The GM debate

[platinumsage]

Quite. You could say the same about COVID vaccines. In fact, people do.

Luckily we haven't banned vaccine research in humans.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Surely the response to this shouldn't be not to explore it?

If that were the generally the case we'd still be living in caves.

If you live in a cave you always and continually have the right and ability to leave the cave. If somebody else releases GM organisms (animal, vegetable, fungal, insect, bacterial, whatever) into the environment and they turn out to be resilient and harmful, then you are stuck with them. The only people likely to do that are governments and mega-corporations. They are inherently not to be trusted and think mainly in the short term for their own advantage.

The basic point is that we don't need GM. It gives power and control to the few. It brings with it many potential risks. So why the urgency?

 

[gentlegreen]

The basic point is that we don't need GM. It gives power and control to the few. It brings with it many potential risks. So why the urgency?

In the first instance reduction of soil erosion.
bananas
golden rice
salt-tolerant rice

oh and who knows what the future will bring in terms of harnessing nature to synthesise blood products etc.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

In the first instance reduction of soil erosion.
bananas
golden rice
salt-tolerant rice

oh and who knows what the future will bring in terms of harnessing nature to synthesise blood products etc.

Golden rice is a good example of the bullshit thinking of the GM lobby. It supposedly answers the problem of malnutrition in the third world. For those with a poor diet, feed them golden rice. Marie Antoinette was credited with the phrase 'let them eat cake' during the French Revolution. Now the mantra will be 'let them eat golden rice'. Never mind having a balanced, varied diet.
GM is no magic wand. Just because you would like it to solve various problems doesn't mean it will, nor that any meaningful research will be directed that way.

 

[Spymaster]

If you live in a cave you always and continually have the right and ability to leave the cave. If somebody else releases GM organisms (animal, vegetable, fungal, insect, bacterial, whatever) into the environment and they turn out to be resilient and harmful, then you are stuck with them. The only people likely to do that are governments and mega-corporations. They are inherently not to be trusted and think mainly in the short term for their own advantage.

This is neo-Luddism, isn’t it. The same thinking would’ve prevented the development of every technology known to mankind.

 

[gentlegreen]

At this stage of the game, roundup-ready and BT technologies are mature technologies and resistance to them comes over like the antivaxers calling the covid vaccines "experimental" ...

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

This is neo-Luddism, isn’t it. The same thinking would’ve prevented the development of every technology known to mankind.

No it's not. Anyway, Ned Ludd was alright in my book. Plus, you're talking bollocks. This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone. Some technologies are maybe best not given over almost exclusively to the powerful and greedy. That is the determinant here. GM is very powerful and can be used to our detriment, even accidentally.

 

[Spymaster]

No it's not. Anyway, Ned Ludd was alright in my book. Plus, you're talking bollocks. This may come as a surprise to you, but not everyone. Some technologies are maybe best not given over almost exclusively to the powerful and greedy. That is the determinant here. GM is very powerful and can be used to our detriment, even accidentally.

"Don't research potentially dangerous things".

That's bollocks.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

"Don't research potentially dangerous things".

That's bollocks.

If I'd said that I would agree with you. We're not talking pure research here, but research into areas where some wealthy people see an opportunity to make more money, take more control.

 

[Spymaster]

If I'd said that I would agree with you. We're not talking pure research here, but research into areas where some wealthy people see an opportunity to make more money, take more control.

You could apply that to pretty much anything.

It's expensive research that only wealthy people/companies are able to afford. If you prevented wealthy companies from researching things because you object to people making money, most industries wouldn't exist. No pharmaceuticals, no transport, no power, reduced farming, food ... the list is endless.

There are enormous benefits to be had from GMOs. To get those benefits research is required and who else is going to do it?

 

[gentlegreen]

This sounds like the organic / permaculture argument - to which we could add the "grass-fed"meme ...

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

We had all these discussions back in the 1990's and since then it's been kicked into the long grass (in the public arena) and largely forgotten about. There was widespread debate back then and the pro-GM lobby lost. Now they're back with no real discussion, aided and abetted by Johnson and his cronies. Advancing human knowledge and understanding, combatting the effects of climate change, alleviating world hunger - like fuck.

 

[Spymaster]

We had all these discussions back in the 1990's and since then it's been kicked into the long grass (in the public arena) and largely forgotten about. There was widespread debate back then and the pro-GM lobby lost. Now they're back with no real discussion, aided and abetted by Johnson and his cronies. Advancing human knowledge and understanding, combatting the effects of climate change, alleviating world hunger - like fuck.

Ah, the old "it's supported by people I don't like, so fuck the benefits" line.

 

[gentlegreen]

As alluded to earlier, the elephant in the room is that the main GM (commodity) crops are mostly used to massively inefficiently feed animals.
Take away the ever-growing demand for animal parts. and agriculture per se is a different kettle of fish ...

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Ah, the old "it's supported by people I don't like, so fuck the benefits" line.

It's supported by, administered by, introduced by people I don't like for the benefit of people I don't like.

 

[JimW]

I posted an obit for Yuan Longping who was the driving force behind China's hybrid rice programme, which he produced the old-fashioned way; seems he came round to GM research in his last years but advocated proceeding with caution.

 

[Spymaster]

… for the benefit of people I don't like.

Diabetics for instance?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Diabetics for instance?

Sorry, I was forgetting that GM will be the answer to all the world's ills. And all the ills that we aren't even aware of yet.

 

[Spymaster]

Sorry, I was forgetting that GM will be the answer to all the world's ills. And all the ills that we aren't even aware of yet.

Not all of them, but some of them. You're aware that most of the world’s insulin nowadays is genetically engineered?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

Not all of them, but some of them. You're aware that most of the world’s insulin nowadays is genetically engineered?

Ah yes. I've seen fields of insulin blowing in the breeze. Feasted on by GM insects and impervious to the effects of climate change. Or was that all in a dream? Maybe the reality involves laboratories and factories rather than the wider environment?

 

[Spymaster]

Ah yes. I've seen fields of insulin blowing in the breeze. Feasted on by GM insects and impervious to the effects of climate change. Or was that all in a dream? Maybe the reality involves laboratories and factories rather than the wider environment?

Hold on. A minute ago your objection to GMO was that big companies (who you don't like) are the driving force behind the research and they make money out of it (and you don't like that either). They're pretty much the same firms behind the GMO research that developed the insulin, which they also make money from. Are you now saying that you don't mind big companies making money out of medical GMO, and your objection is solely to them making money out of agricultural GMO?

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

FWIW I've got multiple objections to GM and how it would have been and might be introduced. The biggest concerns have always been about control of the technology, but also about the effect of the release of GM organisms into the wider environment.

 

[Spymaster]

FWIW I've got multiple objections to GM and how it would have been and might be introduced. The biggest concerns have always been about control of the technology, but also about the effect of the release of GM organisms into the wider environment.

Which is valid, but you don't deny that GM has produced, and can continue to produce, enormous benefits for humans (aside from financial ones)?

 

[AmateurAgitator]

This is an informative and balanced interview about GM crops and gene editing with a Professor of Ecology:

Gene-edited crops: expert Q+A on what field trials could mean for the future of food

Field trials of genetically edited crop plants are to be allowed in England under new government proposals.

theconversation.com

 

[Dogsauce]

You could apply that to pretty much anything.

It's expensive research that only wealthy people/companies are able to afford. If you prevented wealthy companies from researching things because you object to people making money, most industries wouldn't exist. No pharmaceuticals, no transport, no power, reduced farming, food ... the list is endless.

There are enormous benefits to be had from GMOs. To get those benefits research is required and who else is going to do it?

Some is done by universities and state research institutes where they still exist and haven’t been privatised, and not everything they’ve done has been commercialised - some has been offered free for the benefit of humanity. I wish more was done on the lines rather than relying on ‘the market’ which would sooner whiten the teeth of the wealthy than feed starving infants.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

What makes me nervous is when I read a defence of gene editing beginning along the lines of "we've been editing genes for thousands of years". This lazy generalisation was used back in the 1990's during the last big debate. It's still being trotted out now. What has changed is that the apologists for the technology now admit that the earlier GM techniques proposed were less accurate and specific and that only genes from the genome in question will be moved around or deleted. So are they now saying "we got it wrong back then"? Or is the current proposal for limited gene editing just the foot in the door to wider genetic modification?

 

[platinumsage]

A benefit of Brexit, escaping from the woo-loving continental hippies.

Next can we have irradiated salad produce please?

 

[gentlegreen]

Probably the only positive of Brexshit in my opinion.
Hopefully glyphosate will also still be available for use.
And what's wrong with irradiated anything ?
Probably nicer than using ethylene oxide or whatever ...

"Aug 21, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today approved the use of irradiation to kill pathogens in fresh spinach and iceberg lettuce, which were linked to Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks that sickened hundreds of people in the fall of 2006."

 

[NoXion]

What makes me nervous is when I read a defence of gene editing beginning along the lines of "we've been editing genes for thousands of years". This lazy generalisation was used back in the 1990's during the last big debate. It's still being trotted out now. What has changed is that the apologists for the technology now admit that the earlier GM techniques proposed were less accurate and specific and that only genes from the genome in question will be moved around or deleted. So are they now saying "we got it wrong back then"? Or is the current proposal for limited gene editing just the foot in the door to wider genetic modification?

I'm not seeing the contradiction. Modern gene editing is more precise than early gene editing, which was still more precise than traditional breeding methods.

Most anti-GM sentiment is based on fearful ignorance rather than anything substantial. People will support the application of Bt toxin sprays in organic farming, but oppose the genetic modification of crops to produce the exact same toxin endogenously. Even though the GM solution would produce less Bt toxin overall. How the fuck does that make sense?!

 

[gentlegreen]

I get very dismayed when I encounter ignorance two years into covid, where surely most people would have tried to improve their understanding of basic science and genetics ..
I encountered an American on Youtube the other day who was pleased to announce that the "Grandpa Ott" cultivar of morning glory is "heritage ... which means not genetically-modified ..." The conspiracies around hybrid seed. "terminator genes", "farmers prosecuted for accidental cross-pollinated rapeseed", Indian farmer suicides are all conflated ... and there's always the reserve ad-hom of "Agent Orange !!1!" (and almost no-one knows the true story of that particular trope)