Have we done GM crops?

[Hilary B]

Nutrition wise, there was no difference. That's clear and proven. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. They didn't look at chemicals because that wasn't the remit of the study.

ETA: I'm a real life scientist (whatever that may be worth) and it really pains me that people disregard science in a manner like this.

How can you properly compare the 'nutritional value' of 2 things while ignoring the presence (or otherwise) of contaminants? Especially since the potential contaminants in non-organic food are mostly introduced in order to kill off competing species, and must therefore have a toxic capability?

In practice, it matters little to organic food lovers whether a chemistry lab can detect a difference, because there are other issues (including environmental ones).

I remember a few years ago when the official line was that ant-sprouting storage chemicals on potatoes were only present at 'safe' levels in supermarket spuds. Turns out this was based on the assumption that people never ate the skins.
Science is only as reliable as the question being asked, and the assumptions made in order to answer it (and there will always BE assumptions).

[PAULW]

Government EU and our own have for to long gone along with the philosophy that we are a collection of rich nations so we dont have to produce food for ourselves we can just buy it from where ever we want, who would have thought 20 years ago it would be viable to fly in green beans from Africa or asparagus from Peru,
We have had for many years farmers paid for growing nothing, land standing empty while we import food, because of our climate we produce the best lamb and beef in the world, europe cant come anywhere near the quality of our animals that is why there is such a big market for them on the continent.
Now all of a sudden after our farmers have been run down we have a food shortage and miracle of miracles we have a solution its GM crops call me a cynic but it makes you wonder how much the GM companies are paying to have goverments push the product for them.

[bluemoon]

Nutrition wise, there was no difference. That's clear and proven. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it wrong. They didn't look at chemicals because that wasn't the remit of the study.

ETA: I'm a real life scientist (whatever that may be worth) and it really pains me that people disregard science in a manner like this.

I'm a real-life scientist too. I wasn't disregarding the science, far from it, but I'm always angry when science is twisted to tell only part of the story, usually by the press who pick up something and run with it. Yes organic is nutritionally no different, but then I never thought it would be as a plant doesn't care where its nutrients come from and will utilize them in exactly the same way regardless, but the health giving properties of a chemical-free environment and produce were ignored, not by the study which, as you rightly say was not considering this aspect, but by the press who decided that they were going to have an anti-organic day; it was, however, presented by them as 'science', but without a full discussion of all the known facts. The scientists who conducted the study simply had to complete it and publish, they had no moral or ethical perogatives (this is actually one of the things I rather liked about science), but I feel the press when passing that information on to the public do have a moral duty to discuss all the known implications.
As for genetic modification, it goes on in nature all the time, but it's called cross-breeding and selection. What we term GM however is, for example, splicing a gene from a jellyfish into a maize plant and, as far as I'm aware, a jellyfish has never managed to naturally get any part of its genome into corn - though we could probably sell tickets to watch it try . When I first studied nearly 20 years ago I read Biochemistry and Genetics, both of which were considered at the time to be 'Frankenstein science' by the press and public alike, and I thought they were all rather stupid. Since then though there seems to have been a general public acceptance whilst I have begun to think that there might be a certain amount of truth in their initial worries. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should, and before we even start there should be full, frank and sensible public discussion and disclosure, not headline grabbing sensationalism where the only information available is that which editors think might sell a few extra papers.

[Snadger]

The way I see it,the term 'Frankenstein science' used by bluemoon just about sums up the way I feel about GM.
I'm not a scientist............and it scares me.

Cross breeding and using 'sports' that have different properties to the host plant I can live with, but GM or for that matter cloning just doesn't seem right!

[Bramble_killer]

As for genetic modification, it goes on in nature all the time, but it's called cross-breeding and selection. What we term GM however is, for example, splicing a gene from a jellyfish into a maize plant and, as far as I'm aware, a jellyfish has never managed to naturally get any part of its genome into corn - though we could probably sell tickets to watch it try . When I first studied nearly 20 years ago I read Biochemistry and Genetics, both of which were considered at the time to be 'Frankenstein science' by the press and public alike, and I thought they were all rather stupid. Since then though there seems to have been a general public acceptance whilst I have begun to think that there might be a certain amount of truth in their initial worries. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should, and before we even start there should be full, frank and sensible public discussion and disclosure, not headline grabbing sensationalism where the only information available is that which editors think might sell a few extra papers.

Agree about the study but I find that people get rather emotional about things they care about.

As for Genetic Modification (as people on here seem to enjoy it in capitals), I do that on a daily basis. I move genes around and across genomes. To me, DNA is the same, doesn't matter where it's from.

I don't understand where people draw the imaginary line of what is acceptable and what isn't acceptable, I understand plant breeders and dog lovers have no problems with what they like to term NATURAL selection of traits, but that is essentially genetic modification too. Why is moving something that could potentially be there or turning something on be wrong? Genomes are constantly evolving, there are hundreds of redundant genes in each genome. Some get switched on during certain parts of the evolutionary process and some gets switched off.

Scientists don't do things because they can, surprisingly a lot of the studies involving GMOs are highly regulated (trust me, I have to do the paperwork resulting in it) and people seem to think it's all let loose and they aren't responsible for the planet.

I know this topic is on plants but I hope people understand that genetic modication saves lives daily, people with Type I diabetes inject insulin made from a genetically modified source.

Sorry, a bit rambly

[Hilary B]

The capitals are used for the laboratory version, to distinguish that from the effects of selective breeding, and that is also where the line is drawn, for me at any rate.
Simple reason; so often in the past science has learned a new trick, tested it (thoroughly, or so they thought), put it into use, and then found out the hard way that there was a question they hadn't asked properly.
If it turns out that GM plants have 'unasked questions' regarding their effect on the natural environment, we don't have a spare environment to use instead.....
Where did insulin come from when it was first discovered/used?

[Bramble_killer]

Where did insulin come from when it was first discovered/used?

Insulin was (and still is) purified from bovine and porcine pancreas. However, because they aren't human, people have allergic reactions to them. There are also religious reasons.

Quoted from here
In 1978, a fledgling biotechnology company named Genentech produced the first synthetically manufactured insulin that could be made in large amounts. Using bacteria or yeast as miniature "factories," the gene for human insulin was inserted into bacterial DNA. The result was human insulin, called recombinant DNA insulin, which did not cause the problems that animal insulin sometimes did.

[Bramble_killer]

The way I see it,the term 'Frankenstein science' used by bluemoon just about sums up the way I feel about GM.
I'm not a scientist............and it scares me.

Cross breeding and using 'sports' that have different properties to the host plant I can live with, but GM or for that matter cloning just doesn't seem right!

Depends what you're cloning for. I clone to study how a gene works and what you can learn about how it causes the disease.


Question, is a tree grafted onto a different rootstock genetically modified or Genetically Modified?

[Hilary B]

Depends what you're cloning for. I clone to study how a gene works and what you can learn about how it causes the disease.


Question, is a tree grafted onto a different rootstock genetically modified or Genetically Modified?

Neither, the genes of the graft are not affected by the rootstock.

[rana]

It is encouraging to see that some contributors can separate science from soap box.
My personal concerns about GM are linked with the release of such things as terminator genes into the environment. The thought of cross contamination into 'wild' plants is simply horrific. While commercially funded scientists may prove it is an acceptable practice we only have to look back at the variety of disasters created by attempts at biological control during the previous century to get an inkling of the potential folly.

[RickinDarwen]

Genetic modification occurs when anything is cross bred.
It is most worrying when done on a molecular level in a lab (transgenic) rather than by breeding.
I don't know how much we need to worry about this to be honest but I would suggest that we have evolved along with the things around us which feed us slowly over a long period of time, it does concern me that meddling in a lab could upset the balance.

Anyway what does concern me massively is that when breeds of plant or animal have been 'designed' there is an intellectual property issue and everything will be subject to licensing.
Nobody will be allowed to breed anything except a handful of big players. The food chain will essentially be owned by organisations who's only concern is making �billions.
Just look at fuel/energy prices if you think that is being pessimistic we have been grabbed by the short and curlies there.

The governments are unlikely to stand in the way of GM as the big players have got them ****ing themselves about being unable to feed a growing population (despite the levels of obesity that we have) so as ever the big boys will probably get their way.

There are interesting times ahead.

For this and more concerns about the way we eat, shop and produce food I would recommend reading The End of Food by Paul Roberts.
The End of Food: Amazon.co.uk: Paul Roberts: Books
Much of what is in it will be stuff you already know and are concerned about along with some alarming things you probably didn't.
It is a bit sensational obviously but should be essential reading for anyone who shops in supermarkets.