Will Frankenfood Save the Planet?

[treepig]

here's some red meat for the anti-GM crop crowd:

For reasons having more to do with politics than with logic, the modern environmental movement was to a large extent founded on suspicion of markets and artificial substances. Markets exploit the earth; chemicals poison it. Biotech touches both hot buttons. It is being pushed forward by greedy corporations, and it seems to be the very epitome of the unnatural.

Still, I hereby hazard a prediction. In ten years or less, most American environmentalists (European ones are more dogmatic) will regard genetic modification as one of their most powerful tools. In only the past ten years or so, after all, environmentalists have reversed field and embraced market mechanisms—tradable emissions permits and the like—as useful in the fight against pollution. The environmental logic of biotechnology is, if anything, even more compelling. The potential upside of genetic modification is simply too large to ignore—and therefore environmentalists will not ignore it. Biotechnology will transform agriculture, and in doing so will transform American environmentalism.

from
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/10/rauch.htm

ok, eagerly awaiting the anguished weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. . .

[trotsky]

1. If done carefully, it solves numerous problems.

Just by introducing disease- and drought-resistance you could increase crop yields tremendously.

Maybe I'm an odd liberal, but I still see a lot of benefit in GM and in meat irradiation.

[GAspnes]

2. he downplays the risks, otherwise it's an okay article

the benefits of GM are without question. The risks of new technology, especially biological technology, litter the landscape. From rabbits in Australia to zebra mussels in the Great Lakes to elms in the U.S. to antibiotic resistant bacteria, just transporting existing organisms from their original environment to new ones has led to appalling ecological disasters.

This is a subject that should be approached with fear and trembling and some *very* good computer models before we go experimenting on the only biosphere we have handy.

[treepig]

4. interestingly, your horror story examples

have come about with naturally occurring organisms.

generally, plants and animals have been widely dispersed into new environments without too much difficulty - for example, apples, wheat, tomatoes, potatoes, sheep, sheep dogs, etc etc. all been widely distributed from their points of origin without undue problems. of course your examples highlight the danger of complacency.

also, consider that antibiotic resistant bacteria have arisen naturally. well, perhaps not naturally, but in the absence of any overt genetic modification. in fact, the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria goes to show that the genome adapts to the environment - with the lesson to be learned that massive use of pesticides (analogous to massive use of anti-biotics) is almost surely generating resistant weed strains right now (even in areas free from gm-crops). somehow, the current untested massive overuse of pesticides would seem to be much more dangerous of an experiment than targeted genetic means to the same end . . .

and your point about computer models would seem to be a cop-out to prevent gm crops from ever being grown - they're unlikely to be of any predictive value in either my (or your lifetime - even if you're very young right now). for example, do you really think a computer could have predicted the genetic change that set humans apart from chimps? (and i'm talking real chimps here, not mr. bush).

[cprise]

6. "undue problems"

How insulting.

The potato famine, smallpox (virtual genocide), mass extinction, monoculture: Those are undue problems from artificial dispersion.

"...horror story examples have come about with naturally occurring organisms."

* Species are alien outside their natural habitat, and hitching rides on ferries, rails and planes is not natural.

* So far, GM has led to increased chemical treatment of crops. In some cases, the GM crops themselves create the increased pesticide or other chemicals. Living things are vastly unwiedly chemical factories.

* Computer climate models were useless 10 years ago, and today they are capable of producing useful new tools and programs via genetic mutation.

* Lack of a good simluation implies lack of suffient human understanding; Being able to induce changes is no proof of competence.

* Natural adaptation works at almost geologic timescales. Rapidly changing specific lifeforms (and other environmental factors) year in and year out puts the rest of the natural world and everything that depends on it at considerable risk. Most plants and animals are not bacterium or viruses

* So far industry has wrought havoc with life on earth using just external pressures. Applying pressure on the inside with new lifeforms has at least as much destructive potential.


An argument like this tells me the GM believer is the enemy of precaution more than complacency.

[treepig]

9. perhaps it's also insulting to mix up political hate crimes

with a value-neutral technology?

you say The potato famine, smallpox (virtual genocide), mass extinction, monoculture: Those are undue problems from artificial dispersion.

in reality, these problems were not due to artificial dispersion per se - these problems were largely due to political decisions motivated by either indifference or hate:

The potato famine - if the english had been so inclined, they could have largely alleviated the suffering of the irish during the potato famine of the 1840's. in any event the whole famine was traced to unwise monoculture conditions - but the promise of gm crops is an increase in genetic diversity that will avoid such issues.

smallpox - sure, giving native americans blankets infected with smallpox was an atrocity - but it wasn't something that was unforeseen or a surprise - it was done deliberately and malevolently. similarly, gm technology could be abused for great evil, but so can water for crying out loud - so such fear-mongering is hardly justified!

mass extinction - not sure how this applies to the current discussion - most human-caused mass extinctions have been a result of habitat loss (or drastic climate change beyond the control of mankind; although a future wave of climate-caused extinctions will be mankind's fault)

you say So far, GM has led to increased chemical treatment of crops. In some cases, the GM crops themselves create the increased pesticide or other chemicals. Living things are vastly unwiedly chemical factories.

this statement is blatantly untrue. gm crops have resulted in large reductions in chemical use (why else would farmers plant these crops? clearly not to curry favor with consumers - the primary reason is they can save money on expensive pesticides).

one thing you are absolutely correct about is that living things are vastly unwieldly chemical factories (actually they're very efficient chemical factories, but that's a small item to quibble about). completely non-genetically engineered plants don't just sit around waiting to be eaten - they produce their own

herbicides, here's a few:



insecticides:



fungicides, nematicides, and rodenticides:



http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/proceedings1990/v1-511.html

when plants come under attack, they up-regulate production of these (and hundreds more similar) chemicals by up to 10,000-fold (or, to be less quantitative, they basically start from zero and make a lot of these chemicals). furthermore, these natural compounds are equally or more dangerous to human health than artificial chemicals used for similar purposes (bruce ames at UCBerkeley has published a bunch of studies on this topic if you're interested in tracking down more information). gm crops can avoid both the endogenous over-production of these natural compounds (because, if the plants aren't exposed to pests, they won't expend the energy to produce pesticides) and reduce use of artificial chemicals.

you say Computer climate models were useless 10 years ago, and today they are capable of producing useful new tools and programs via genetic mutation. - i apologize for being rather obtuse, but the link between the improvement of computer climate models and genetic mutation completely escapes me - some elaboration would be appreciated.

you say Most plants and animals are not bacterium or viruses - please provide examples of any plants or animals that are bacterium or virusus.

[soothsayer]

3. If we adopt the precautionary principle, yes

Precautionary principle (which many countries have signed, but not the US of course) sez companies must first prove that whatever it is (product they're releasing) will do no harm. Puts the burden on companies to be preventative, not for consumers to come crying after the harm's been done.

GM might be ok for some things, but I hate monsanto so fiercely I hope they all rot in hell. (evil seeds, terminator chicken, control of water rights, etc.)

[treepig]

5. if there wasn't so much paranoia about complete testing

the monsanto issue would be moot.

specifically, in a few years (i predict) it will be cheap and easy to insert cassettes of tailored genes into your plant of choice. it's entirely conceivable that local groups of farmers could invest the $250,000 or so needed to set up a lab to custom design plants specifically suited for their local growing conditions (for example, resistance to salt, heavy metal contaminants, drought, or what have you). furthermore, expression of the genes can be confined to specific parts of the plant. for example, if you've engineering a corn plant to be salt resistant, the excess salt could be sequestered in the roots, stalk, or maybe leaves, leaving the actual corn cob unaltered.

the objection to such an approach seems to be that these locally home-grown genetically engineered plants would not be "thoroughly tested" - a process that could require millions of dollars, or more. that's where monsanto comes in.

[cprise]

7. GM cannot yet confine its effects

Research has proven that a genome will become unstable and manifest unpredictable changes in it's proteins after modification.

GM is still the epitome of incontinence. :hurts:

[treepig]

8. genomes are remarkably unstable

in the absence of any "artificial" genetic modification.

for example, trying doing a search on "dynamic genome" "jumping genes" or "transposons"

it's now becoming clear that certain regions of the genome are "unstable" due to the mechanisms listed above (in the presence or absence of genetic engineering manipulations) while others are not subject to such instability. there is now technology available to specifically direct any genetic modifications to stable regions of the genome.