Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Biotech Science Technology

Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice? 310

Digitus1337 writes "Wired has the scoop on a new type of rice that was just approved for production by a narrow vote. 'Ventria believes growing drugs that produce proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme in rice could be a cheaper way to develop drugs than building and maintaining expensive manufacturing plants... Opponents say growing the crops in open fields endangers organic and conventional crops, as well as human health...'" Update: 03/30 23:15 GMT by T : That should probably read "growing rice that produces proteins like lactoferrin and lysozyme."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Would You Like Drugs in Your Rice?

Comments Filter:
  • Naive? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lazuli42 ( 219080 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:06PM (#8719958) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm really naive, but why can't they grow this sort of crop indoors?

    I know that it would probably cost a lot more, but by growing it indoors you cut down on the possibility of cross contamination quite a bit. Also, if you're growing a crop to use it for pharmaceuticals wouldn't you want it to be grown in a bit more of a controlled environment?

  • Monsanto (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:07PM (#8719973) Homepage
    This is really an interesting question. For example Monsanto has sued farmers that are growing "their" soybeans, yet these farmers are actually growing from stocks of their own crop that has been contaminated by virtue of cross pollenization. Sort of the Genie out of the bottle thing.
  • Answer: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Peale ( 9155 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:19PM (#8720110) Homepage Journal
    Opponents say growing the crops in open fields endangers organic and conventional crops, as well as human health...

    Grow them in buildings, in a clean enviornment.
  • by Recovery1 ( 217499 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:21PM (#8720128) Homepage
    Doesn't anyone remember this Farmer?

    He was sued for GM Grain blowing into his field. So what's going to stop this rice from spreading? Because once it gets loose (and it will inevitably), it will mix with regular crops and before long there will be no way to separate it from regular rice.

  • by Iberian ( 533067 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:22PM (#8720141)
    Fact one, slashdot is populated mostly by geeks. Geeks are all for stem cell research, embryo harvesting, genetic research, etc. Oddly enough though altering the good ol' rice our mother earth has been producing is a travesty. Pesticides alone are enough to worry about (hey it is that or watching locus eat your years supply of food) not to mention pollution in the air and water. So who cares if our rice is genetically altered.
  • by Seoulstriker ( 748895 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:25PM (#8720167)
    I don't know about the specifics of what kinds of proteins they want to produce with rice, but I do know that it is much more efficient and safe to produce proteins with E. Coli.

    Although they're going for 'out of the lab production' with rice, the potential for problems is just too great. Unlike crops which are genetically modified to produce more of their own proteins or molecules that will be in their environment anyways (like Round-Up), the rice would be producing proteins/molecules/drugs which are completely foreign to the crop environment. What really irks me is that they are producing drugs which will possibly be leaked into the ground after degradation or harvesting. If there happen to be bacteria in the ground with some sort of drug resistance that can be transmitted to other bacteria by plasmids/recombination through contamination of the crops, there will be big problems.

    The use of E. Coli in the production of pharmaceuticals is much more efficient and can be grown in larger quantities using huge vats in research labs.

    On a much more practical note: how exactly are they going to extract the drugs from the rice? Would the rice be sold with the drugs inside and then cooked prior to ingestion? Or would they be steamed and the resulting water ingested?

    Bottom line: using ANY crop for pharmaceutical production is inefficient and dangerous and impractical. E. Coli can do what crops do but with much higher efficiency and practicality.
  • Re:Drug resistance? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iriles ( 35702 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @07:46PM (#8720374)
    Because they are naturally occuring the proteins take adavantage of evolution to keep up with the bacteria they protect against. The life cycle of a human mother is much longer than that of bacteria, so over dependance on the proteins may still cause problems. That's probably why we only get the protein as babies, when we need it most.

    With rice the life cycle is much shorter, however I'm not sure how GE'd rice would be able to directly take advantage of evolution... instead development will be directed and refined by the human growers. Maybe they can do a better job than nature.

  • by jratcliffe ( 208809 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @08:00PM (#8720498)
    "Also consider this, once the naturally genetic code is gone... there is no getting it back."

    The "organic" canola plants used to produce food products are the result of serious human genetic intervention. The first rapeseed plants capable of producing edible oils (previously, it had just been an industrial lubricant) were introduced in Canada in 1968 [siu.edu], and dubbed canola, a contraction of "Canada Oil."
  • Hmmm, Deja Vu (Score:2, Interesting)

    by arfonrg ( 81735 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @08:02PM (#8720527)
    Why do I think of Africanized bees when I read this?

    -----
    If you're not using Slackware, then, uh, you suck, or something. Yeah!
  • by danharan ( 714822 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @08:27PM (#8720724) Journal
    This is incredible. If babies are getting infections because they are not being breastfed, the solution of the corporations is to engineer rice for processing in some ersatz replacement which will have only a tiny portion of the benefits of breast milk.

    Breast feeding is FREE and far superior to the patented alternatives. Yet another company doing PR to convince doctors, nurses and parents that their product is safe will mean fewer breast-fed kids. Dumb security.

    Cross-pollination will destroy heirloom and open-pollinated varieties, which offer genetic diversity (resilience), and political freedom from large corporations that would control the food supply. The dream of many such companies? Making seeds that will not germinate unless you have their proprietary chemical (GRM- Genetic Rights Management!).

    The farmers that save seeds are food hackers. If this were software, people here would be up in arms. Where's the outrage? Companies like Monsanto are worse than SCO. All of them would destroy the public good to profiteer, including those with such noble sounding motives as keeping children healthy.

    Are we all so mesmerized by technology that we can't see the politics?
  • by Valdrax ( 32670 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @08:41PM (#8720821)
    Yeah. That's pretty cool, and that's exactly the sort of engineering that I support.

    What I don't support are:
    1) Crops that allow for (and demand) the heavy use of pesticides, herbicides, and other poisons that contaminate my food supply.
    2) Crops that grow drugs and other chemicals that don't need to be in the food supply and can contaminate neighbor's crops.
    3) Suing innocent farmers who got their crops contaminated and ruined by your whiz-bang patented crapola.

    We should be using GM to reduce the use of poisons and to increase the healthiness of food, and we should be doing it in such a way that doesn't impact other farmers. I'm perfectly comfortable with "pharming" so long as it can't cross-pollinate.
  • Re:Why food crops? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dr. Manhattan ( 29720 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (171rorecros)> on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @09:49PM (#8721267) Homepage
    How about kudzu, or grass, or dandelions, or whatever? How about plants that have proven to grow just fine without us tinkering with them for a few thousand years, but are also susceptible to some degree to weed-killers?

    How about we engineer into such plants a dependency on a particular substance that isn't common in the environment? Humans have lost the ability to make folic acid, bacteria haven't. Knock out a production pathway in the plants (destruction is easier than creation, no?) and you've created a dependency on a new 'vitamin'. Then if the GM stock spreads, it won't compete well against the natural variety.

    Or, make the new strains more susceptible to a given herbicide. They already make Roundup-resistant canola, make plants with a "glass jaw" for Roundup instead.

    Is there something I'm missing besides, "Oh, that might cut into our porift margin?"

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @10:05PM (#8721370)
    "extended" refers to some Asian countries that are looked down upon by the more traditionally well known Asian countries.

    We're definitely in Asia but there are elitists that would have a different opinion simply because we (the Philippines) don't have the deep culture and tradition that more prominent Asian countries have.
  • by awarlaw ( 102125 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @10:46PM (#8721642)
    I thought I would give you guys a few links for the paraniod. I've been researching aspartame and other man-made additives/GMO foods for a possible link to obesity and most recently, the rise in miscarriages.

    http://home.intekom.com/tm_info/index.html
    http ://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/3916.html
    http://w ww.ogmdangers.org/docs/geDebate1.htm

    Good Luck trying to avoid them!
  • Re:Pharmin Phool (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MajorDick ( 735308 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @10:59PM (#8721716)
    You kidding me ? I just spent 2 days getting the old IH (International Harvester for the uninformed) going right, new starter solenoid, new points, coil condensor, ground the valves and changed the trans fluid, so I could disc, till and plow the fields (20 acres) for planting. I grew up on a tractor in the summer and fall and to be honest its the most peacefull place I know. Hell when my kids get old enough Ill be fighting them so I can still mow the lawn.

    Im being as serious as a heart attack about this, I love riding on the old IH (the same one I grew up riding with my grandad) and man oh man what a peacefull feeling. As long as youre not drunk ....I did that once took me 2 weeks to fix the tractor after that (even had the police out:)
  • Re:GM products (Score:2, Interesting)

    by adug ( 228162 ) on Tuesday March 30, 2004 @11:18PM (#8721822) Homepage
    You reduce the effectiveness of some of your valid points by resorting to the "idiot card." If your post is erudite enough to prove the folly of my post you would prove me to be an idiot without even having to say so. That's what a *really* intelligent person does.

    First off, I was born and raised in rural Pennsylvania. I have actually worked on farms. My family was involved in farming. My uncle still is. My sister still is. My sister has farmed in PA, NC and WY. My whole family is very conservative, unlike me.
    My sister majored in Agriculture at Penn State, she knows 100 times what I know about farming. She tells me that you are wrong, it's not just Greenpeace as you state, but many university studies have also concluded that mineral loss in foods due to soil depletion, and the biggie, acid rain, is very real.

    The point is that myself, "the Greenpeace idiot" *and* these very conservative people, who, unlike you, are quite knowledgeable about farming *and* live the life, are concerned with genetically modified crops.

    Even a quick Google search will turn up lots of studies that take my position, and, in fairness, a lot of studies that completely take your position. This is another reason why these things are better handled as discussions rather than calling someone an idiot.

    Just like RTFA, you should RTFC. I am not against, for instance, taking one strain of corn and creating a hybrid with another strain of corn, I am against adding chemicals and drugs unnecessarily.

    Some people have pointed out, if you don't like it, don't eat it. That's just the point. Last year here in Oregon, there was a measure proposed mandate the labeling of GM foods. Not a ban, or a restriction in anyway, mind you; people just wanted the food labeled so they would have a choice. This measure was crushed by a large advertising campaign from big corporations.

    Please tell me, why can't I have a label to decide? There is a label that says organic. If you don't want to eat it, you don't have to. I just want a label that says GM so that I don't have to eat it.

    You are right organic farming is expensive. I cannot afford all of my groceries to be organic. I have to pick and choose, I am not a zealot.

    Thes large farming conglomerates and the chemical companies that prop them up want to modify the food and then obfuscate the fact so that you don't know, that's the biggest problem. They want to *hide* it. So that's where the slippery slope comes into play. Some stuff that is added may be benign, but what else won't we know about?

    Unfortunately, there are no companies or organizations (with any authority) who, in are ethically suitable to overseeing such things.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...