The Big Picture: Feeding Edge
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just to reiterate:ReiverCorrupter said:
GM is VERY different from Selective Breeding. Pleiotropy and the complexity of cellular mechanics means that we DON'T know all of the effects of inserting new genes or changing their activation sites. This means that the commercial use of GM should be HEAVILY regulated until we have a better ability to predict potential future side effects. Not only on the subjects themselves, but on the environment and biodiversity if they are to escape.
Also, the laws need to adapt to make sure that Corporations don't abuse the technology. To be clear, I hate the American political system along with both parties. However, one has to realize that "self regulation" usually only happens once colossal mistakes have already been made and people have died. Sure it is in the best interest of corporations to make sure these failures do not happen, but the ultimate goal of a corporation is to make profit, not to support the community, and often times they take risks. In this case the risk they take isn't just with their own profits, but with public safety.
An example of this is the BP oil spill, where someone decided to cut costs on safety protocols. When the safety protocols failed it wasn't just BP's stocks that took the hit, it was the entire gulf of Mexico.
The entire point of government is to insure the interests of the public it represents. It does this by restricting rights. I don't have the right to go out an murder somebody, but by limiting this right I feel it is safe for me to go out in public. It's a trade off. We weigh the inherent value of the rights vs. their negative effects on society. The right to murder fails this test. I think the right to risk public and ecological safety for the sake of profit also fails this test.
Businesses can't self regulate because they aren't objective; they're self interested. The regulation happens after they finally push the limit too far and something terrible happens. But by then it's too late. There's no pressure against businesses that take risks, only against businesses that have lost because of their risks. It's like giving a five year old a bag of candy and asking him to limit himself. You have no one but yourself to blame when he throws up all over the Persian rug.
Why thankyou for your insightful response. Also, good call on my spelling errors. I had forgotten that spelling errors completely invalidate any point you may have, so thanks for the heads up. I believe you're correct, all of those farmers, consumers, scientists, and regulatory bodies that have real concerns about GM foods and the industry that goes with it are a bunch of Greenpeace loving hippies (Grrrrr hippies!). I'm also quite confident in stating that our friends at Monsanto definately share the same high minded ideals and ethics of the late Dr. Norman Borlaug. In fact, I believe they have a new product coming out that will be retailed under the name SOMA, that you might very much enjoy.PrinceofPersia said:
Cheers
What? In no way, shape, or form does this relate to selling Postal. The packaging companies for these water bottles sometimes get EXCESS amounts of arsenic in the water, either by accident or on purpose. Yes, arsenic is present in water, but not in high enough doses to pose a serious threat. In bottled water? The concentration can sometimes be much higher.McMullen said:
My main point is that we need to make sure safety regulations are in placed and ENFORCED. I know such requirements exist but unless the government really starts to crack down on them then they're pretty much useless. The same argument applies with genetic engineering. Packaging the water or genetically engineering carrots isn't the problem, it's the methods by which they're done.
This piece is very one sided, and lacking in research or a fundamental lack understanding of this subject. Is the genetically modified food that has been crafted over millennia generally safe? Yes. We have had hundreds or thousands of years to acclimate to it, to test it by living with it for so long. Is modern genetically modified food safe? Generally, yes, but keep in mind we have not been with this food for hundreds or thousands of years, we have no idea what the long term effects are to our species. What about the genetically modified foods of the future, those we can start creating today or tomorrow? That is what I?ll get into.
What people are worried about, those at least that are not simply switching on panic mode, is that we are nearing the stage where we can not only turn on and off traits in the genes of foods but insert traits from other species, from entirely different types of life, info food. The cause for concern is not modifying how a crop could develop or evolve under particular circumstances, but completely adding traits that the crop would never have under any reasonable circumstance.
To say genetically modified food is great because it has been great and it is great is not only a naive statement, but a dangerous one. Would you like genes from birds in your salmon? Like those Carrots, yes? How would you feel if they were glowing in the dark from genes added from certain kinds of fish? What if wheat poisoned the ground around it to kill of insects? How about tomatoes with DNA from frogs that make them more resilient to cold or freezing temperatures? These things are 'frakenfood'. Food that would never have a chance to evolve the traits we are ?adding-. Are they cause for concern? Yes, yes, and hell yes.
When we genetically engineer something over time we have the safety net of time at our backs. When we manually switch traits on and off, those that could exist normally in those crops or under certain conditions, then we at least have the safety of nature to fall back on, that such a crop had the potential to evolve. But when we start adding traits from entirely different species, and entirely different forms of life, we have no idea what the ramifications may be to the environment or to our bodies.
I like these big idea videos , but this one was a little too big for a 4.5 minute video. This is an extremely serious subject with ramifications unlike anything we have ever known. There are many facets to this, many different kinds of genetically modified foods, and many different types of technology being used and explored. People devote an entire life time to understanding this subject and still are unsure what to think in the end.
As for peoples concerns and reactions to this, as well as your own: Just because you don't like people crying wolf does not mean you should adamantly proclaim that there are no wolves, there never have been, there never will be, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. You're an intelligent man, so do what intelligent men do, Bob. Go educate yourself about this, and speak about the subject in an intelligent manor.
Edit: Typos
What people are worried about, those at least that are not simply switching on panic mode, is that we are nearing the stage where we can not only turn on and off traits in the genes of foods but insert traits from other species, from entirely different types of life, info food. The cause for concern is not modifying how a crop could develop or evolve under particular circumstances, but completely adding traits that the crop would never have under any reasonable circumstance.
To say genetically modified food is great because it has been great and it is great is not only a naive statement, but a dangerous one. Would you like genes from birds in your salmon? Like those Carrots, yes? How would you feel if they were glowing in the dark from genes added from certain kinds of fish? What if wheat poisoned the ground around it to kill of insects? How about tomatoes with DNA from frogs that make them more resilient to cold or freezing temperatures? These things are 'frakenfood'. Food that would never have a chance to evolve the traits we are ?adding-. Are they cause for concern? Yes, yes, and hell yes.
When we genetically engineer something over time we have the safety net of time at our backs. When we manually switch traits on and off, those that could exist normally in those crops or under certain conditions, then we at least have the safety of nature to fall back on, that such a crop had the potential to evolve. But when we start adding traits from entirely different species, and entirely different forms of life, we have no idea what the ramifications may be to the environment or to our bodies.
I like these big idea videos , but this one was a little too big for a 4.5 minute video. This is an extremely serious subject with ramifications unlike anything we have ever known. There are many facets to this, many different kinds of genetically modified foods, and many different types of technology being used and explored. People devote an entire life time to understanding this subject and still are unsure what to think in the end.
As for peoples concerns and reactions to this, as well as your own: Just because you don't like people crying wolf does not mean you should adamantly proclaim that there are no wolves, there never have been, there never will be, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. You're an intelligent man, so do what intelligent men do, Bob. Go educate yourself about this, and speak about the subject in an intelligent manor.
Edit: Typos
Dog being breed from wolves, while a popular theory, is not necessarily how it occurred. DNA evidence shows that the oldest breeds of dogs, while still closely related to wolves, have likely been around longer humans (at least Homo sapiens) were around to breed them. There's also some evidence that the oldest type of dog we domesticated is closer looking to a Pekingese or Pug, than a wolf. Early man used dogs for hunting though, and would have originally bred them for that task and preferred more wolf-like traits until they became an agricultural society. Crossbreeding domesticated dogs with wolves certainly has occurred, and it's possible we played a hand in the breeds of modern wolves. This makes you wonder if humans alter wolves' breed to give wolves the unusually friendliness to humans they show for a large wild carnivore, as there's no record of a wolf attacking a human without provocation or rabies. Either way there's no arguing dogs are man's best friend.
As for genetically modified plants, if you've eaten vegetables in the US in the last two decades you probably had been eating this new version of genetically engineered plants the whole time. There has been no sign of dangerous repercussions in that time, and the methods being used are not riskier or faster than the methods farmers use. That being said, genetically modifying our food is not without its dangers. First, old style farming was more about splitting one species of one plant into many, while modern genetic engineering introduces more elements of cross breeding and merging of plant species. One side effect of this is food allergies can cross into other foods, as noticed with peanut allergies already.
Second, this new type of genetic engineering encourages reducing genetic diversity in our food sources, especially in the case of cloning (obviously), which puts us at risk of a single disastrous plague causing famine of a particular food. Considering how much food in America is dependent on corn, increasing the chances of a corn famine is about the most dangerous thing you could do.
So while you shouldn't fear eating genetically engineered food, there's also nothing wrong with yelling at the scientists and food companies modifying food to act responsible. Of course, their very lives depended on acting responsible, so I have some faith they'll make an effort to do so. Finally, it's good to support local farmers, because fresh food always tastes better, no matter how long genetically engineered food is made to last.
As for genetically modified plants, if you've eaten vegetables in the US in the last two decades you probably had been eating this new version of genetically engineered plants the whole time. There has been no sign of dangerous repercussions in that time, and the methods being used are not riskier or faster than the methods farmers use. That being said, genetically modifying our food is not without its dangers. First, old style farming was more about splitting one species of one plant into many, while modern genetic engineering introduces more elements of cross breeding and merging of plant species. One side effect of this is food allergies can cross into other foods, as noticed with peanut allergies already.
Second, this new type of genetic engineering encourages reducing genetic diversity in our food sources, especially in the case of cloning (obviously), which puts us at risk of a single disastrous plague causing famine of a particular food. Considering how much food in America is dependent on corn, increasing the chances of a corn famine is about the most dangerous thing you could do.
So while you shouldn't fear eating genetically engineered food, there's also nothing wrong with yelling at the scientists and food companies modifying food to act responsible. Of course, their very lives depended on acting responsible, so I have some faith they'll make an effort to do so. Finally, it's good to support local farmers, because fresh food always tastes better, no matter how long genetically engineered food is made to last.
Wow, Bob. You REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. And you just misinformed a hell of a lot of people. Congratulations.
Firstly, yes, most genetically engineered food is harmless. Most of us have eaten some without ever knowing about it. And we're fine, and we're going to continue to be just fine.
But when scientists first started doing genetic engineering, some of the things they were doing had bugger all to do with, say, Gregor Mendel's experiments with cross-polinating peas. Or the thousands of years of animal husbandry you want to hand-wavingly equate.
No matter how long you rub a tomato and a fish together, the fish will not pollinate the tomato. But you can put a fish's genes into a tomato. And some have. Whether you should or not is another question. But here's a bigger one: how does a group like the FDA test for whether a tomato with fish DNA is harmful to the consumer? Does a group like the FDA test this, or do they pass the research off to the people offering it?
Now, again, despite what you hilariously like tomislead imply, most of the people who fear the potential harm of something like this aren't thinking the tomato is going to become sentient and start looking for human flesh. But many do have other reasonable questions that often get bulldozed out of the path of a marketable product:
What happens if a GM food inadvertently hybridizes with a non-GMO strain?
What if the GMO strain causes the wild variant to cease to exist?
What if the monogenetic strains (since a GM crop will inevitably be less diverse than a non-GM one) proves vulnerable to an environmental stress like an insect infestation or a fungus?
How do we test the effects of a GM crop on other species that might be exposed to it, such as insects, fish, or birds?
How can we know if people will react allergically to GM foods, and how can we notify someone if, say, they're allergic to tree nuts that these soybeans might mysteriously make them sick?
If a GMO food enters the food supply and proves hazardous, how can we detect and remove it?
These are not idle, paranoid, or foolish questions. Companies like Monsanto are releasing seeds which don't produce further generations, forcing farmers to buy seeds from them every year, and the possibility of such a strain crossing with others is terrifying. India recently saw a mass of farmer suicides when expensive GM crops failed to produce the profitable harvests the biotech companies had promised. Some crops engineered to require fewer pesticides have actually ended up requiring more.
Which again raises the question of why. Maybe we can produce a fruit that keeps its color on the shelf longer, or a bean that resists frost, or a watermellon that tastes like a strawberry. But that we can do something is not a good reason to do it in willful ignorance of risk.
When we crossbreed plants or animals, which is NOT THE SAME AS THE ENGINEERING YOU DESCRIBE, thousands of genes are mixed and the result can be seen to thrive or flounder on its own. When we engineer, we flip one switch on a circuit breaker, often looking for only one result and ignorant to others. Sometimes, life doesn't offer shortcuts for a reason.
But I suppose that's too broad and sophisticated to be covered in five minutes.
Firstly, yes, most genetically engineered food is harmless. Most of us have eaten some without ever knowing about it. And we're fine, and we're going to continue to be just fine.
But when scientists first started doing genetic engineering, some of the things they were doing had bugger all to do with, say, Gregor Mendel's experiments with cross-polinating peas. Or the thousands of years of animal husbandry you want to hand-wavingly equate.
No matter how long you rub a tomato and a fish together, the fish will not pollinate the tomato. But you can put a fish's genes into a tomato. And some have. Whether you should or not is another question. But here's a bigger one: how does a group like the FDA test for whether a tomato with fish DNA is harmful to the consumer? Does a group like the FDA test this, or do they pass the research off to the people offering it?
Now, again, despite what you hilariously like to
What happens if a GM food inadvertently hybridizes with a non-GMO strain?
What if the GMO strain causes the wild variant to cease to exist?
What if the monogenetic strains (since a GM crop will inevitably be less diverse than a non-GM one) proves vulnerable to an environmental stress like an insect infestation or a fungus?
How do we test the effects of a GM crop on other species that might be exposed to it, such as insects, fish, or birds?
How can we know if people will react allergically to GM foods, and how can we notify someone if, say, they're allergic to tree nuts that these soybeans might mysteriously make them sick?
If a GMO food enters the food supply and proves hazardous, how can we detect and remove it?
These are not idle, paranoid, or foolish questions. Companies like Monsanto are releasing seeds which don't produce further generations, forcing farmers to buy seeds from them every year, and the possibility of such a strain crossing with others is terrifying. India recently saw a mass of farmer suicides when expensive GM crops failed to produce the profitable harvests the biotech companies had promised. Some crops engineered to require fewer pesticides have actually ended up requiring more.
Which again raises the question of why. Maybe we can produce a fruit that keeps its color on the shelf longer, or a bean that resists frost, or a watermellon that tastes like a strawberry. But that we can do something is not a good reason to do it in willful ignorance of risk.
When we crossbreed plants or animals, which is NOT THE SAME AS THE ENGINEERING YOU DESCRIBE, thousands of genes are mixed and the result can be seen to thrive or flounder on its own. When we engineer, we flip one switch on a circuit breaker, often looking for only one result and ignorant to others. Sometimes, life doesn't offer shortcuts for a reason.
But I suppose that's too broad and sophisticated to be covered in five minutes.
I've been with you a lot in the past, that's why I check in on you every week, but you're way off on this one Bob. When we combine genes from an earthworm and a pig to make a pig that produces omega 3 fatty acids, like a fish, that is not the same as selective breeding. You don't need to be Gregor Mendell to figure out that if you want to stick a pig and an earthworm together in a room with the lights dimmed chances are all you're going to get is one pig and one appetizer. And that's where people start to have problems, when you create things that should never naturally be. I have no problem eating a potato that's got genes from an animal like a wasp or a bacteria in it, but I might take some umbrage if say, that potato were to start breeding with regular potatoes.MovieBob said:
This poses serious ethical questions about man's place in upsetting the balance of nature and our ecology. It's fine for us to eat maize that poisons it's chief parasites, after all we grow food to eat it, but what happens when all corn poisons it's chief parasites? We've wiped out another species and any who relied on it and introduced another monoculture to the world. We've also introduced a gateway for cross-species disease vectors. A virus that effects both earthworms and pigs? Malarchy? Entirely possible at this point. And then there are the unforeseen consequences that we run into because humans are essentially screw-ups. That same corn I mentioned that kills it's parasites? Also kills Monarch Butterflies. Your advocation is to modify without consideration or moderation. Is it fair to say we know no better than medieval farmers? Given your trivialization over these legitimate concerns, perhaps some of us don't.
Also since when is stitching decaying stolen body parts together a part of defibrillation?
So in summation, thanks for misleading a lot of impressionable listeners this week Bob. It's only too bad thousands will hear your video this week but maybe 3 will see any post clarifying the matter. It might be nice if you say, read some of those posts next week, but I might be wrong to expect some kind of humility or respect from a man who made me listen to him arrogantly chew a carrot for 20 seconds while he chased a red herring. If you came back to reason at some point, you'll have to excuse me, I had my fill at "god damned heroes!" Oh and feel free to google any of the foods I mentioned, they're all real examples.
This is specious reasoning. When was the last time you were mauled by a Panda? Scare mongers do a lot to minimize your contact with GM's. For that matter, the only concerns are not that people will be bitterly poisoned from eating the forbidden fruit of "God's Domain". While I'm sure there are torch-bearing townsfolk concerned the food itself is dangerous, there are larger, more realistic concerns.Dody16 said:
I'm sorry Bob. Normally I am with you but you are pretty much flat out wrong on this one.
What you got right: rhetorics of fear mongering are bad and promote blindly following emotional arguments.
What you got wrong: pretty much everything else. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are drastically different. Selective breeding attempts to control genes through sexual reproduction. Genetic engineering attempts to control genes through direct modification.
Wait, so what's so bad about that? You just go into the DNA, trade this protein string for that and bam, genetic engineering. NO. No, no, no, no. This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. You can't just "go into DNA," you need a method by which to modify it. What's the primary tool for that? Viruses. And viruses have a tendency to spread. While this isn't scary in the immediate way of "oh no, I might get viruses," it is scary in the way of, "oh no, we are introducing engineered viruses and genetic modifications into the environment via the pollen, lost seed, and other reproductive material in our genetically engineered crops."
This may not have an immediately negative effect. This may not have an effect at all. But the reality is that WE HAVE NO CLUE (and with certain viruses engineering plants to be infertile, it could certainly mean big trouble). And here is where science and the government need to play a larger role. There is very little oversight of genetic modification of crops because, hey, everybody wants more and better food. But, the result is that we have relatively little info about what all this is really doing. Sometimes that has resulted in deaths from strange allergic reactions. And beyond that there is a larger potential threat to our crops and ecosystems.
So is genetic engineering franken-evil? No. Do we need a ton more testing before we start eating this food and introducing these crops to the larger world? Hell right we do. Progress is good. Blind progress, not so much.
*I am surprised you didn't do some more research. I expect better. Too bad you'll never see this comment
**Sorry to knitpick on a tangential point but your interpretation of Frankenstein is wrong too. Frankenstein wasn't bringing back life. He was creating new life using dead-tissue. I'm a student of literature and that is one of my many favs.
What you got right: rhetorics of fear mongering are bad and promote blindly following emotional arguments.
What you got wrong: pretty much everything else. Selective breeding and genetic engineering are drastically different. Selective breeding attempts to control genes through sexual reproduction. Genetic engineering attempts to control genes through direct modification.
Wait, so what's so bad about that? You just go into the DNA, trade this protein string for that and bam, genetic engineering. NO. No, no, no, no. This is where your argument is fundamentally flawed. You can't just "go into DNA," you need a method by which to modify it. What's the primary tool for that? Viruses. And viruses have a tendency to spread. While this isn't scary in the immediate way of "oh no, I might get viruses," it is scary in the way of, "oh no, we are introducing engineered viruses and genetic modifications into the environment via the pollen, lost seed, and other reproductive material in our genetically engineered crops."
This may not have an immediately negative effect. This may not have an effect at all. But the reality is that WE HAVE NO CLUE (and with certain viruses engineering plants to be infertile, it could certainly mean big trouble). And here is where science and the government need to play a larger role. There is very little oversight of genetic modification of crops because, hey, everybody wants more and better food. But, the result is that we have relatively little info about what all this is really doing. Sometimes that has resulted in deaths from strange allergic reactions. And beyond that there is a larger potential threat to our crops and ecosystems.
So is genetic engineering franken-evil? No. Do we need a ton more testing before we start eating this food and introducing these crops to the larger world? Hell right we do. Progress is good. Blind progress, not so much.
*I am surprised you didn't do some more research. I expect better. Too bad you'll never see this comment
**Sorry to knitpick on a tangential point but your interpretation of Frankenstein is wrong too. Frankenstein wasn't bringing back life. He was creating new life using dead-tissue. I'm a student of literature and that is one of my many favs.
Briefly, concerning Monsanto:
They are indeed clearly evil bastards of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned. They aren't in this video because A.) actually covering them would be a whole episode in and of itself (don't think I'm not considering it) and B.) informed skepticism of corporate malfeasance is rather a seperate subject from uninformed hysteria against science.
That being said, IMO the misconception about Monsanto is that they do their dirty somehow "in spite of" the controversial nature of genetically-modified foods - as though if we were only MORE wary of such things they wouldn't get away with this stuff. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. Y'know what would put a dent in Monsanto? Cutting into their defacto monopoly. A competing firm offering seed that was practically just as a good but less of an economic screwjob and/or environmental catastrophe would find customers and balance out the playing field. Imagine a thousand mid-sized farms, each with their own geneticist onhand to work on their "locally engineered" product. So why isn't anyone doing it?
Because they can't. Because the innevitable torches-n-pitchforks public outcry whenever the words "genetic engineering" come up has made the awarding of University or charity research grants toward such things a practical impossibility - if your a scientist and choose to make genetic research your field, you're essentially tattooing the word "supervillain" on your face as far as the popular culture is concerned. Federal funding? Forget it. Conservative lawmakers are going to do Big Biotech's bidding, and Liberal ones are beholden to the natural/local/organic food lobby; so neither "side" is going to help you. Monsanto and the others get to do whatever they want because they're the only players with enough money to stay on the field.
It's the old "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have them" problem: When a culture decides to effectively "shut down" an entire field of science, all it does is create an environment where the field can - and WILL - be dominated by whoever has the most money to spend.
EDIT: Yikes... that should've read "don't think I'm not considering it," (hence the boldface.) With appologies for my crummy proofreading
They are indeed clearly evil bastards of the highest order, as far as I'm concerned. They aren't in this video because A.) actually covering them would be a whole episode in and of itself (don't think I'm not considering it) and B.) informed skepticism of corporate malfeasance is rather a seperate subject from uninformed hysteria against science.
That being said, IMO the misconception about Monsanto is that they do their dirty somehow "in spite of" the controversial nature of genetically-modified foods - as though if we were only MORE wary of such things they wouldn't get away with this stuff. Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test. Y'know what would put a dent in Monsanto? Cutting into their defacto monopoly. A competing firm offering seed that was practically just as a good but less of an economic screwjob and/or environmental catastrophe would find customers and balance out the playing field. Imagine a thousand mid-sized farms, each with their own geneticist onhand to work on their "locally engineered" product. So why isn't anyone doing it?
Because they can't. Because the innevitable torches-n-pitchforks public outcry whenever the words "genetic engineering" come up has made the awarding of University or charity research grants toward such things a practical impossibility - if your a scientist and choose to make genetic research your field, you're essentially tattooing the word "supervillain" on your face as far as the popular culture is concerned. Federal funding? Forget it. Conservative lawmakers are going to do Big Biotech's bidding, and Liberal ones are beholden to the natural/local/organic food lobby; so neither "side" is going to help you. Monsanto and the others get to do whatever they want because they're the only players with enough money to stay on the field.
It's the old "when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have them" problem: When a culture decides to effectively "shut down" an entire field of science, all it does is create an environment where the field can - and WILL - be dominated by whoever has the most money to spend.
EDIT: Yikes... that should've read "don't think I'm not considering it," (hence the boldface.) With appologies for my crummy proofreading
Well I saw it man, it was an excellent post. Much respect. I felt much the same way you did.SIR DOOM said:*I am surprised you didn't do some more research. I expect better. Too bad you'll never see this comment
As long as you're here would you mind addressing people who might not have torch and pitchfork concerns? There are a number of good ones on this page alone, and I'm sure several throughout the thread.MovieBob said:
As usual I find that its the fear of what people DON'T know what?s going into them is the problem.
People are concerned that you can plant DNA into food that would make to intercept government transmissions with your brain, or be compelled to buy Sony products... mmmmm Sony..... must buy sony products.................
Anyway - as with anything the science has enormous potential but as always "With great power comes great responsibility" (Sorry MovieBob)
If you could create crops that would grow to full size in days / hours instead of weeks, food that contained no fat and more good stuff than the 'original' then there is the potential to solve world hunger and make the world better (as long as there are no side effects)
Yes 'Natural genetic engineering' has had plenty of time to be tested and evolve to ensure that its safe, and I'm pretty sure that 'scientific genetic engineering' would also need time to be proven safe and pushing them through without testing is just irrisponsible if not down right dangerous.
The potential cannot be ignored simply out of fear of what could happen - its like when the car was invented people said that you couldn't drive over 10 mph else your skin would come off or something stupid like that. If we don't push the limits of science we'll never be able to create those food synthesisers you see on Star Trek!
The examples of 'frankinfoods' where genes have been splices from different sources to create weird and wonderful effects (hell yeah glow in the dark food!) is a little over the top - we can only hope that people doing this resource aren't the 'mad scientist' type who sit there laughing evilly to themselves and thinking of combining bananas with glow in the dark fish so that you could create bananas that would double as glow sticks! When the light goes out you can eat them! With that creation I could take over the world! Muhahahahahaha!
People are concerned that you can plant DNA into food that would make to intercept government transmissions with your brain, or be compelled to buy Sony products... mmmmm Sony..... must buy sony products.................
Anyway - as with anything the science has enormous potential but as always "With great power comes great responsibility" (Sorry MovieBob
)If you could create crops that would grow to full size in days / hours instead of weeks, food that contained no fat and more good stuff than the 'original' then there is the potential to solve world hunger and make the world better (as long as there are no side effects)
Yes 'Natural genetic engineering' has had plenty of time to be tested and evolve to ensure that its safe, and I'm pretty sure that 'scientific genetic engineering' would also need time to be proven safe and pushing them through without testing is just irrisponsible if not down right dangerous.
The potential cannot be ignored simply out of fear of what could happen - its like when the car was invented people said that you couldn't drive over 10 mph else your skin would come off or something stupid like that. If we don't push the limits of science we'll never be able to create those food synthesisers you see on Star Trek!
The examples of 'frankinfoods' where genes have been splices from different sources to create weird and wonderful effects (hell yeah glow in the dark food!) is a little over the top - we can only hope that people doing this resource aren't the 'mad scientist' type who sit there laughing evilly to themselves and thinking of combining bananas with glow in the dark fish so that you could create bananas that would double as glow sticks! When the light goes out you can eat them! With that creation I could take over the world! Muhahahahahaha!
Hi Bob,
I don't normally write in the forums here, however I felt like I had something to add to your interesting topic regarding 'frankenfood.' I am a plant biochemist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have myself modified several plants genetically to turn things on and off as you refer to them and I have also closely followed the debates going on regarding the safety of the procedure.
You are absolutely right in saying that humans have been practicing the art of genetic engineering since before recorded history. With the advances of modern technology however, people like me are able to introduce new genes into the genomes of plants and animals. This is of course the fundamental point you completely missed in your video. The introduction of new genes, albeit from the same or different organism requires the use of selection markers that help us scientists know that the transformation was successful. Traditionally this is done with antibiotic resistance genes from bacteria. One of the big concerns is the lateral spread of these genes to other organisms or non-transformed plants resulting in an unwanted spread of a resistance gene.
The introduction of a foreign gene into an organism can also cause what is the most problematic issue regarding genetic modification. For example, the introduction of a gene which encodes a protein toxic to caterpillars. This kills off the pest and helps increase yields, however, like everything else in the world, there is a chance some people will be allergic to that protein and could die from it. The debate on the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many could fill a large book, but I just wanted to introduce it to you.
In a nutshell, thanks for your video regarding 'frankenfood' and pointing out that we perform genetic engineering since ancient times. However, you oversimplified a topic that many people should be more well informed about before they make up their minds either way. There are ABSOLUTELY both ethical and safety issues surrounding this subject and I had to put in my 2 cents saying that its not an easy case of saying that the people against genetic modification are just crazy hippy nutjobs with nothing better to do.
Happy Holidays!
I don't normally write in the forums here, however I felt like I had something to add to your interesting topic regarding 'frankenfood.' I am a plant biochemist with a Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology. I have myself modified several plants genetically to turn things on and off as you refer to them and I have also closely followed the debates going on regarding the safety of the procedure.
You are absolutely right in saying that humans have been practicing the art of genetic engineering since before recorded history. With the advances of modern technology however, people like me are able to introduce new genes into the genomes of plants and animals. This is of course the fundamental point you completely missed in your video. The introduction of new genes, albeit from the same or different organism requires the use of selection markers that help us scientists know that the transformation was successful. Traditionally this is done with antibiotic resistance genes from bacteria. One of the big concerns is the lateral spread of these genes to other organisms or non-transformed plants resulting in an unwanted spread of a resistance gene.
The introduction of a foreign gene into an organism can also cause what is the most problematic issue regarding genetic modification. For example, the introduction of a gene which encodes a protein toxic to caterpillars. This kills off the pest and helps increase yields, however, like everything else in the world, there is a chance some people will be allergic to that protein and could die from it. The debate on the needs of the few outweighing the needs of the many could fill a large book, but I just wanted to introduce it to you.
In a nutshell, thanks for your video regarding 'frankenfood' and pointing out that we perform genetic engineering since ancient times. However, you oversimplified a topic that many people should be more well informed about before they make up their minds either way. There are ABSOLUTELY both ethical and safety issues surrounding this subject and I had to put in my 2 cents saying that its not an easy case of saying that the people against genetic modification are just crazy hippy nutjobs with nothing better to do.
Happy Holidays!