For help, advice and discussion about stuff not related to aviation. Play nice: no religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1912469
In France I find it paradoxical that there is a generalised fear of GMO and many foodstuffs claim to contain no GMO, although as mentioned above there is no evidence that they would be harmful as modified DNA is digested in exactly the same way as standard DNA.
On the other hand every year there is a large televised fund-raising campaign for the treatment of heritable diseases (mostly neuromuscular). The only treatment at present is the introduction of genetic modifications designed to compensate for the defective DNA. So OGM in food is bad, but OGM in humans is good.
Simon
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912472
TopCat wrote:What do people imagine happens to all this scary genetically modified DNA when you eat it?

When you eat food, it is digested. Broken down into its constituent bits. Why would this be any different just for the bit that's been engineered to make the plant more disease resistant, or hold on to water better?


I'm happy to consume GM foods, so long as my almost pathological penchant for tomatoes doesn't make me grow a huge pair of tits................. :wink:
seanxair, StratoTramp liked this
#1912571
TopCat wrote:
Mz Hedy wrote:In IT they call this sort of thing a cludge

But you're suggesting that the mods go untested. They very much don't.
...


I don't want to stretch the analogy too far, but I think you misunderstand - a cludge is designed to make the system pass the tests. It's the untested conditions where it can fall down - you can't test everything: consider Volkswagen exhaust emissions or cigarette tar levels.
The Frankenstein fears of GMOs are based mostly on ignorance, I think.

I agree, but your use of 'mostly' and 'I think' haven't helped :wink:

simon32 wrote:In France I find it paradoxical that there is a generalised fear of GMO...
On the other hand every year there is a large televised fund-raising campaign for the treatment of heritable diseases (mostly neuromuscular)... So OGM in food is bad, but OGM in humans is good.
Simon

Of course the difference is that the latter is only being applied to a few individual voluneers in controlled clinical conditions, whereas the former are are planned to be widespread in open fields with the opportunity for uncontrolled cross pollination with wild varieties where characteristics which may be desireable in a food crop might be undesireable in a wild population, or the implanted or removed gene(s) could interact differently in the wild varieties to how it works in the domesticated variety. I just hope my concerns are unfounded and future generations don't end up with a pandemic of triffids (which in the book were cultivated as a valuable source of bio-fuel).

Of course, like most I voluntarily swallow my vitamin D pill and eat 'fortified' bread. I even drink tap water with all sorts of goodies added by my local water company. All that without a proper understanding of the associated biochemistry. I'm sure I'll find myself noshing GM/E foods as well when they fill our supermarket shelves.


PS. The Wikipedia page on 'Regulation of genetic engineering' is interesting if not entirely comforting.
#1912581
I was meaning fear of consumption of GMO-containing foods, which is scientifically irrational. The design and commercial growing of GMO crops is another issue which requires regulation and is likely to increase the domination of seed producers over the agricultural community. This is already a concern with conventional crops. In France farmers are not allowed to use their own seeds.
@ PeteSpencer. There are now blue tomatoes so if you ate enough of them you might get blue tits :D
Simon
PeteSpencer, Mz Hedy liked this
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912591
Mz Hedy wrote:
TopCat wrote:The Frankenstein fears of GMOs are based mostly on ignorance, I think.

I agree, but your use of 'mostly' and 'I think' haven't helped :wink:


Mostly ignorance - I was being kind. Also lots of misinformation from the usual anti-everything sources.

But there are of course risks. In principle, the new gene could code for a toxic protein (this would obviously be tested for - GMOs are not released for public consumption except after a rigorous test programme). And GM plants could potentially hybridise in some circumstances with non-GM ones, resulting in genetic escape - which may or may not be a bad thing.

Here's a fairly easy to read and apparently reasonably balanced article on the subject.

I haven't done a thorough review of the available literature - I don't have either the time or the inclination, tbh. From what I've read over the years, I'm inclined on balance to think that the benefits of GM crops greatly exceed the risks, especially when you factor in the reduced water consumption, and the reduced need for pesticides and herbicides which already have highly destructive effects on our environment.

I was amused to note in that article that "modern varieties of wheat were produced with the aid of radiation-induced mutation."

You'd think that that would get the anti-GMers' juices flowing...
Mz Hedy liked this
User avatar
By StratoTramp
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912602
If you want a worst case fiction book read The Windup Girl by Paulo Bacigalupi (that's easy for you to say)

https://www.fantasybookreview.co.uk/Pao ... -Girl.html

It's a biopunk future where calories are the currency, and crops need constant modification to stay ahead of blister rust. Pretty Interesting world building.

However, that's fiction. I don't think GM foods are bad. Especially when we are talking about a food crisis. All the greens just want a planet with zero people. They don't care if people starve it fits in with their agenda.

As with all technologies we need a pragmatic approach but it's not inherently good or bad. I don't want no holds barred rampant use but we should be using it. Rather than dismissing it out of hand because of amped up concerns.

That said on the fence with this one (food chains?). But ultimately humans > environment. I know we still need the latter.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... %20company.
By Spooky
#1912638
Gene editing seems a bit “more natural” in that it’s using the vegetable’s / fruit’s own DNA to improve flavour / growth rather than foreign DNA. Although accelerated, I guess it’s not too dissimilar to selective growing / breeding to enhance certain traits.
#1912664
Is it too much of an imaginative leap to think that at some time in the future the use of genetic editing and modification might be used to help empty our prisons ?

If we could define the genes responsible for criminal behaviour assuming that the two are connected, then by correcting, we move mankind into perhaps the prospect of a world wide society totally free from all criminality; what a prospect !
User avatar
By kanga
#1912666
Loco parentis wrote:Is it too much of an imaginative leap to think that at some time in the future the use of genetic editing and modification might be used to help empty our prisons ?

If we could define the genes responsible for criminal behaviour assuming that the two are connected, then by correcting, we move mankind into perhaps the prospect of a world wide society totally free from all criminality; what a prospect !


.. or a society frozen free of what was perceived as 'gene-related criminal behaviour' in the generation that achieved it; either so frozen for ever or until other criminal behaviours evolved (through mutation) or until other behavoiurs came to be seen as criminal. :?

Scary!
By TopCat
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1912675
Loco parentis wrote:Is it too much of an imaginative leap to think that at some time in the future the use of genetic editing and modification might be used to help empty our prisons ?

If we could define the genes responsible for criminal behaviour assuming that the two are connected, then by correcting, we move mankind into perhaps the prospect of a world wide society totally free from all criminality; what a prospect !

I don't think eugenics has gone down too well in the past.
kanga liked this
#1912691
I think that you are correct, there is tho' a major difference in desirable outcomes. Ridding humanity of criminality would change the world quite unmistakeably for the better. The impact on human behaviour would be simply colossal; almost impossible to catalogue.
#1912698
@Loco parentis IMO your argument is unbelievably naive.

Who would get to decide what would be a desirable outcome? Would the gene modification apply to everyone in the world? http://www.worldometers is showing the global human population approaching 8 billion, increasing by the second! How would that be managed? How would it be handled? How would you ensure that some nutcase 'wannabe ruler of the entire world' did not somehow contrive to evade the genetic modification.

And would the world really be better? Better in every way or just better in some ways?
What would the world be like today if your suggestion could have been implemented 100 years ago? 500years ago, 1000 years? Would you or I even exist? Would the human race have the same urge to innovate and explore? Would modern science have been developed? Modern medicine? Would we ever have been motivated to develop and progress past medieval levels of civilisation?

Who knows. I don't and neither do you.

[edited to correct my numerical mistake [usermention=1373]@Paul_Sengupta ]]
Last edited by rf3flyer on Thu May 26, 2022 4:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kanga liked this