Drug Making Genes Added To Corn Jump To Soya 510
Anonymous Cowdog writes "Google News turned up a scary item today: Apparently, genetically altered corn, designed not to repel pests or withstand bad weather, but rather to grow pharmecuticals (for diabetes and diarrhea) has been accidentally mixed with soy plants in the field, resulting in 500,000 bushels of contaminated soybeans being quarantined by the US FDA. Ooops. Here's the story, and here's another story about the same case. The company who brought us this nice event is called ProdiGene. Looks like they're also working on an edible AIDS vaccine (kinda makes sense, eat Tofu, enjoy free love!) Now, I was thinking, will our government protect us from doom-by-hand-me-down-genes? and on a hunch (honest!) I did this google search for keywords ProdiGene and "george w bush". Result? A not so reassuring article."
GM Food, Be Wary (Score:5, Interesting)
Misleading headline (Score:5, Interesting)
AFAIK, genes don't have the ability to do an inter-species jump like that...
How is it possible? (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, I speak as a complete idjit when it comes to all things biological...
The sad truth about GM foods... (Score:2, Interesting)
Until then, pass that Cap'n Crunch/flu vaccine this way.
Amber mutations (Score:5, Interesting)
It was originally used with lab and sealed-vat based organisms to protect against accidental releases, but it could easilly be applied to farm based plants. Since the kind of farming that uses genetically modified organisms also tends to use a significant quantity of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers it would be simple to add one more non-toxic chemical to the mix, without which the plants would simply die (or fail to reproduce). You could then deal with any problems by withdrawing the supplement, and any escapees would quickly die. There would still be a slight risk of genetic 'contamination' of nearby crops, but it would be much lower than at present.
If I were a cynical type I would suspect that biotechnology companies are counting on accidental contamination to make it impossible to ever go back to a 'GMO free' state, thus safeguarding their business. Another (cynical) alternative is that to build in a safeguard is tantamount to admitting that you *need* a safeguard, which would adversly affect their sales.
Sometimes it's hard not to be a cynic.
No biological equivalent to chroot (Score:4, Interesting)
Gene hacking is not the same as the gradual breeding proceses that have gone on for millenia. In the latter, each step is relatively stable, in the former, large potentially disruptive leaps can be made more or less overnight. Unfortunately, unlike with computers you don't have the comfort of chroot and/or virtual machines.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How is it possible? (Score:0, Interesting)
Which is exactly why we need to not fscking grow them out in the big wide world.
GM plants should be grown only in sealed greenhouses, at least for the first few decades until we thouroughly understand them. Anything less is criminal negligence with the ecosystem.
ever ehard of cross polinisation ? (Score:4, Interesting)
And when such SLOPYNESS comes to light, I can certainly give reason to people asking for more study of impact.
Re:Caution... (Score:5, Interesting)
Just do a google search on "Zimbabwe Food"
http://www.africaonline.com/site/Articles/1,3,5
http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefres
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20020605-23
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/21594
From the first URL.
"The Zimbabwe government has told some non-governmental organisations involved in food distribution to stop operations. Aid workers have been told they could be arrested if they continue to distribute food without being registered with the government."
Big deal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Misleading headline (Score:2, Interesting)
1. Most plants have a symbiotic relationship with certain fungi - this is called mychorriza. This often means that seperate plants can exchange fluids wit their neighbors, among other things; for all we know this is not limited to the same species.
2. Many plants hybridize readily with other species; mostly fairly close relatives, but not always.
3. Some - perhaps all - bacteria can incorporate genetic material from other species. One could imagine a bacterium take genes from a plant or animal host and eventually passing it on to - who knows?
Finally - we don't know all there is to know about what micro organisms can and do. In fact, we know next to nothing about this. The way that some are willing to play with these things - and with the life and health of the entire planet's population (inluding you and I and our children) - is totally incomprehensible.
Re:Increasing Problem (Score:2, Interesting)
They do not ... (breathe in, exhale, repeat) (Score:5, Interesting)
The soybeans did not acquire genetic material from the corn.
It is my (possibly flawed) understanding that such a transfer might, might, conceivably (we're talking one in several million odds or so) happen with a viral vector, but such a virus would be considerably more likely to glom onto a completely different corn gene and transpose it. Even if the modified gene did jump, the virus carying the gene would have to infect one of the soybean's sex cells to be present in the end food product, or to be passed on.
GM food, get over it (Score:5, Interesting)
It's just a technology, like any other. Look, we didn't know CFCs would eat away the ozone layer until it started to happen. Then, we stopped making so many CFCs, and the problem will eventually go away. Somehow the Earth has survived. We learned from our mistake.
Or look at the killer bees. That was a direct result of human meddling that got out of control. It's a terrible thing, but really, how does the actual harm caused by killer bees compare to the harm that would be inflicted by stopping all research that could possibly have negative consequences? How many similar experiments have had no negative repercussions at all?
Like any research, the consequences should be foreseen to the degree possible, and all sensible precautions should be taken. If an experiment is too risky, it should be avoided, at least until the risks can be mitigated. Yet after all this, we will still make mistakes. I say, get over it.
Re:No biological equivalent to chroot (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not as though on Monday a scientist modifies a gene and on Friday it's being sold in 100,000 grocery stores.
There is a huge process of making sure there aren't any adverse changes to the plant, that you haven't accidentally made a super corn laced with cyanide...
If you think that scientists are just randomly changing genes in foods intended to be sold, you've lost your grip on reality. Experimentation happens, but no sane food/drug company would risk the impact of such a level of carelessness/unconcern.
Maroon carrots and golden rice made their way into the market - I didn't hear much screaming about genetically altered food then.
Why not put dangerous genes in non-food crops? (Score:1, Interesting)
Why not roses or birch trees or poison ivy? Heck, why not kudzu, which we already know will grow just fine without much human intervention? I mean, if we grant that sticking funky genes in plants is a good idea, and we further grant that growing them anywhere but in sealed greenhouses is acceptable, why put them in crops where gene transfer is potentially catastrophic? Imagine if the price of wheat suddenly tripled or quintupled because huge swaths of crops had been contaminated by pollen that made them produce tumor necrosis factor?
Re:Article doesn't mention gene jumping (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody eats normal corn these days. The original corn plant actually looked a lot like wheat. Tiny kernels. No supersweet peaches and cream. Corn has been bred and tweaked for centuries to give the product we describe in so cavalier a manner as 'corn'.
Fear and loathing of GMOs (Score:5, Interesting)
Wake up. Most plants and animals associated with agriculture are
Jeffrey Bates - Pay Attention! (Score:5, Interesting)
If any of the editors are reading this thread, the headline needs to be corrected!
BTW, I reread the summary a few times, and it seems that the person who submitted the story got it right. The poster makes no mention of any sort of horizontal gene transfer between the corn and soy, but only claims the crops were "accidentally mixed", which is what happened. It's Hemos who fscked this one up.
Re:why is george bush a badguy in this? (Score:2, Interesting)
the "Working Group on Food Security". Nice
to know that we have independent oversight for
the food supply. I guess there just weren't any
other qualified applicants.
Re:Why not put dangerous genes in non-food crops? (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason that so many GMO efforts focus on food crops is that many of these crops have well understood genetics and are extremely productive in converting sunlight to biomass.
Greenhouses could be used, but the extreme expense could invalidate one of the main purposes of complex molecule production in plants: cost.
TNF in your gut would be digested into small, biologically inactive peptides. Nutritious and delicious!
Re:Amber mutations (Score:3, Interesting)
On your cynical comment, you're more correct than you think. I believe the companies _want_ their patented genes to spread, so they can extort money out of people contaminated by their crops. There was a story a year or so ago about a farmer in Western Canada who had GM varieties growing on his farm (that he did not buy from the seed company). He argued that it must have blown off a passing seed truck, or something, but the court ordered him to destroy his entire crop (since it had the _unlicensed_ patented seeds mixed in. THAT is where the problem lies IMHO.
I work in the ag industry (data analysis), so we hear all about this stuff. The GM food itself isn't the problem, it's the associated patents, etc. that are the problem.
Re:No undo's here (Score:3, Interesting)
Other than the potential for random mutation (a major difference, granted) genetic engineering is much like programming. Perhaps it should be required to engineer in fail-safes, if possible. In other words, a defect in the resulting organism that makes it easy to exterminate, perhaps by an otherwise non-toxic chemical. Ideally, sterility after two or three generations would also be available for test organisms.
This is too serious to be tinkering with. Just because we can do it, it doesn't mean we should.
I'd agree that it sounds as if there is far too much of this type of testing going on in uncontrolled circumstances.
Corn could be grown quite safely under appropriate biohazard precautions (filtered air, etc.). In my opinion, that is what should be used for pharmaceutical corn and other such things.
Remember the parable of the killer bees [stingshield.com].
Finally, on the subject of GWB, let's not stretch this to the breaking point...that was a while back and I'm sure ProdiGene had as good qualifications as any on paper in early 2001. ProdiGene will receive plenty of censure and punishment over this issue, and Bush shouldn't be held accountable unless there is far more of a smoking gun than we've seen so far.
Re:Typical FUD (Score:2, Interesting)
Never read the Bush link, eh? Well here's a quote from the article: " Anthony G. Laos, president and chief executive of ProdiGene, Inc. was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as a member of the Board for International Food and Agriculture Development (BIFAD). Mr. Laos will serve a four-year term, expiring on July 28, 2005.".
This is not about conspiracys (for crying out loud), this is about the nasty GW habit of appointing the wrong people for the wrong jobs (Admiral John M. Poindexter, anyone?). Would we now expect to see the BIFAD to take actions against ProdiGene? Well, it would suprise me.
No, agribusiness *wanted to* control GMOs (Score:2, Interesting)
Anthony Laos (Score:2, Interesting)
Now why would he want to serve on such a board? To help consumers understand the issues? For the opportunity to push his company's products more widely into a market reluctant to embrace GM foods? For the opportunity to advise on the kinds of safeguards and constraints that should be imposed on companies developing such products?
Is it Bush-bashing or leftist psychobabble to raise such questions?
Tactics: Scare-mongering (Score:4, Interesting)
Here we have one crop, untested and whose long-term effects have never been fully studied, growing accidentially side-by-side with seed currently undergoing testing of the crop's potential long term effects.
It's these kinds of tactics that hide the weak underpinnings of the anti-GM rabble-rousing, which is not to be confused with informed debate. Posting this story in this fashion is as ethically valid as fighting corporatism by smashing a row of small shops. Such attempts to raise people's awareness of the problems undermines the very attempt to educate by clouding the issue with baseless accusations.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree that the genes are not jumping from corn to soybeans.
That genes can do inter-species jumps is proven. This is common among some bacteria and viruses-- check out the swapping that is constantly going on between avian, swine, and human influenza species. Look at the problems with MRSA-- it isn't just that some staph aureus strains have become methycillin resistant; the greater problem is that this resistance is being transmitted across bacterial species to other pathogens. There is no good reason to suppose that eukaryotes (plants and animals) have not retained this ability (to incorporate new genetic material from ingested or invasive organisms) to some degree.
So while a jump from corn to soybean is highly unlikely, a jump from corn to smut or ergot or root blight cannot be ruled out. The possibility of transfer from such a disease to another crop is therefore present. Further, if the post-harvest residue is being composted in an environmentally friendly way, the chance for genetic transfer from the decaying corn plants into some resident of the complex ecosystem of the compost heap is very much present.
The concept of "species" is a very useful taxonomic mental construct. But when engineering, we've got to think in terms of system functions and not be limited to the bounaries of our classification schemes.
Here's the sound bite:
It is silly to think that new genes are introduced only into a species when they are put out in the field. Once they are moved out of the laboratory, new genes are introduced into an ecosystem.
Re:Doesn't sound so bad to me. (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps because he's the CEO of a company that has a shitload to gain by affecting policy change. Ever heard of conflict of interest?
Who the hell else is going to do it?
How about a scientist, a public policy expert, an impartial analyst.
If your car were broken down, would you take it to a mechanic or a car salesman?
Re:ever ehard of cross polinisation ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it consistent about where on the plant it produces the different fruit? I suppose it could be some sort of weird chimaera... Fruit development is effected by all kinds of things, though... The sort of square, elongated look of certain apple varieties is a response to cold night temperatures (if I remember...could be wrong on this), and since most of our apples in this country come from places like Washington or New York, that's what we're used to...but if you grow the same thing in the south (and you can get it to grow...the already disease prone apples are a pain in the ass in the warm, humid south) the apples are more like normal, round apples. Odd stuff.
Citrus plants are all quite happily cross-fertile (assuming you can get ploidy issues straightened out), so who knows what the genetic backround it is...
Re:How does cross-pollenation work? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ever ehard of cross polinisation ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, A+ to those who pointed out that a corn-soybean crossbreed would be (a) sterile and (b) very difficult to grow/unlikely to occur.
Re:Don't use an opinion as proof. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:ever ehard of cross polinisation ? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Their common ancestor had this piece of DNA. This is not improbable, but we are talking about pieces of DNA that aren't expressed (that's what introns are), so there is little or no evolutionary pressure on them, so one must explain why the closer relatives dumped them.
2. They same piece of DNA evolved independently in both species. Not very probable, see 1 - no pressure on introns, so convergence not very probable.
3. Horizontal gene transfer occured.
4. The phylogenetical tree is wrong. Well, it seems that however we arrange the tree, some introns do stick out.
Of course, this is not an established scientific proof, but it seems that scientists find more and more of evidence supporting point 3. By the way, crossbreeding is not the only possibility of HGT - viruses are capable of transferring genetic material (at least their own) between organisms, so they may be responsible for HGT. Again, google for 'introns' 'horizontal gene transfer'.
PS. Feel free to point out oversimplifications in the above post.
Nobody eats millet? (Score:2, Interesting)
Another "nobody eats that stuff" story I remember had to do with the arsenic level in the Wailoa river in Hilo, Hawaii ("the shortest river in the USA"). Techs found high levels of arsenic in the intestines of a certain kind of fish, but disregarded it because "nobody eats fish guts". But guess what? Filipinos call it "baloong".
"Twinkies are considered a delicacy in my country"