« Unforeseen disaster | Main | Kennedy wrong again »

August 15, 2005

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The objections to GM food are based in fear, rather than in any reasonable scientific concern. It is the Luddism of the 21st century.

The stated concerns all boil down to:

"We don't know what might happen!"

Too true - we don't know what might happen. However, we do know what has happened in the past. Horizontal trasfer of genes between species has been going on for billions of years - we are just now getting in on the act to make some of the transfers happen to benefit us.

Bacteria "swap" genes between species at a dizzying rate, making antibiotic resistance headline news. This is GM done by prokaryotes, not by large metazoan scientists. It has been going on for billions of years.

If you're concerned what might happen if you swap genes in larger organisms, take a look at what happened millions of years ago, when a retrovirus "dropped off" some genes that probably helped lead to the development of the placenta (see: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/100/22/13013). Yep, the reason that mammals have a placenta instead of laying eggs may be the result of a "gene-swap" between our distant ancestors and a virus.


Prometheus.
Placental mammal and damn proud of it!

Prometheus wrote:

The objections to GM food are based in fear, rather than in any reasonable scientific concern. It is the Luddism of the 21st century.

No doubt there are those whose objections are not well founded. But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss them entirely. GE is the latest in a long line of agricultural technologies used to introduce new phenotypes. But it has the potential to introduce greater change more rapidly than ever before.

Criticisms of GE foods cover a lot of territory. In addition to health effects, there are socioeconomic concerns about the possibility of relegating our food supply to the intellectual property of a handful of large agro companies. The business models of these companies restricts farmer's traditional freedom with seed; from the simple economic expediant of saving seed from one year to the next to the inability to experiment with hybridization on their own. The result can foster cycles of dependence and encourage crop monocultures.

These concerns are real, and shouldn't be dismissed as a "we don't know what might happen" reaction. They should be managed in rational ways.

As a biologist in an agricultural state, I have a passing familiarity with agri-business. Even seeds produces by "old-fashioned" hybridization are sold with the understanding that the farmer will not "hold back" seed from the harvest for the next season's planting. From my discussions with local farmers, most do not see the seed restriction as a problem - they like to be able to choose different strains based on projected weather and economic trends.

There are seed sources that do not have this restriction, but they offer strains that are not as "up to date" - not as drought-resistant, salt-resistant or disease-resistant as the "designer" seed. In addition, many Univerity programs produce hybrid and GM strains that are made available without the seed restrictions.

My comment about the "we don't know what will happen" concerns is still valid. Point to a problem that has happened with GM organisms and then we can talk about a real issue. Or we could discuss problems that are likely to occur. Until then, it is just fear of the unknown.


Prometheus

Plus, if farmers don’t want to pay for the new seeds each year, they can still cultivate crops (including non-GM) where you are allowed to save the seeds. Farmers will only buy new seeds each year if it is more economic for them to do so than to collect and re-use seeds. Farmers aren’t stupid.

Prometheus,

Fair enough; your comments may be quite true for the U.S. and other industrialized countries that have a history of co-dependence with biotechnologies. I should have clarified that the concerns I mentioned are mainly apropos to developing countries, which are fast becoming major players in the global food market. The economics of farming, and the habits of farmers, are very different in most of the world than in America.

Anyway, regarding other effects, "we don't know what will happen" is valid, but vapid. We have the ability to reason about the future consequences of our actions; we do not need to wait until a problem is upon us. I shouldn't belabor the point because I suspect that you and I are, in fact, in raging agreement here and maybe just talking at it from different sides. You do, after all, mention talking about "problems that are likely to occur". Well, isn't that what we're talking about?

Let me see if I can find an example...how about this very post? It's about such a concern. In fact, it looks like it did happen, but it wasn't that bad. Well, good. I'm glad we learned something, and I'm glad that someone felt there was an interesting enough issue here to research it. Doesn't sound like pure fear, or Luddism to me.

Skeptico: yes, it is often the farmers who are concerned, and no, they are not stupid.

Eric said

"In addition to health effects, there are socioeconomic concerns about the possibility of relegating our food supply to the intellectual property of a handful of large agro companies."

Here is the real, and only reason for opposition to GM crops.

No, we wouldn't want to have a solution provided by big business, would we?

Perhaps over the next few decades, a non-profit group will come up with some reasonable answer to malnutrition and hunger in the third world.

"Horizontal trasfer of genes between species has been going on for billions of years - we are just now getting in on the act to make some of the transfers happen to benefit us."

Well said pro. gene transfer is nothing new and those who oppose it's advancement won't accept that reality


The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site