene there are two alleleâ??s, because we have two sets of each chromosome (one from your mom and the other from your dad. Well in some cases the second is from the mail man.)
-Mutations --- are the only known source of Alleleâ??s and genes. Mutations are accidents when transcribing or translating DNA or RNA.
Homozygous- the two alleleâ??s for a gene in an organism are the same
Heterozygous- the two alleleâ??s are different

Theory of plant breeding: (its simple)
-Lets say your goal is to grow nice big tomatoes
-You grow lots and lots of different plants
-look through them and find the ones producing the most desirable fruit.
-Take these two plants, force them to pollinate each other.
-Then you get the seeds from the plant. (it gets complex here)
-Since these seeds are from your two strongest (genetically) plants all the seeds will have a different mix of the plants.

-These seeds will come out in the ratio 1:2:1
1â??or 25% of the seeds will have a homozygous genotype for the desired trait, with the desired allele!
2---or 50% will have heterozygous genotype for trait, have both alleleâ??s
1â??25% will have homozygous, with two undesired alleleâ??s
(assuming each of the parents were heterozygote for the gene)

This is what Mendel Taught us.

I will continue. Please donâ??t comment yet.

[harris7]

Now Genetic engineering.

This one is much easier and shorter

-A scientist wants to put a quality from one species into another.
-they locate the desired quality (gene) and literally cut it out.
-Then they place it in another organisms nucleolus by three means
-The gene gun- coat small pieces of gold with the gene and literally shoot the cell. Little pieces of gold will penetrate the nucleus… job done
-The most used means is virus’s and bacteria. Look up how a virus works.
-and the last is to place the target cell in a solution of the Gene and run an electric current through it. The electricity increases the permeability of the cell allowing the gene to enter.

Now I’ll highlight the difference:

GM—adding a new Gene

Breeding—is selecting the desired allele, no new gene’s

The most important thing is that a new gene is added. This is very dangerous. I don’t know your understanding of genetics but 1 gene does not code for one protein. In fact the human genome is only 30 000 genes and the human body has over 200 000 proteins. This relationship is only possible if genes interact to produce some proteins.
The unfortunate fact is that we cannot predict the effects of the gene interaction. The only effect we can predict (and the only thing they look for) is the desired trait.

You might be interested in the lack of testing done to these crops b4 they are allowed to be grown, sold and consumed. In the USA there is none! They are seen as “equivalent”

I am 110% opposed to GMO food crops! My opposition rests on their safety and their effect to biodiversity.

I will answer any questions you have. But I ask that you please start a thread.

[stinkyattic]

Monsanto, DuPont, ADM=collectively, the Devil.
GM is gong to lead to the demise of our traditional food crops, and to a disgusting stranglehold on the seeds to grow the 'new improved' ones that is going to make the difficulty of obtaining cannabis seed look like absolutely NOTHING.

[dutch.lover]

You're totally right stinky, it's really scary. GM crops, once they are planted, have the opportunity to take over (and spread their alien genes) everywhere. Organic foods will become obsolete if GM crops rise. This will also destroy all farmers who have natural and organic crops, as their crops will be ruined, and once their crops have been naturally crossed with the evil GM crops and now have foreign dna in them, those GM companies have a right to their entire crops (because they have a patent on those GM genes).

I hope that made sense. I can't stress enough about watching the movie "the future of food"... it lays out what's going on in the GM world now, how it started, and how it is ruining crops and farmers' livelihood. It also talks about the dangers of them, and lack of testing those crops need to go through. It's hella scary.

[chris420]

And GM crops are all tested and scrutinized under federal labs, am I right?

There should seriously be restrictions regarding some practices in science. I would'nt be suprised if one day I would see green people walking around with carrots growing on their heads.

[dutch.lover]

GM crops aren't tested to the degree that they should be (if at all). They are basically seen as plants, just like any other plants, and therefore there is no reason for a GM tomato plant for example, to go thru any abnormal testing.

I think Harris7 was going to post some stuff on testing today so stay tuned.

[benagain]

Lets just hope that bulb of garlic in my window doesn't decide to chark stabbing me one day. If that ever happens, I'm gonna really not take to kindly to GMs.

[Bob the Awesome]

Well, it seems I've been defeated in my argument, because my technical knowledge is no where near the same as Harris'

I do have one inquiry, however. Can plants become toxic/harmful through genetic modification? In what ways?

And if they don't test the GM plants to make sure a gene installed, for example, to make the plant disease-resistant does that and not make it poisonous, they need to. I don't necessarily think GM is horrible, but it does need to be done very scientifically and slowly.

Then again, there are a good amount of branches of science that suffer from unscientific methods... being a psychology major I've noticed a lot of problems with certain parts of mainstream psychological processes.

But thank you, Harris, for putting the time and effort into typing all of that out and not being an ass about it :jointsmile:

[harris7]

I do have one inquiry, however. Can plants become toxic/harmful through genetic modification? In what ways?

:

Yes, remember that most plants are harmful to eat. For example, I believe it's Bt Corn which has a new toxic protein in it and it causes infertility in Pigs. There are warning given to all pig farmers in Europe at least which told them not to feed pigs the corn if they want to breed them.

No warning went out to the human population.

Another fear isn't that it's toxic, but that a plant may produce proteins characteristic of another plant. This has occurred with another kind of corn. People eating it had a allergic reaction to another plant (which they knew they were allergic to). This corn was only legal for animal consumption, yet it found its way into Taco Time Corn Taco's, who knows how.

â??The protein, known as Cry9C and not found in other crops that are genetically modified, is safe for animals but may trigger allergic reactions in humans, including fever, rashes or diarrhea, according to government scientists.â?�


Hereâ??s that story

http://www.rense.com/general4/kel.htm

[Skink]

I saw genetically modified Cherries last year,,,they were doubles,,,looked like red dog balls...

in the produce isle anything tagged with an 4xxx is grown in the US and Mexico,.,anything marked 9xxxx is organic,,,anything 8xxx is genetically modified...

[dutch.lover]

your genetically modified stuff is labeled? that's awesome. canada doesn't have labelling anywhere yet (but i could be wrong, maybe some prov's have it). it's total bullshit- if an organic product has 'gm-free' written on it when it is sent to the stores, stickers are placed over that to cover it up. stupid....!

[harris7]

I saw genetically modified Cherries last year,,,they were doubles,,,looked like red dog balls...

in the produce isle anything tagged with an 4xxx is grown in the US and Mexico,.,anything marked 9xxxx is organic,,,anything 8xxx is genetically modified...
Are you sure? I know about the organic one. But to my knowledge, which may be 6 months out of date, no produce is GM.

[Skink]

Yup,,, if it starts with an 8 then it is...

[harris7]

Well, it seems I've been defeated in my argument, because my technical knowledge is no where near the same as Harris'
:

Or maybe bob, GM foods arn't good...


An ending note:

First off I greatly value your evidence based critical approach to issues. I wish more people took this road on the forums.

So I come from a science background and welcomed genetic engineering as itâ??s really frickin interesting from a biologists point of view. I believe that many very valuable things will come of it. So when first posed with the topic I supported it. I am now very highly opposed to the use of this technology (in itâ??s current state). This is because of the corporate nature of the companies creating and using this technology. They are putting the technology into use far b4 it has been properly studied, all for their bottom line.

I have attained one of my books on the topic and I thought Iâ??d end with some interesting facts on the topic in hopes that you may persue it further.

Here we go:

â??When GM canola protein was fed to chickens, their death rate was twice that of chickens fed non-GM proteinâ?�

â??In 1993, 11 out of 17 scientists at the USDA opposed the approval of the first GM tomato variety because of concerns about its safety after feeding trials. However, they were overruled by their bosses, who were under great political pressure to grand approvalâ?�
---This product was the flavor savor tomato. It was found to cause lesions in the stomachs of rats. This product was recalled due to customer dissatisfaction a few years later.

â??Even though some claim that GM foods are the most heavily tested in the history of the food industry, there have only ever been TEN scientific feeding safety trials using GM food, five of which (the independent ones) showed differences that were the cause of concern.â?�

---Unfortunately we cannot look at the manufacture to take responsibility.

Here is Phil Angell, Monsantoâ??s director of corporate communications thoughts:

â??Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech (GM) food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDAâ??s Jobâ?�
--kinda sums up a corporations motivation IMO



â??In 2001 the British Medical Association report into GMOs claimed â??insufficient evidenceâ?� to inform a decision on their safetyâ?�

â??In may 2002, 17 pig breeders in Iowa reported a sharp decline, up to 80% in the conception rate of breeding sows. All had one thing in common: they had only used their own farm-grown, GM Bt maize in their pig feed. â?¦ The maize had unusually high levels of fusarium, a mould associated with fungal poisons known as mycotoxins known to cause pseudo-pregnancy. This was a new and unknown mycotoxin that had emerged in reaction to the engineered toxin in the GM maize. The Iowa Farm Bureau recommended that farmers who breed their own pigs stop using GM corn. Humans who eat corn products were given no such warningâ?�


â??In October 2000, after careful research into the matter, Munic RE and Swiss RE, the worldâ??s leading reinsures, announced that they would not insure farmers or food processors for any liability arising from GM foods or farming. Since GM crops were now virtually uninsurable, the EU commission and industry lobbyists pressured the European Parliament to put GM food producers beyond the normal laws of liability. (Much the same happened in the nuclear-power business, it wasâ??and is--- uninsurable.)"


â??Another argument put forward for the safety of GM foods is that Americans have been eating them since 1997 with no ill effects. However, food-related illnesses in the US are estimated to have doubled since 1997â?�

and the big oneâ?¦

â??GM food provides no real benefit to farmers. US farm subsidies have gone from $3 billion to $150 billion a year since GM crops were introduced. There are NO nutritional benefits to GM food. The little safety testing there is indicates health risks!â?�

I love this one:

â??Plants such as maize, soy, and oilseed rape (canola) are engineered to have herbicide resistance. This allows weed killer, such as the herbicide glufosinate, to be sprayed right up to harvest, greatly increasing the risk of residues in the final crop. Glufosinate is both a neurotoxin and a teratogen (causes embryo damage). Would these residues not seriously concern the biotech industry and our governments?

Well before the introduction of GM crops, the biotech industry persuaded US and EU governments to increase the permitted residue of week killers in foods to 20 000 times the previous level.â?�

-These quotes are all taken from the book:
â??The Little Food bookâ?� by Craig Sams

very easy to find on amazon or chapters.com