What is with the anti GM idiots?

[mr friendly guy]

The right wing has the climate change denialists, the left wing has the anti GM retards.

This article appeared in the Western Australian

GM crop could cause liver failure: scientist

A world-renowned scientist has warned that one of the CSIRO's genetically modified wheat varieties has the potential to cause a deadly disease that attacks the liver.

In his report on GM wheat that is expected to be released today, New Zealand genetics lecturer Jack Heinemann, from the University of Canterbury, said the CSIRO's technology suppressed an enzyme in the wheat which was similar to the human enzyme that produces glycogen.

Humans eating the wheat could find the technology suppresses glycogen production in their bodies, leading to liver failure.

His report was backed by Flinders University biochemist Judy Carman and molecular genetics expert Michael Antoniou, from Kings College, London.

The CSIRO yesterday revealed it had received approval from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator for two field trials of wheat and barley with altered starch composition. The latest crop had been planted in the ACT in June.

It is understood this type of GM wheat has not been planted in WA. But the CSIRO would not comment on Professor Heinemann's findings.

Professor Heinemann told _The West Australian _ he had not seen any evidence the CSIRO had even considered the possibility that this variety of GM wheat could affect human glycogen production.

"There are very special risk assessments that should be done on this kind of modification because we have very limited experience with this," he said. "The vast majority of GM organisms in the human food supply have been modified to change a protein and that's a very different molecule with a different risk spectrum."

Professor Heinemann said he wasn't able to identify which sequence the CSIRO had used to suppress enzyme production in the wheat. But he had identified several possible sequences, each of which raised a different possible reaction.

The Safe Food Foundation, which commissioned the investigation, called on the CSIRO to reveal the details of the sequence used so independent researchers could investigate the ramifications for humans.

What a scary title.

Lets count the errors. Please go through any that I missed.

1. any one can say "it could" as oppose to "it does." He has no fucking evidence.

2. How does he know this will suppress the same enzyme in humans when he admits he doesn't even know which sequence was used to suppress the similar enzyme in wheat?

3. Suppressing the enzyme in wheat means that it wheat... wait for it.... wait for it.... doesn't express the enzyme. Wow. Whats to stop us continuing to producethe enzyme to make glycogen? Its like if a person with a genetic disease cause by having two copies of a recessive gene, cannibalises a human being who has the recessive gene but also a dominant one, then the cannibal would be cured of his disease, because it would suppress the recessive gene. Fuck, I just discovered the cure of multiple recessive diseases. I need my igNobel prize now.

But this is the West Australian. I am betting most readers don't even understand high school level of biology.

4. Even if this magically suppresses glycogen production (which is produced by the liver) it won't likely cause liver failure. Why? Because glycogen is essentially a storage of glucose. Its converted back into an energy form we can use by liver and muscle cells. The creation of glycogen however is done so by the liver with stimulus from insulin. Thus even if glycogen production magically ceases, the disease we will get is diabetes mellitis type II (due to insulin resistance). Yes type II diabetes is a serious disease, but it ain't liver failure.

The more serious symptoms of liver failure, eg confusion from hepatic encephalopathy (due to failure to metabolise amines), ascites (due to splanchnic vasodilation), haemorrhage (due to inability to synthesise clotting factors) etc shouldn't be affected in this scenario, since this hysterical scenario only affects one aspect of liver metabolism. Thats what you get from a geneticist trying to make a clinical judgment.

[Losonti Tokash]

Do you think that people who are wary of GMOs hold a position that is entirely without merit? I'm certainly in favor of the concept since it's given us things like human insulin from bacteria and glowing cats, but I'm incredibly distrustful of shit like Monsanto patenting food crops while also buying up and destroying seed banks of non-GM plants.

[chitoryu12]

Do you think that people who are wary of GMOs hold a position that is entirely without merit? I'm certainly in favor of the concept since it's given us things like human insulin from bacteria and glowing cats, but I'm incredibly distrustful of shit like Monsanto patenting food crops while also buying up and destroying seed banks of non-GM plants.

The important thing to do when talking about food crops is to make a distinction between problems with genetically modified plants and problems with the corporations that control them. I'm not wary of the food crops themselves as much as the people who make decisions regarding them, and that's what needs to be controlled and monitored the most.

[Alyrium Denryle]

1. any one can say "it could" as oppose to "it does." He has no fucking evidence.

2. How does he know this will suppress the same enzyme in humans when he admits he doesn't even know which sequence was used to suppress the similar enzyme in wheat?

Simply put: gene regulation does not work this way.

No. Seriously. I... I dont know how a geneticist thinks this, unless he is being misquoted. Which, given the state of science journalism, is a distinct possibility. If I eat a plant, it's gene regulation (what genes are turned on and off due to its own internal feedback loops and such) does not transfer to me. If it has a gene that down-regulates the production of another gene product, my body breaks down the DNA of the organism, and it has no effect on my own cell regulation other than use as raw material or energy for metabolism.

In fact, I am pretty sure that the scientist is being quote mined. Take a look at these statements without the sensational narrative. I will add my own bolded commentary.

In his report on GM wheat that is expected to be released today, New Zealand genetics lecturer Jack Heinemann, from the University of Canterbury, said the CSIRO's technology suppressed an enzyme in the wheat which was similar to the human enzyme that produces glycogen.
This is a simple factual statement. Nothing crazy here
...


Professor Heinemann told _The West Australian _ he had not seen any evidence the CSIRO had even considered the possibility that this variety of GM wheat could affect human glycogen production.
Because no such possibility exists through the mode of action for this particular form of genetic modification
...

"There are very special risk assessments that should be done on this kind of modification because we have very limited experience with this," he said. "The vast majority of GM organisms in the human food supply have been modified to change a protein and that's a very different molecule with a different risk spectrum."
Also a simple factual statement. We do not know what this sort of modification will do. To the plant. A plant that has seeds that could spread via the wind and become invasive. New proteins need to be tested for toxicity--just as you would if you are using a protein from some organism or another for anti-biotics. But that does not mean it will affect our own gene regulation.

What the journalists did, was selectively quote a geneticist to create a scary sensational article. They took snippets of what he said, and interwove it within a fuckton of fear-mongering of their own creation. Said geneticist said nothing about liver failure. He talked about what the modification does to wheat, that the company doing the modification did not consider a non-existent risk, and that we need to do risk assessments of various sorts. None of that is insane. The journalist twisted it into something insane.

[K. A. Pital]

Do you think that people who are wary of GMOs hold a position that is entirely without merit? I'm certainly in favor of the concept since it's given us things like human insulin from bacteria and glowing cats, but I'm incredibly distrustful of shit like Monsanto patenting food crops while also buying up and destroying seed banks of non-GM plants.

Being against corporations and being against technology are two different things. Hard to separate, but different. The first is being anti-capitalist, the second is being luddite. The two can be one and the same (a person can be opposing both corporations and technology) or not.

I'm personally wary of people who attack technology but not its owners. Who seek to ban GM or, say, offshore drilling but have nothing against an oil or agricultural corporation in principle. Those are fragile allies for people on the left, not to be trusted at all.

[mr friendly guy]

Do you think that people who are wary of GMOs hold a position that is entirely without merit? I'm certainly in favor of the concept since it's given us things like human insulin from bacteria and glowing cats, but I'm incredibly distrustful of shit like Monsanto patenting food crops while also buying up and destroying seed banks of non-GM plants.

Thats literally like saying because Microsoft engages in dodgy business practices (remember the row about using the monopoly of Windows to gain a monopoly on browsers at the expense of netscape?) therefore Windows is hazardous to your health. Engaging in anti competitive business practices does not equate to your product is unsafe. And yes if its true they are destroying seed banks of non-GM plants, they should be stopped.

[mr friendly guy]

To go on, most of what I have seen from anti GM rants (either letters to editors, online) etc do appear to be ALMOST entirely without merit.

Take this Greenpeace one I debunked on another board.
http://m.greenpeace.org/eastasia/high/n ... log/41956/

24 children used as guinea pigs in genetically engineered "Golden Rice" trial

How would you feel if I told you that a group of scientists had come to the United States, and fed a group of 24 children aged between six and eight years of age a potentially dangerous product?

What if I told you that state authorities had come out publicly with clear directives against this very experiment, and yet the experiment had continued regardless?

You'd be pretty outraged, right?

Well this is what we believe is happening, EXCEPT that it is happening on Chinese soil and on Chinese children (and I hope you've managed to maintain that outrage.)

We discovered this in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition that published a study backed by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and that involved feeding genetically engineered (GE) Golden Rice to a group of 24 boys and girls in Hunan province, China, aged between six and eight years old.

It was actually back in 2008 that we first heard of this experiment and immediately informed the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture. The Ministry came back and assured us no Golden Rice had been imported and the trial had been stopped – something that unfortunately appears not to be the case.

Gambling with the health of these 24 kids isn't the only travesty here. From the bigger picture we're also seeing a huge amount of time, energy and talent being wasted on what is essentially yet another example of big business hustling in of one the world's most sacred things: our food supply.

The study hopes to propose that this genetically engineered rice is a solution to vitamin A deficiency among malnourished child populations. Fact is, we don't need this "silver bullet" rice, because (1) We have a solution – it's called overcoming poverty and accessing a more diverse diet. (2) Like so many silver bullets it's going to cause more trouble and potential harm than the existing solution.

Here are some of the big "cons" behind this so-called magic rice, according to our food and agriculture team:

By promoting GE rice you encourage a diet based on one staple rather than an increase in access to the many vitamin-rich food plants. These plants would address a wide variety of micronutrient deficiencies, not just VAD.
We simply do not know if GE crops, including GE rice, are safe for human or animal consumption. GE crops certainly have the potential to cause allergenic reactions.
The majority of patents for genetically engineered plants are held by a few large multinational companies. So it's in their financial interest – and not ours, the public – to get us hooked on their seed.
After 20 years of development, this not so-Golden Rice is still just a shadowy research project with no applications for commercialization anywhere in the world. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on what is a smoke and mirrors product, and that could have been better spent on programs that have actually proven to make a lasting and meaningful difference: programs that combine supplementation with home gardening in order to give the poverty-stricken access to a more diverse diet (something that has been successful in Bangladesh).

The battle to keep GE rice out of China has been a long, seven year struggle, and clearly it's not over yet.

Now if Greenpeace kept only to arguing about patents for GM products own by multinationals they might have a point. However they might not want to pursue that too hard, because it might give some smart arses ideas. Ideas like instead of rejecting the technology, others should develop their own GM products to break the oligopoly of these multinationals. Oops. Too late, it seems that the Chinese decided to pursue their own GM foods.

But back to the original point. Oh noes, evil US organisation working with evil Chinese one to test GM foods on unsuspecting guinea pigs. Oh wait, what happens when we track the journal article reporting this gross atrocity.

The study was carried out in an elementary school in the Hunan province of China in healthy schoolchildren (with normal biochemical test results; see below) aged 6–8 y either initially
free of parasitic infection or verified free of infection after treatment with 400 mg albendazole (GlaxoSmithKline). Most area residents were local, middle-income, rural, and working
people. Forty-eight percent of the study subjects who were treated (no side effects) were recruited to participate in the study 1 mo before the start of the study meals.

Study design
The subjects were randomly assigned (using a computergenerated random numbers table) to take spinach, GR, or b-carotene in oil capsule. The full study lasted 35 d and included
a 14-d diet preparation period, during which time the children (without parasitic infection) tried study meals provided by the kitchen that was set up to provide these meals, and during which
time the parents were informed on dietary restrictions for their children during the study

Across all our subjects, no side effects or abnormalities were observed during this study in any individual who consumed the labeled spinach, GR, or the b-carotene in oil capsule with their meal. Furthermore, no abnormalities or complaints were reported after the completion of the study during a 1-y follow-up period.

1. Totally ignore the fact that no side effects were reported so they can use a scaremonger terms of "potentially dangerous product." Tick.
2. Ignored the fact that the children's parents were aware of the trial and recruited in advance. Makes it easier to spin a sinister secret experiment doesn't it. Tick.

Here is another Greenpeace article someone put in the defense of Greenpeace.
http://www.greenpeace.org/seasia/ph/pre ... O-trials-/

I will just want to selected pieces.

Seralini’s analyses of GMO experimental data, on the other hand, reveal evidence of their increasing negative impacts on animal health. For example, he cites a ninety day test on rats conducted by the GMO developers themselves, which shows signs of toxicity in the livers and kidneys of mammals eating commercialized or pre-commercialized GMOs, such as soya, corn or eggplant filled with herbicides or insecticides (mostly Roundup Ready or Bt plants). [2]

With other scientists, Seralini has been calling on proponents to first eliminate harmful effects of GMOs, like hepatorenal toxicity (rapid deterioration of kidney functions), through confined and sustained laboratory testing first, before attempting to introduce GMO varieties into the environment via field trials.

Ignoring for a moment Greenpeace doesn't actually know what hepatorenal toxicity means (it means toxic to BOTH liver and kidneys), lets have a deeper look at this science.

Seralini's work was rejected by the European food and safety authority.
Page 8

The GMO Panel notes that several of its fundamental statistical criticisms (EFSA, 2007a,b) of the authors' earlier study (Seralini et al., 2007) of maize MON863 are also applicable to the new paper
by de Vendômois et al. In the GMO Panel's extensive evaluation of Seralini et al. (2007), reasons for the apparent excess of significant differences found for MON863 (8%) were given and it was
shown that this raised no safety concerns. The percentage of variables tested reported by de Vendômois et al. that were significant for NK603 (9%) and MON810 (6%) were of similar
magnitude to that for MON863. The GMO Panel considers that de Vendômois et al.: (1) make erroneous statements concerning the use of reference varieties to provide estimates of variability
that allow equivalence testing to place statistically significant results into biological context as advocated by EFSA (2008, 2009a); (2) do not use the available information concerning normal
background variability between animals fed with different diets, to place observed differences into biological context; (3) do not present results using their False Discovery Rate methodology in a
meaningful way; (4) give no evidence to relate well-known gender differences in response to diet to claims of effects due to the respective GMOs; (5) estimate statistical power based on inappropriate analyses and magnitudes of difference.

Just to add salt into the wound, here is another study done by that same scientist (who as we find out engages in anti GM polemics).
http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
I like to draw your attention to his acknowledgements where he admits that Greenpeace partially funded the study. Then followed by conflict of interests where they say they are unaware of any.

But since I am on a roll, said scientist did visit Australia earlier in the year to launch his holy crusade, and people's bullshit detectors went off when they found out that his organisation's website displayed an award he received as "international Scientist of the year 2011" (note this has been subsequently taken down from their website). Only problem is this award is a fake award which can be purchased for a few hundred bucks.

“How much would you be willing to pay for the title of ’International Professional of the Year’?” the ScamNet website warns.

“Well as people in Perth have been finding out via letter, the going rate is US$325 – about AU$358 – through a UK-based organisation called the International Biographical Centre.

“The material promoting the International Biographical Centre creates a false impression about the credentials of the organisation.

“WA ScamNet would advise people to consider carefully how much they are willing to pay for an ego boost which isn’t necessarily worth the paper it is written on.”

Director of the WA Agricultural Biotechnology Centre at Murdoch University in Perth, Professor Mike Jones said the CRIIGEN website “proudly” displayed Professor Seralini’s certificate, despite the State government’s consumer protection warning.

“You really have to wonder about his scientific credentials if he can be fooled by this scam but perhaps someone else nominated him,” he said.

“So my advice to any of you hearing Gilles-Eric Seralini is don’t be fooled by his anti-GM polemics.

“If he can be fooled by an honorary degree scam - that is not what it appears to be - what does that say about his science?

“If it was me I’d have the certificate taken down immediately but it’s still up there and I’m sure that it’s not peer reviewed.”

So if this is the calibre the loudest anti GM organisations can come up with. Yeah almost all of it is without merit.

[Lagmonster]

GM food protesters are assholes. Luckily, they've only been able to starve a few thousand people to death by lobbying governments in Africa to ban GM foods, so they're not quite assholes on a level that would earn them a page in a history book. But not for any lack of effort.

When I run into them in the relative comfort of north america, I offer them a simple slogan: if you don't like it, don't fucking eat it. This fails to satisfy, usually, at which point you'll be treated to a game of Green Roulette: Will the well-fed son-of-a-dentist before you come up anti-capitalist? Environmentalist? Naturalist?

[Irbis]

1. any one can say "it could" as oppose to "it does." He has no fucking evidence.

Let me point out that real scientists would often in fact, say "could", not "does", even if they are pretty certain with 10 sigma level certainty. If you're looking for something that deals in absolutes, go ask a priest.

That being said, while I believe GMO is way to go and eventually all food will be somehow tailored, what GMO corporations do today is often so disgusting it poisons the whole outlook on GMO. Plus, we're in fact looking at young branch of science that can yet produce disastrous results due to our weak understanding of it. Similar way that DDT was supposed to be end-all scientific response to the problem.

When I run into them in the relative comfort of north america, I offer them a simple slogan: if you don't like it, don't fucking eat it. This fails to satisfy, usually, at which point you'll be treated to a game of Green Roulette: Will the well-fed son-of-a-dentist before you come up anti-capitalist? Environmentalist? Naturalist?

To be fair - while Greenpeace are indeed assholes (up to extorting money from random people) it's getting increasingly impossible to eat GMO-free food in USA, unless you skip all the meat and start eating only things you grow yourself or import from Africa.

[Lagmonster]

When I run into them in the relative comfort of north america, I offer them a simple slogan: if you don't like it, don't fucking eat it. This fails to satisfy, usually, at which point you'll be treated to a game of Green Roulette: Will the well-fed son-of-a-dentist before you come up anti-capitalist? Environmentalist? Naturalist?

To be fair - while Greenpeace are indeed assholes (up to extorting money from random people) it's getting increasingly impossible to eat GMO-free food in USA, unless you skip all the meat and start eating only things you grow yourself or import from Africa.

So let them grow the things themselves. Or starve. Naturalists in north america have the incredible privilege of choice. My objection is to anyone who lies to starving people about the food that could save their families. Or who try to use the mask of health scares to try to force me to conform to their moral, political or aesthetic preferences.

I have a pet theory that many of the people who hate bioengineered food don't bother to educate themselves on advances in agricultural science because they don't want to think of it as anything other than unsafe or healthy. It's only my opinion, but I get the idea that the ones who are anti-capitalist don't want corporations to be seen as saviours of the poor and hungry - they want corporations to be seen as evil monsters who poison people for a buck. Those who are naturalist notice it's a lot easier to tell people that bioengineered foods are unhealthy (or "natural" foods are healthier) than to say that they simply want to conform food producers to their personal preferences. And the ones who lean environmentalist don't want human-designed species to be benign or sensibly regulated - they want all human impact on the environment to be a sin.

[mr friendly guy]

1. any one can say "it could" as oppose to "it does." He has no fucking evidence.

Let me point out that real scientists would often in fact, say "could", not "does", even if they are pretty certain with 10 sigma level certainty. If you're looking for something that deals in absolutes, go ask a priest.

Well strictly speaking we can't be absolutely sure since we are not omniscient. Thats a fair point. However there are cases where scientists are confident enough they do claim "it does." To give a few pertinent examples.

Its quite clear from anti GM propaganda, they aren't confident enough to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating harm (even if they fervently believe that in their hearts of hearts). I can say they aren't confident enough to do so because they ignore the parts in the own journal article they quote mine from which reports no harmful side effects.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Any time I hear GM morons bitching, I ask them if they own dogs or eat corn. Because pet dogs and corn both exist solely as a result of years of human genetic modification. These assholes don't realize that "GM" is just a faster more efficient version of the selective processes that made agricultural possible to begin with. In fact, corn and dogs are just really easy examples, you would be hard-pressed to find any agricultural product that isn't the result of thousands of years of human modification.

Bottom line: these people are morons. While there is a lot of stuff related to GM that I disagree with (namely the patent process and Monsanto's business practices), that has absolutely nothing to do with the science itself.

[Memnon]

Simply put: gene regulation does not work this way.

No. Seriously. I... I dont know how a geneticist thinks this, unless he is being misquoted. Which, given the state of science journalism, is a distinct possibility. If I eat a plant, it's gene regulation (what genes are turned on and off due to its own internal feedback loops and such) does not transfer to me. If it has a gene that down-regulates the production of another gene product, my body breaks down the DNA of the organism, and it has no effect on my own cell regulation other than use as raw material or energy for metabolism.
Professor Heinemann told _The West Australian _ he had not seen any evidence the CSIRO had even considered the possibility that this variety of GM wheat could affect human glycogen production.
Because no such possibility exists through the mode of action for this particular form of genetic modification
...

"There are very special risk assessments that should be done on this kind of modification because we have very limited experience with this," he said. "The vast majority of GM organisms in the human food supply have been modified to change a protein and that's a very different molecule with a different risk spectrum."
Also a simple factual statement. We do not know what this sort of modification will do. To the plant. A plant that has seeds that could spread via the wind and become invasive. New proteins need to be tested for toxicity--just as you would if you are using a protein from some organism or another for anti-biotics. But that does not mean it will affect our own gene regulation.

No. Check out the actual paper:
http://safefoodfoundation.org/wordpress ... pinion.pdf

The following is my expert opinion about whether plants genetically modified to
produce an RNA interference (RNAi or co‐suppression) effect may create a risk
for human health or the environment.

And now check out this paper:
Exogenous plant MIR168a specifically targets mammalian LDLRAP1: evidence of cross-kingdom regulation by microRNA (Zhang et al.)
http://www.nature.com/cr/journal/v22/n1 ... 1158a.html

Here, we report the surprising finding that exogenous plant miRNAs are present in the sera and tissues of various animals and that these exogenous plant miRNAs are primarily acquired orally, through food intake. MIR168a is abundant in rice and is one of the most highly enriched exogenous plant miRNAs in the sera of Chinese subjects. Functional studies in vitro and in vivo demonstrated that MIR168a could bind to the human/mouse low-density lipoprotein receptor adapter protein 1 (LDLRAP1) mRNA, inhibit LDLRAP1 expression in liver, and consequently decrease LDL removal from mouse plasma. These findings demonstrate that exogenous plant miRNAs in food can regulate the expression of target genes in mammals.

I rest my case. In the case of RNAi GM plants, there may indeed be effects on human physiology.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Oh cool! Learn something new every day. I was thinking that this was a different sort of modification as well. But lets see...

I rest my case. In the case of RNAi GM plants, there may indeed be effects on human physiology.

Here is the thing: we eat things with miRNA all the damn time. miRNAs are a part of the gene regulation pathway of every organism. Getting them exogenously is not a problem for our physiology.

Previous studies have reported that the transfer of genetic material from one species to another may modulate the cellular functions of the recipient species50,51. Such examples include human miRNAs targeting viral genes50 and the translocation of host plant mRNAs into dodder (a parasitic plant)51. However, to our knowledge, it was still unknown whether plant miRNAs could enter mammals and modulate mammalian cell functions. By illustrating that plant miRNAs, such as MIR168a, can be delivered into animal serum and tissues through food intake and digestion and that exogenous MIR168a can target mammalian liver-specific LDLRAP1 in vitro and in vivo, the present study significantly extends our understanding of the role of miRNAs. With their robust stability and highly conserved sequences, secretory miRNAs can act not only in a cross-species, but also a cross-kingdom fashion. In this sense, miRNAs may represent a novel class of universal modulators that play an important role in mediating animal-plant interactions at the molecular level. Like vitamins, minerals and other essential nutrients derived from food sources, plant miRNAs may serve as a novel functional component of food and make a critical contribution to maintaining and shaping animal body structure and function. Extending from this concept, the intake of certain plant miRNAs generation after generation through a particular food source may leave an imprint on the genetic map of the human race. In conclusion, the discovery of plant miRNAs and their roles in the biology of mammalian cells and animal organs represents the first evidence of cross-kingdom transfer of functionally active miRNAs and opens a new avenue to explore miRNA-mediated animal-plant interactions.

In other words, while I was wrong about food not affecting our gene regulation, I was not wrong about it not necessarily hurting us.

There is a big difference between "miRNA in food plays a role in our gene regulation" and "OMG this will lead to liver failure".

Going through the other paper, there may be a risk of non-target effects. That is a legitimate concern. That was giving it a skim however. It would depend largely on whether the modification is a transgene pulled from another organism or something made up in a lab. The former is probably not an issue. The latter... could be.

[Memnon]

Oh cool! Learn something new every day. I was thinking that this was a different sort of modification as well. But lets see...

I rest my case. In the case of RNAi GM plants, there may indeed be effects on human physiology.

Here is the thing: we eat things with miRNA all the damn time. miRNAs are a part of the gene regulation pathway of every organism. Getting them exogenously is not a problem for our physiology.

snip

In other words, while I was wrong about food not affecting our gene regulation, I was not wrong about it not necessarily hurting us.

There is a big difference between "miRNA in food plays a role in our gene regulation" and "OMG this will lead to liver failure".

Going through the other paper, there may be a risk of non-target effects. That is a legitimate concern. That was giving it a skim however. It would depend largely on whether the modification is a transgene pulled from another organism or something made up in a lab. The former is probably not an issue. The latter... could be.

So, transgenes from other organisms are automatically safe? That doesn't follow, even just on the face of it. The whole point of both papers is that plant RNAi can affect our physiology, and that it should be investigated further before CSIRO takes this step.

As an aside, it's also an interesting new research direction to look for subtle effects of dietary miRNAs on human health, but it'd probably be more like 'eat less _______ since it increases your risk of _________'. Though transgenes from other organisms are probably more safe than some of the EMS treated plants being grown out there...

Anyways, the point is that while GM foods are typically quite safe, that doesn't mean we can slack off in regulation.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, transgenes from other organisms are automatically safe? That doesn't follow, even just on the face of it. The whole point of both papers is that plant RNAi can affect our physiology, and that it should be investigated further before CSIRO takes this step.

*sigh* No. Permit me to be more precise.

If a gene exists naturally in rice, and we decide to move it over into wheat, it probably wont be an issue (not on a population level anyway) because we are already eating it and its gene products. The same goes for other organisms that have been on the menu since the dawn or agriculture or even before we were people. Bacillus Thuringensis for example has been eaten by people forever because we have been eating insects forever, so putting some of their genes into tomatoes probably wont hurt us.

Granted, I can definitely see this being used in genomic personalized medicine. If someone is sensitive to a gene product because of a mutation somewhere in their own genome, it is a good idea to know that. But for the purposes of public health on huge scales? Requiring that level of detail is probably impractical.

If it is something exotic? Something we make to say, increase pesticide resistance or something? Yeah. Test the fuck out of it.

[Memnon]

So, transgenes from other organisms are automatically safe? That doesn't follow, even just on the face of it. The whole point of both papers is that plant RNAi can affect our physiology, and that it should be investigated further before CSIRO takes this step.

*sigh* No. Permit me to be more precise.

If a gene exists naturally in rice, and we decide to move it over into wheat, it probably wont be an issue (not on a population level anyway) because we are already eating it and its gene products. The same goes for other organisms that have been on the menu since the dawn or agriculture or even before we were people. Bacillus Thuringensis for example has been eaten by people forever because we have been eating insects forever, so putting some of their genes into tomatoes probably wont hurt us.

Granted, I can definitely see this being used in genomic personalized medicine. If someone is sensitive to a gene product because of a mutation somewhere in their own genome, it is a good idea to know that. But for the purposes of public health on huge scales? Requiring that level of detail is probably impractical.

If it is something exotic? Something we make to say, increase pesticide resistance or something? Yeah. Test the fuck out of it.

Just because something is modified from something we already eat and placed into something else we already eat doesn't mean that it's automatically safe. On a population level, you might see decreased average life span and things like that if you get it wrong (that might be masked by benefits you're introducing, which is why you do a controlled study).

That isn't even counting the fact that, to transform the plants, they don't have a huge level of control in terms of where it goes. You can use homologous sequences on either end of your insert on your Agrobacterium T DNA or what-have-you, but that doesn't mean it will go exactly where you want it to. So, it's a good idea to test on mice/humans before you start growing the wheat in the wild where, you know, it can potentially pollinate other wheat.

SEI was also compared to the entire human genome (Appendix 2). Multiple
matches of ≥21 contiguous nucleotides were found (see, e.g., horizontal red
arrows indicating sequence matches on pages 6/770, 11/770, 15‐16/770,
31/770, 38‐39/770, 43/770 and 62‐65/770)10. Thus, there may potentially be
other unintended silencing effects depending on the siRNAs used in the GM
wheat.

Now, CSIRO didn't give Heinemann the sequence they used to make the siRNAs. But if it targets SEI, then there are good chances that those pieces could also be targeted (depending on the exact siRNA created).

I suggest you fully read the entire paper before we continue, it explains it much better than I can.

Edit: You realize that CSIRO left in their selectable marker gene, right? The antibiotic resistance that isn't from wheat?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Just because something is modified from something we already eat and placed into something else we already eat doesn't mean that it's automatically safe. On a population level, you might see decreased average life span and things like that if you get it wrong (that might be masked by benefits you're introducing, which is why you do a controlled study).

That isn't even counting the fact that, to transform the plants, they don't have a huge level of control in terms of where it goes. You can use homologous sequences on either end of your insert on your Agrobacterium T DNA or what-have-you, but that doesn't mean it will go exactly where you want it to. So, it's a good idea to test on mice/humans before you start growing the wheat in the wild where, you know, it can potentially pollinate other wheat.

Most certainly. You wont find me of all people saying we should not test things to make sure they are safe (I do not think the FDA, EPA, and USDA are anywhere close to stringent enough). And we definitely need to make sure that we refine our techniques so we have more control over where, say, a transgene inserts into the genome of a given organism. We need to be careful about the mode of action for whatever it is we are inserting as well. Given the information above, something that codes for a protein (like say, phytoene synthase) is something that should be regulated differently than something that fucks around with regulatory pathways (other than promoting the expression of the inserted coding region). I am not a molecular biologist (behavioral ecologist). I did not even know that miRNAs were used in GMOs in anything but a research capacity. Putting in a regulatory element stable through digestion and that can possibly bind to multiple sites is something that strikes me as... risky in the food supply. On its own (barring were it is inserted etc), moving something like that around between food organisms? probably fine. Not an immediate eye-brow raiser provided you do basic due-dilligence and dont fuck up. Something entirely new? Oh dear.

[Memnon]

Most certainly. You wont find me of all people saying we should not test things to make sure they are safe (I do not think the FDA, EPA, and USDA are anywhere close to stringent enough). And we definitely need to make sure that we refine our techniques so we have more control over where, say, a transgene inserts into the genome of a given organism. We need to be careful about the mode of action for whatever it is we are inserting as well. Given the information above, something that codes for a protein (like say, phytoene synthase) is something that should be regulated differently than something that fucks around with regulatory pathways (other than promoting the expression of the inserted coding region). I am not a molecular biologist (behavioral ecologist). I did not even know that miRNAs were used in GMOs in anything but a research capacity. Putting in a regulatory element stable through digestion and that can possibly bind to multiple sites is something that strikes me as... risky in the food supply. On its own (barring were it is inserted etc), moving something like that around between food organisms? probably fine. Not an immediate eye-brow raiser provided you do basic due-dilligence and dont fuck up. Something entirely new? Oh dear.

Right. I wasn't saying that it's stupid to even transfer the gene, just that CSIRO should change their testing protocol.

I'm not a plant biologist, but I've taken a plant genetic engineering course and the possibilities are astounding -- as long as we're careful.

[PainRack]

So let them grow the things themselves. Or starve. Naturalists in north america have the incredible privilege of choice. My objection is to anyone who lies to starving people about the food that could save their families. Or who try to use the mask of health scares to try to force me to conform to their moral, political or aesthetic preferences.

Except that I can't. The current agribusinesses mix GM foods and non GM food together at the point of sale, thus preventing consumers from having any impact.

Not that I have anything against GM food. What I have is against herbicide/pesticide resistant corn, because I don't see the reason why I should support the development of something meant entirely to make companies profits, when I could be buying something like vitamin enriched or salt tolerant grain.

[Memnon]

Not that I have anything against GM food. What I have is against herbicide/pesticide resistant corn, because I don't see the reason why I should support the development of something meant entirely to make companies profits, when I could be buying something like vitamin enriched or salt tolerant grain.

If the point of herbicide/pesticide resistant corn/soy is solely to make profits for Monsanto et al, then why would farmers even buy them? It isn't that simple.


http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/a ... he-us.aspx

Besides, vitamin enriched grains find it difficult to make it to market, and are more difficult than just inserting the gene to make the molecule you want; salt tolerance is very difficult to engineer (as is drought resistance -- in fact, these two have been constantly worked on for years and years and we're not really close to commercially successful plants with these traits); and even simple things like Flavr Savr (the GMO tomato from some years back that maintained ripe flavor longer) face huge consumer backlash.

EDIT: forgot to mention the website that made the image, here: http://www.zujava.com/GMO-dangers (yes, it's an anti-GMO website but it matches a picture I remember seeing before so I'm sure it uses the data it says it's using).

[K. A. Pital]

This feels like a story we've already been over. HY cultivars faced opposition as well, but since at the time the alternative was "use them or face famines in the future" and also since they often originated from the Third World itself and the stocks were controlled and easily replicable by respective governments (e.g. India), it was a much more easy "WIN FOR PROGRESS" situation.

GM crops, especially ones that require a supplier lock to maintain production (= forced to buy over and over from Monsanto), are a lot more ambigious in the end.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If the point of herbicide/pesticide resistant corn/soy is solely to make profits for Monsanto et al, then why would farmers even buy them? It isn't that simple.

Crop contamination is one. The prevalence of Roundup as a commercial herbicide used on crops is another.

Virtually everyone other than organic farmers uses Roundup to control weeds in corn and soy crops. This has a tendency to kill the plants at the concentrations necessary to kill weeds (that have evolved a degree of resistance).

Having a herbicide resistant crop is a massive market advantage (even though the actual gains in crop yield are negligible, the margins matter when your crops are both sold and subsidized by the bushel).

But of course, you dont actually have to buy roundup ready corn or soy in order for it to end up in your fields. Both crops contaminate non-GMO crops, and Monsanto hires private investigators to go out and comb through people's fields looking for "patent violations". OK, simple thing to deal with right? All you have to do is prove in court it is from contamination, right? Wrong. Small farmer vs Monsanto in drawn out legal battles. Small farmer looses, gets driven out of business, bigger farmer who uses Roundup Ready seed lines buys up the land.

Then there are food libel laws that actually make it civilly actionable to criticize monsanto and the food industry in general. Among other things, these laws typically create lower standards for libel, and explicitly deny the defendants the right to recoup attorney's fees should they win the case. This means that they (Monsanto et al) can bankrupt someone even if they lose. As a result, they are the only ones who get to say anything at all about their crops--and thus no one to counteract their marketing schemes.

[Eulogy]

That just means that all the people Monsanto pisses off will start getting rather, eh, unorthodox in punishing Monsanto for their villainy. After such bitter lessons, they won't be stupid enough to fight their battles in kangaroo courts.

It'd be sort of like fighting the Westboro church; smart opponents won't play their game, they'll make them play theirs.

[Korto]

Yeah, good luck with that. It'll just get you labelled an anti-progress nutter, and get you used to distract attention from legitimate issues.

But I'm a bit conservative when it comes to the shit I eat. I'm from a rich country, no food shortages, and I see no reason for me personally to have to be used as a guinea pig for whatever Monsanto's come up with, which is why I don't like regulations that hide whether or not a food is modified. If the producers reckon it's so great, let them sing it proud, not hide the fact.

A big point is that I don't trust the companies. Scientists are all right; well, they're human and can make mistakes just like anyone else, can get over-enthusiastic and too convinced of their own brilliance, etc, but they're all right; but I don't trust a company, once it's got cash registers ringing in its ears, to hear the people tugging at their coat-tails saying things like "We really should take another twenty million dollars and five years to test this thing properly".
With software, all you can lose is your data. I don't feel like being a beta-tester for food.

I also don't like making crops resistant to pesticides. To my mind, all that's going to result in is the weeds growing more resistant, either through natural selection or genetic transfer, creating a cycle needing more and more poison. Poison already costs farmers a fortune, anyway.
Making salt-tolerant, disease-resistant, more nutritious crops, crops where the farmers can keep the seed and replant, and not have to keep paying a company for the privilege, that makes sense to me. The seed can be given to struggling farmers in starving nations, by welfare groups possibly, or sold to them for a reasonable price. All assuming the crops are well tested for unforeseen consequences. If there's not so much money in it, the testing may be better.
This will be a lot more helpful than dumping tonnes of rice in a poor market for free, and driving the last struggling farmers out of business.

GM may be a godsend for starving nations, but for us rich countries, I don't see how we need it.