[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Glickman and Biotech
aquilla@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) wrote:
>>With respect to the food that I eat you must agree that I do have an interest
>>in both the definition of "runs ok" and the results?
>You certainly DO have an interest! Everyone does.
>>I also have a legitimate interest in the World's gene pool and want to feel
>>confident that it will not become corrupted.
>If you don't know a lot about the subject and don't trust the scientists,
>how do you propose to know what constitutes "corruption" of the gene pool?
>I'm often surprised that those who would take a 'holistic' or ecological
>approach to the production of their food often seem ignorant of the fact
>that humans have evolved, like all other organisms on earth. Most of our DNA
>coding sequences are shared with other forms of life, including plants,
>animals, and bacteria. We share common structural elements (C,H,O,N,etc.),
>macromolecules like proteins and DNA, and even specific gene sequences. That
>'the whole world is interconnected' thing is more than skin deep!
Yes - and the same family of plants that gives us tomatoes also gives
us deadly nightshade and other poisonous compounds. What do you know -
I'll bet those compounds are also made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen,
and oxygen....they're still poisonous, though.
Man or mouse? Tomato, potato or poison? Those little differences in
genetic code can make all the difference.............that's why
tampering with foodstuffs should be approached very carefully.
Apparently changing one or two genes CAN have great consequences.
>>If any of the molecular biologists or genetic engineers here on the
>>list can tell us the present state of science's understanding of the
>>complete range of interactions between one gene and the whole organism
>>expressed by the DNA that would be instructive - wouldn't it?
>Of course asking people to 'fully explain nature' is just being silly.
>Nobody knows everything there is to know.
We're not asking for the universe - we're asking for knowledge of how
the gene spliced from a foreign source interacts with the rest of the
organism. This is the ABC of a discussion of food safety.
Exactly what is the effect of the spliced gene? How is the gene for
tender breasts expressed throughout the chicken we will eat? How will
the gene for pesticide resistance be expressed in the pollen, fruit,
and root exudates of the plant? What substances will a gene clipped
from ocean alga produce in a completely different environment like a
fish or chicken? How will those substances interact with the existing
chemical soup?
How will they interact with the chemical soup of those who eat the GE
foodstuff?
If scientists can't answer these things then they should not be
touting the safety of GE foods. This century has already accumulated a
long roster of sure-fire medicines and foodstuffs that were later
shown to have damaging interactions. Often, these poor results came
after scrupulous pharmaceutical research and testing.
>>Just as one example of the almost complete ignorance of science's
>>understanding of genetic expression there is the problem of why some
>>genes express in some cells and not others.
>The tissue-specific nature of gene expression is one area where knowledge
>has actually advanced fairly quickly over the last decade or so, but of
>course there will always be more unanswered questions. In some such cases
>there are multiple copies of the same gene under the control of different
>tissue-specific promoter and enhancer elements. In other cases, specific
>gene sequences are permanently excised from certain cell types during
>development. Another mechanism is deactivation of specific genes through
>permanent rearrangements or methylation events. This is just the 'tip of the
>iceberg'. Sure, we have much to learn, but some of these mechanisms are well
>understood.
So - how does the newly introduced genetic material interact with each
organ or specialized structure of the host? This is just a more
sophisticated version of the previous question - again, the ABC of
food safety.
>>Do you really believe that same ignorance is capable of predicting the full
>>range of effects of transgenic creations?
>Of course not, but who has claimed to be "capable of predicting the full
>range of effects of transgenic creations"? It is not possible to rule out
>every possibility, but it is possible to make a reasonable assessment of the
>risks involved. Based on current knowledge, most of the scenarios commonly
>envisioned (imagined?) so far are unlikely to occur. Exactly what potential
>"effects of transgenic creations" concern you? What basis is there for concern?
I think I have explained the main concern with the sloppy science of
GE foods. Assertions of safety are really quite arrogant, considering
the intrusiveness of the technology and how new and uncharted the
whole area is.
If we move out of the lab, there is another concern which sheds light
on the trust the agribiz companies themselves place in the technology.
Typical is the approach of Monsanto in marketing GE tomatoes. Monsanto
fought tooth and nail to kill legislation that would require a GE food
to be labelled as such.
What does this mean?
It means Monsanto would rather suspend our freedom to choose what we
eat, than convince us aboveboard that the technology is safe. If the
technology were sound, it would be relatively easy to pitch this as a
"super" tomato (add a gene to boost Vitamin C content, and watch it
sell; or use a "feeding our world" PR campaign - the marketing angles
are there). Instead, they want to sneak Monsantomatoes onto our
plates, forgoing what could have been the biggest marketing coup of
the century. Hmmm....
It also means that Monsanto wants to cover its tracks. Picture this:
five years from now, stomach cancers (or whatever) skyrocket in
regions where Monsantomatoes were sold. But because there was no
labelling, possible ill effects cannot be traced to Monsantomatoes.
What clever lawyers these agribusinesses have! What unshakeable
confidence they have in their technology!
If the scientists are so confident, why are the businessmen so
skittish? The difference between the decision makers of Monsanto and
the PhDs in the labs - and armchair scientists in newsgroups - is that
Monsanto has been there, and been burned. Unlike scientists enamored
of their own creations, the businessmen of Monsanto remember the
pesticides and fertilizers that sprouted all kinds of side effects
that the geniuses in the labs never considered. And they've seen the
problems with food additives and drugs throughout the postwar era.
And they know that the public knows all this, and remembers. So their
clever lawyers are turning us all into unwilling guinea pigs.
Sorry -- given the uneven track record of technology in our times,
there is going to have to be a whole lot more documentation of safety
before GE will - or should - be accepted.
I suggest all those boosting GE foods go to their library and take a
good look at the high-handed scientific blessings bestowed on DDT and
other agrichemicals now known to be incredibly toxic and eco-damaging.
Re-read the rosy predictions of the PhDs then, and compare them with
the hype surrounding the Next Big Thing - genetic engineering. The
similarities are startling - and instructive.
Joshua
Follow-Ups:
References: