27-01-2003 21:34									#31
	Got spare money?

do you know what a gene does?

A gene builds a protein. a protein can create certain chemical reactions.

If you take a couple of plants that have nothing wrong with them, what's the problem? If it's a food crop, we test it for toxicity, allergy ,and stuff like that. and there you go.

	27-01-2003 21:36									#32
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Azazel we know that NOW. but what would happen if people at the time took your approach, and went on talking about them fearing things they don't know much about?

My approach when? Isn't this the time when such "modified" sorts/speices are just being introduced. As I said people never had a global reach like they do nowdays, doesn't it warrant some more attention?

	27-01-2003 21:39									#33
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: My approach when? Isn't this the time when such "modified" sorts/speices are just being introduced. As I said people never had a global reach like they do nowdays, doesn't it warrant some more attention?

yes they did. in the end of the 19th century, intl. trade was all over the place. What I mean is that if people were as afraid of ... say... electricity, as you're afraid of Genetic Engineering, we'd live with candles to this very day.

	27-01-2003 21:41									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave Unreasonable situation is the development of a rice crop that has all the same charachteristics and produces 20% more for example. The sort should be dominant, and introduced world wide. That is reasonable I belive and will happen, and there might be a hidden effect that start developing after XY generations in that sort as is bread in the wild. RThe hidden effect can be a new disease that will wipe them all on which the former "normal rice" was resistant, for example thus wiping off % of population. Are you saying that the genetic scientists can predict everything 100% when they are making shortcuts? Add the pressure to deliver a profit on top of it and you multiply the risk for sure.

Then what you are talking about is the need for bio-diversity. I agree we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one basket and we should keep as many different possible subspecies alive since we never know who's genes are going to end up as the valuble ones. Bio-engineering doesn't have to lower bio-diversity infact it could very easily increase bio-diversity as different companies market different sub-groups.

That would make the threat of one desease whipping out most of the species less likely wouldn't it?

	27-01-2003 21:44									#35
	Tired of ads?

Oerdin:

OFITG is just trying to come up with reasons to substanciate his fears that were implanted into him by propoganda.

	27-01-2003 21:44									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel do you know what a gene does? A gene builds a protein. a protein can create certain chemical reactions. If you take a couple of plants that have nothing wrong with them, what's the problem? If it's a food crop, we test it for toxicity, allergy ,and stuff like that. and there you go.

Exactly... there you go... the fact that we do know most of the outcomes, does not warrant that we know all of them, and aren't some perhaps bound to be "undesireable".

While on the face value it all appears to be safe, do you (or the "scientists") really know all the mechanisms involved? Weren't Russians (or USSR than) claiming that there cannot be a nuclear disaster in next 1000 years a year before Chernobyl?

Can I really trust a private profit chasing institution that they have tested all the possible outcomes of the species that they have modified and that I am supposed to consume?

	27-01-2003 21:50									#37
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel yes they did. in the end of the 19th century, intl. trade was all over the place. What I mean is that if people were as afraid of ... say... electricity, as you're afraid of Genetic Engineering, we'd live with candles to this very day.

a
Are you claiming that all newly introduced technology is harmless?

Better comparison is harvesting of nuclear enery than using the electrical one.

quote: Then what you are talking about is the need for bio-diversity. I agree we should put all of our eggs in one basket and we should keep as many different possible subspecies alive since we never know who's genes are going to end up as the valuble ones. Bio-engineering doesn't have to lower bio-diversity infact it could very easily increase bio-diversity as different companies market different sub-groups. That would make the threat of one desease wipping out most of the species less likely wouldn't it?

True, I agree with this sentiment, that would surely be useful as a matter of "prevention" however we are talking profits stimulated action here.

	27-01-2003 21:50									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: While on the face value it all appears to be safe, do you (or the "scientists") really know all the mechanisms involved? Weren't Russians (or USSR than) claiming that there cannot be a nuclear disaster in next 1000 years a year before Chernobyl?

is the USSR a private enterprise?

quote: Exactly... there you go... the fact that we do know most of the outcomes, does not warrant that we know all of them, and aren't some perhaps bound to be "undesireable".

if you build transgenic crops ( this is almost the only way to genetically engineer these days, our knowledge in planning new proteins is rather lacking ), you already are familiar with the protein. When the plant evolves, if the protein is synthesized, THERE WILL BE EFFECTS! there is no hiding here. It either occurs or not. we can confirm the existance of the protein then using f.e. Western Blot, and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

	27-01-2003 21:51									#39
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Oerdin: OFITG is just trying to come up with reasons to substanciate his fears that were implanted into him by propoganda.

I don't blame him or think he is a bad person. The European press has been very anti-GM mainly because stories of "Franken-Foods" sell newspapers but also because political groups have found this is a good way to pass protectionist measures for "safety" reasons. They just want to keep competetor's products off the market. Period.

That's fine because we can always retaliate and remove their products from NAFTA or the Free Trade Area of the Americas. That would be a lose-lose situation though and it would be best if the Euros just started to play fair instead of trying to be sneaky and underhanded.

	27-01-2003 21:53									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Neither do I. He was told something, and believed it. It's not his fault that he was told a half-true.

He should double-check things, though.

	27-01-2003 22:05									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I conceed that there is a remote possibility that something could go wrong, but, mainly it would be something like people having allergic reactions to a given protein and not of the mutant GM monkeys attempt to take over the world type thing.

Playing around with viruses would be much more dangerous since I could see a new desease arriving there. It is unlikely but it is possible. Plus I think common sense guide lines should be put in place by the government but not so strict that they kill the goose which will lay the golden egg.

	27-01-2003 22:09									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Azazel is the USSR a private enterprise?

Are you saying that private enteprises are moral and telling the truth always, or that they are aware of it? What makes you think that your Biotech CEO is any better than Ken Lay (of late Enron)?

quote: if you build transgenic crops ( this is almost the only way to genetically engineer these days, our knowledge in planning new proteins is rather lacking ), you already are familiar with the protein. When the plant evolves, if the protein is synthesized, THERE WILL BE EFFECTS! there is no hiding here. It either occurs or not. we can confirm the existance of the protein then using f.e. Western Blot, and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

True - in your answer lays my problem - and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

especially - "when we see" - are you claiming that all the observations are always "true"? I know this is the aim. But I know as well that this is bound to be "false" now and than. And this is a specific field where a "false", depends on severity of the oversight, can be harmful more than a "false" in the CPU/Car design for sure. And if the CPU/Car is "false", you simply take it out of production, if a GM plant/animal is "false" - can you take it out?

And Oerdin? Don't I (or Euros for that matter) have a good reason to be suspect in GM meddling with our food? To create a clone cow and grow some proteins from it - OK, maybe a moral question but "impact on the industry" and "economic benefits" - on cheese industry - well sooner or later someone is going to make an error. I would rather have my cheese 20% more expensive and have it from a "regular" cow. Not that hungry ethiopians are going to eat it and that they have nothing to lose as they will most likely die of hunger anyway.

	27-01-2003 22:15									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave And Oerdin? Don't I (or Euros for that matter) have a good reason to be suspect in GM meddling with our food? To create a clone cow and grow some proteins from it - OK, maybe a moral question but "impact on the industry" and "economic benefits" - on cheese industry - well sooner or later someone is going to make an error. I would rather have my cheese 20% more expensive and have it from a "regular" cow. Not that hungry ethiopians are going to eat it and that they have nothing to lose as they will most likely die of hunger anyway.

Yes, you have a right to have it objectively examined by scientists. That said when will it ever be enough? There has been study after study for nearly a decade on many of these GM foods and almost to the last they found that they are safe and not different in a significant way. Yet the Eurocrates still want to keep it banned.

Why does evidience not matter to them? How long will it take before they finally accept the scientific legitamacy of the food's safety? I find their continued intransience even more suspicious since they are politically & economically benifeting from the extended delays. It is also funny that countries like France have a past history of using safty concerns to trump up protectionist measures. Why has France continued to ban British beef even after the British government and the EU government have said Britain is mad cow free? Please forgive me if this makes me believe their claims are some what dubious.

	27-01-2003 22:35									#44
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sure, the reasons can be doubted and there is certainly a bit of both worlds, as I can alse bet that Euro biotech people would want to get onto the bandwagon, and this is a good question: When is there enough of testing?

What about when is there a need to introduce such food? Clearly the need for "20% more cheeze cows" is purely profit oriented.

Is it now? What will it do to Europe or US that are already saturated with natural products? Are the risks worth taking for the benefit of the biotech industry? As I cannot see anyone else prospering here from that. Perhaps countries where there is hunger etc... but thunger is more a consequence of local political/economic conditions and not of "not enough land to grow existing crops".

In my view the desire behind GM is profits and not some sudden attack of altruism and compassion on the Wall Street.

So the gain for Biotech investors is on one side and the potential risk of damaging or food chain is on the other side.

Well part of the reason why Euros resist certainly lies in the facts that you mentioned, but no GM is good for the reasons mentioned above in my eyes.

Anyway IMHO there is no way to stop GM, unless there is a disaster one day, I just hope that the labels will always be clear.

	28-01-2003 03:19									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DISASTER! DISASTER!

didn't you learn anything from the thread?

quote: True - in your answer lays my problem - and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

I am glad that we agree.

quote: especially - "when we see" - are you claiming that all the observations are always "true"? I know this is the aim. But I know as well that this is bound to be "false" now and than. And this is a specific field where a "false", depends on severity of the oversight,

OMFG. any GM product takes a lot of time to devise, plan, produce, and test. They don't just churn out new GM products by the thousands. "severity" of oversight? damaged manufactured goods come out wrong not in the planning stage but in the manufacturing stage. Some equipment doesn't fit the specs, etc.
This is not the case in genetic engineering. If a plant is ill, it will die, or show deformation. The biological process of production is much more precise and efficient.

quote: can be harmful more than a "false" in the CPU/Car design for sure. And if the CPU/Car is "false", you simply take it out of production, if a GM plant/animal is "false" - can you take it out?

YES! the GM-crops are planned in a lab. If the new product will be a "false" the specimen will be destroyed.
Do you thing that some will start to behave differently? they're clone, for crying out loud. their biochemistry is the same.

It seems that you nothing whatsoever about genetic engineering. I am not a fully-fledged pro (yet), but you don't know even the basics of the process it seems.

	28-01-2003 03:48									#46
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Azazel DISASTER! DISASTER! didn't you learn anything from the thread? I am glad that we agree. OMFG. any GM product takes a lot of time to devise, plan, produce, and test. They don't just churn out new GM products by the thousands. "severity" of oversight? damaged manufactured goods come out wrong not in the planning stage but in the manufacturing stage. Some equipment doesn't fit the specs, etc. This is not the case in genetic engineering. If a plant is ill, it will die, or show deformation. The biological process of production is much more precise and efficient. YES! the GM-crops are planned in a lab. If the new product will be a "false" the specimen will be destroyed. Do you thing that some will start to behave differently? they're clone, for crying out loud. their biochemistry is the same. It seems that you nothing whatsoever about genetic engineering. I am not a fully-fledged pro (yet), but you don't know even the basics of the process it seems.

What I am saying is "does not Intel produce a product in a lab with thousands of engineers working around the clock and test their products thoroughly? "

Of course they do.

Didn't they release a PIII 1.13 ghz that had to be recalled after a few weeks due to a failure in design? Don't the proffesional car designers like Mercedes sometimes have to recall a product to install additional devices or repair them (*free of charge in Mercedeses case) as they were not good enough when initially sold.

What I am not contesting is that there are the routines and that every measure possible is being taken that the product sold will be OK in a Biotech lab. I am sure there are, but under competitive pressure, even an Intel lab can make a mistake, and that was not only once - the above, but there were more high profile mistakes over the companys 30-40 year very very successfull carreer. Don't you think that the similar mistakes can happen in Biotech?

Now with a processor it is a simple recall, but how do you recall a plant that has been in nature for x amount of time? That is what I am talking about. I hope you get me now. Not everything is mechanical in this world. That is why biotech can be dangerous. As humans make the mistakes, but not everytime the mistakes can be rectified on time (and in this case maybe at all).

	28-01-2003 03:51									#47
	Tired of ads?

Oooh, good topic for discussion. I don't see any intrinsic problem with genetic modification. I do object to the way it is being 'misimplemented'. Now what happens is that a resistance gene is introduced, and introduced at a high level and marketed as thus. Best examples of which are Bt toxin and glyphosate resistance (hello Monsanto ). Any biologist worth their salt will tell you that placing a selection pressure this strong will result in resistant strains taking over, and low and behold, that is what happens. By the greed to increase yields by this kind of 'throw huge amounts of resistance genes in now and worry later' is so shortsighted.

GM is a powerful tool if used correctly...

	28-01-2003 04:12									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Oooh, good topic for discussion. I don't see any intrinsic problem with genetic modification. I do object to the way it is being 'misimplemented'. Now what happens is that a resistance gene is introduced, and introduced at a high level and marketed as thus. Best examples of which are Bt toxin and glyphosate resistance (hello Monsanto ). Any biologist worth their salt will tell you that placing a selection pressure this strong will result in resistant strains taking over, and low and behold, that is what happens. By the greed to increase yields by this kind of 'throw huge amounts of resistance genes in now and worry later' is so shortsighted. GM is a powerful tool if used correctly...

"Shortsighted"
And so very typical of an organisatioin driven by profit.

	28-01-2003 04:23									#49
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Richard, I've already said that I oppose placing bacterial resistance as a GM.

OFITG:you're protesting about cheese.

	28-01-2003 04:54									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Azazel Richard, I've already said that I oppose placing bacterial resistance as a GM. OFITG:you're protesting about cheese.

sure, what if one day all cheeze in supermarkets is made by those" 20% more cheeze cloned cows" and I am sure they will try to enhance them even more, the normal cheeze will move upmarket and be less acessible.
So if I want to eat it I will have to pay more... well screw cheeze but..

Now most likely the enhanced cow produces good cheeze, but this is a door for many more enhanced animals, and than we might open a door that we migh not be able to close, as described above. You know livestock genes and our food chain under direct control of company accountants is not a good thing, trust me on that one . I'd rather eat my "normal" cow cheeze, and have Nestle dairy products division make 20% less of profit.

	28-01-2003 04:59									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The food you eat is already under direct control of company accountants.

Besides, GM food will most likely have to be labelled as such, and "normal" food will most likely advertise that it isn't GM food to make up for the fact that it will cost more comparatively. If you want "normal" cheese, it will still be available as demand for it iss guaranteed to remain.

	28-01-2003 05:00									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

OneFoot: You and I are rich compared to the third world so we can afford to be arrogant and choicie. For the third world the choice is between having enough food to eat or going hungry, having proper nutrion or being malnurished, for their farmers it means staying in business or going belly up.

	28-01-2003 05:06									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin OneFoot: You and I are rich compared to the third world so we can afford to be arrogant and choicie. For the third world the choice is between having enough food to eat or going hungry, having proper nutrion or being malnurished, for their farmers it means staying in business or going belly up.

That is true, if it is GM or hunger - of course GM, but still the consequences might be more than we bargained for. It wouldn't be the first time for mistakes, just these could be much more costly than the ones before.

	28-01-2003 05:09									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Still I think it is more of a increase in production and efficiency for already rich food corporations of the west as opposed to the "helping of the poor". Biotech companies and most of the research is privatley funded now I don't think they are going to give their patents out for free use what would be the point?

Anyway I have to go now... time to log off

	28-01-2003 06:51									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Supply and demand says prices will fall if supply increase faster then demand. So if food becomes more affordable then fewer people in the world will go hungry or be malnurished. Also improving the vitamins and/or desease resistance of plants will also help the poor much more then the rich.

	28-01-2003 07:01									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Oerdin Foot: Knowing that the human population world wide is exploding

Actually it's not. In this month's Discover magazine they printed a study showing a world wide drop in birth-rates. The world population is expected to peak around 9-10 billion people . . . and then start dropping!

quote: and the amount of farmland world wide is decreasing due to urbanization;

This is indeed a problem, but not for very long due to the previous.

quote: what would you do to prevent mass stavation and/or malnurishment amoung the worlds poor? GM has proven itself to boost the quantity and quality of food per acre. Are you suggesting we ignore that fact because some ignorant people are scared of it?

GM food is not about helping the poor. It is about controlling the market. GM foods are patented, which means the corporations owning them can control their use. Normally famers hold back part of their crop to use as seed for next year, but this is actionable against farmers who use GM foods. So now farmers have another cost, while at the same time increasing productivity lowers the prices they get for their products.

In both the First World and the Third World, this means ever more people lose their farms. Since most people in the Third World are farmers, it means an increase in the number of poor and indigent (there was an explosion of poverty in the Third World following the Green Revolution).

	28-01-2003 07:12									#57
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

There are two other problems with GM foods (other than the main one which I already mentioned, which is that it will actually hurt the world's poor).

Issue one is that GM reduces biodiversity and increases the chance that a famine could result. We just had the thread about how banana's are going to disappear. Imagine that on an industrial scale.

The other problem is that plants tend to cross pollinate, and that even organic plants will aquire GM genes if they are anywhere near a GM crop. (Of course, then the organic farmer could sue for damages.) GM crops are heavily tested, but modified genes have already escaped into the wild (both corn and rape seed). While I don't expected them to destroy the world, they may cause the plants to either outcompete other plants in the wild, for example.

	28-01-2003 07:23									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

a) GM plants don't generally outcompete plants developed through selected breeding or wild plants. Because they're generally designed to give higher yields or otherwise be more productive for human consumption, they don't give as much to the ordinary business of surviving. There have been a few examples of this happening.

b) That's why lifeforms should not be subject to patent law.

c) Genetic diversity is certainly an issue with GM food, just as drug-resistant bacteria are with antibiotics. The lesson is not to get lazy and figure that once you've solved a problem you can turn your back on it.

d) This being said, most opposition to GM foods is antiscientific paranoia-based thinking. We've been messing with the food we eat for 10 000 years. Whether you do it in a lab or not makes very little difference as far as allergenic reactions/safety issues are concerned. One thing that should be vigorously enforced is that potential allergenic GM products should never be approved, even for animal consumption. It's way too easy to mix up a grain shipment with another apparently identical grain shipment.

	28-01-2003 07:30									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

All prior modifications of crop and animal genes was done within the same species or with species very closesly related. Now we have the ability to cross wheat with an halibut, so that the antifreeze-like qualities can produce a true winter-wheat.

That's fine, but I ought to have the option not to buy GM foods. They should be labeled as such so consumers can make their choice.

	28-01-2003 07:38									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I don't see why that matters, che. I'm no biochemist thank God, but it seems that splicing in a gene from halibut into wheat seed is less likely to cause the formation of allergenic proteins etc. than wholesale mixing of millions of base pairs. Besides which, all GM foods must be tested for potential health hazards prior to marketing, unlike regular interbred foods.

There's a perfectly reasonable way to provide a non-GM alternative that shortcircuits any need for government regulation in honest to goodness private enterprise ( ) and "organic farmers" have already found it. Let non-GM foods be labelled as such on a voluntary basis...