|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The risks aren't because the genes are spliced. They are because of a very mundane cause: evolution of immunity among the pests. This is relevant regardless of whether the Bt is provided through genetics or being sprayed on. For example, a risk from the new technology is that we have to control the modified organism's life cycle and progeny whereas the traditional risk is associated only with how often the Bt protein is manually applied. We don't want such a crop gene to become successful such that it is expressed outside the confines of specific fields of crops during specific seasons. It's a lot easier to know that the Bt protein is being applied only when it is done so manually.
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
McGavin posted:Acrylamide, so technically it's an IARC Group 2A carcinogen (probable human carcinogen). It's in foods you probably shouldn't be eating anyways such as fried potatoes, but also bread and coffee. You want to take away my dark roast coffee? *rips off shirt* Come at me
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Fly posted:You are right. I considered including a post about that since both uses of Bt proteins have risks of producing resistance. I guess it's more a difference in the way the risks require different farming behaviors. The risks associated with genetically modified Bt Corn are the same as they would be with a hypothetical Bt Corn that was produced via a lengthy artificial breeding project*. That's an essential argument. The risks that you're describing have nothing to do with the choice of technique (genetic modification, mutagenesis, artificial or natural selection, etc). * actually the risks are much less for the genetically modified Bt Corn
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
McGavin posted:I work at a company that has a technology that reduces the formation of a cancer causing chemical in certain foods. We built a self-cloned (i.e. it contains no DNA from other organisms, just duplicate DNA from the same organism) GMO that worked great in a few months, but food manufacturers wouldn't even consider using it because it was a GMO (even though it didn't contain any DNA from other organisms). Instead we had to spend the last 3 years bombarding it with mutagens and radiation to get it to undergo the same changes "naturally" through adaptive evolution and selective breeding. This process added millions of dollars to the development cost and took approximately 10 times longer, during which food manufacturers continued to make and sell food containing this carcinogen. Additionally, while the GMO only added one specific gene, many other point mutations in other genes were added during mutagenesis. This is an example of how a GMO could be a cheap and effective solution to a problem, but wasn't because of anti-GMO hysteria, and of how adaptive evolution and selective breeding are expensive, imprecise, and slow ways of attaining the same results, especially compared to new DNA editing technologies such as CRISPR. Can you say what this product is? Is it wheat, or are you coming up with varieties of multiple crops?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
Fly posted:For example, a risk from the new technology is that we have to control the modified organism's life cycle and progeny... We don't want such a crop gene to become successful such that it is expressed outside the confines of specific fields of crops during specific seasons. We have the ability to do this with terminator technology, but that's one of the GMO technologies that people have a specifically intense negative reaction towards. People don't like the idea of taking away a farmer's ability to save seeds, despite the fact that hardly any industrial farmers save seeds in the first place since many recent crop varieties are hybrids that rely on heterosis (hybrid vigour) to increase yields and their direct progeny would have terrible yields compared to the parents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:51
|
|
McGavin posted:Acrylamide, so technically it's an IARC Group 2A carcinogen (probable human carcinogen). It's in foods you probably shouldn't be eating anyways such as fried potatoes, but also bread and coffee. Enh, I don't smoke or drink coffee, so I'm fine. 2A's not very threatening imo anyways, until you get truly absurd exposure patterns (smoking).
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The risks associated with genetically modified Bt Corn are the same as they would be with a hypothetical Bt Corn that was produced via a lengthy artificial breeding project*. That's an essential argument. The risks that you're describing have nothing to do with the choice of technique (genetic modification, mutagenesis, artificial or natural selection, etc).
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
McGavin posted:We have the ability to do this with terminator technology, but that's one of the GMO technologies that people have a specifically intense negative reaction towards. People don't like the idea of taking away a farmer's ability to save seeds, despite the fact that hardly any industrial farmers save seeds in the first place since many recent crop varieties are hybrids that rely on heterosis (hybrid vigour) to increase yields and their direct progeny would have terrible yields compared to the parents. Many or most crops may rely on hybrids, and so long as such technologies were limited to those, it might be an interesting consideration, but as far as I know, not all crops use hybrid seeds. Fly fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
^^^ Terminator genes are naturally self-limiting in that they're terminator genesFly posted:I agree completely, and I think if someone were to undertake the effort, this argument would be applicable, but no one is (as far as I know), so I think it's not. Why? I still don't understand your reasoning for this stance. Why does it matter that no one has bothered to spend the time and money to make Bt Corn without genetic modification? We know that it's possible to arrive at Bt Corn with traditional techniques, so why does it matter whether someone has actually wasted the time and money to do it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:^^^ Terminator genes are naturally self-limiting in that they're terminator genes Hypothetical situations that have a vanishingly small chance of realization simply don't matter if they're never going to affect reality. edit: And if we do change our minds and decide to realize such hypothetical situations, I think it would be wise to evaluate their risks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Fly posted:I am making a sad face. I am a bit reluctant to say because the fact that we have a GMO product (even though it is not being used in any way) could hurt the adoption of our non-GMO product simply by association. We have a separate unrelated technology that was created 100% through selective breeding and we still have difficulty convincing people, who honestly should know better, that it's non-GMO. Fly posted:It seems like terminator genes, if they were to become "successful" at escaping would also be a huge problem, though it also seems like they would be self-limiting. I'm not sure if that's a cop-out like the ending of The Andromeda Strain or not. Is there a way to ensure that a gene is recessive? The whole thing about terminator technology is that it makes it impossible to produce offspring, so even if it did somehow manage to escape (ignoring the statistical unlikeliness of this happening in the first place) anything carrying it would only last for one generation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Fly posted:The point I hope to make is that the risks for some types of GMO, such as gene splicing, can be different from the risks of traditional selective breeding. I'm arguing from a point of practicality, since I think that's all that really matters as far as decision-making is concerned. Okay, but in this thread you also have forums poster McGavin, who works for a place where they've had to reproduce a GMO using non-GMO techniques. The same thing hasn't been done for Bt Corn, but it could, and that's all that should matter. It just seems like you're trying to claim that GMOs are riskier because they're GMOs, and that argument doesn't make any sense. Is that what you're saying?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Okay, but in this thread you also have forums poster McGavin, who works for a place where they've had to reproduce a GMO using non-GMO techniques. The same thing hasn't been done for Bt Corn, but it could, and that's all that should matter. edit: I think making such an equivalence argument based on things that won't happen is fodder for anti-GMO claims. And I hope someone will correct me if it's actually feasible, not possible but actually feasible, to develop Bt corn through traditional methods. Fly fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Fly posted:That's not what I'm trying to claim. I'm only arguing that the specific things that are likely to result have a different risk profile. What, specifically, is different? If I make Bt Corn in a lab with genetic modification and someone else makes Bt Corn in a lab with artificial selection, what's different about their risk profiles? Personally I feel like their risk profiles are definitely different, but in a way that's favorable for genetic modification. You seem to feel the opposite, and I'm trying to understand why quote:And I hope someone will correct me if it's actually feasible, not possible but actually feasible, to develop Bt corn through traditional methods. It is totally feasible, it'd just be time-consuming and probably not cost-effective
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:What, specifically, is different? If I make Bt Corn in a lab with genetic modification and someone else makes Bt Corn in a lab with artificial selection, what's different about their risk profiles? quote:Personally I feel like their risk profiles are definitely different, but in a way that's favorable for genetic modification. You seem to feel the opposite, and I'm trying to understand why quote:It is totally feasible, it'd just be time-consuming and probably not cost-effective
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Maybe it's just that I'm a dumb physicist, but I still haven't understood what the added risk is in transgenics vs. mutagenesis (fast or slow) + selective breeding. The latter creates more genetic changes that are not as controlled as the former. If anything it seems to me that the former is less risky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Fly posted:I'm only arguing that the specific things that are likely to result have a different risk profile. Well, okay, fair enough. Genetic modification risk profile: things that result from these particular gene edits. Normal previous-technology risk profile: things that result from random mutation and hopefully will point in the direction we want them to. Winner: obviously the non-genemod technology, because it's clearly better to roll the dice with natural mutation and cross your fingers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Fly posted:The difference is that you won't. But you could. I think that is what is important here when it comes to assigning risk to genetic modification as a technique. The argument is that you shouldn't assign risk based on technique used, you should assign risk based on outcome. quote:I'm not saying they're not favorable to GMOs, but I'm also not saying that the secondary risks are favorable. They do have to be managed though. I think you're just being pedantic now. How is the risk to human health or environment effected by a GMO crop's profitability?
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Maybe it's just that I'm a dumb physicist, but I still haven't understood what the added risk is in transgenics vs. mutagenesis (fast or slow) + selective breeding. The latter creates more genetic changes that are not as controlled as the former. If anything it seems to me that the former is less risky. It's because there's none. As a matter of fact transgenics make it much easier for the changes to be tested, for safety concerns.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
I don't necessarily agree with Fly, but I think the point he is trying to make is that traditional selection vs gene splicing is like conventional explosives vs nuclear weapons. You could assemble a pile of 10,000 tonnes of TNT and the effect would be the same as a nuke, but realistically there are so many issues with doing it the 'conventional' way that it's unlikely to ever be done. Gene splicing doesn't necessarily introduce risks that don't already exist with traditional methods, it just makes it so much easier to do certain things that the chances of triggering one of those risks becomes higher by sheer force of probability.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
jabby posted:I don't necessarily agree with Fly, but I think the point he is trying to make is that traditional selection vs gene splicing is like conventional explosives vs nuclear weapons. You could assemble a pile of 10,000 tonnes of TNT and the effect would be the same as a nuke, but realistically there are so many issues with doing it the 'conventional' way that it's unlikely to ever be done. Gene splicing doesn't necessarily introduce risks that don't already exist with traditional methods, it just makes it so much easier to do certain things that the chances of triggering one of those risks becomes higher by sheer force of probability. But the risks are simultaneously lowered since you know what you put in there, what it should be doing, and that if some other bad thing happens while you're developing the particular strain, that this is because of how the gene interacted. Honestly his thing only makes sense if GMOs were done by the modification being done on Monday, and batches of seeds sent out completely untested on that Tuesday, and then waiting around to see if anyone got sick after it grows and is harvested.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But the risks are simultaneously lowered since you know what you put in there, what it should be doing, and that if some other bad thing happens while you're developing the particular strain, that this is because of how the gene interacted. You don't understand. GMO's are developed by corporations for profit! Unlike heirloom organic seeds which are developed by rugged individuals and distributed at cost.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
jabby posted:I don't necessarily agree with Fly, but I think the point he is trying to make is that traditional selection vs gene splicing is like conventional explosives vs nuclear weapons. You could assemble a pile of 10,000 tonnes of TNT and the effect would be the same as a nuke, but realistically there are so many issues with doing it the 'conventional' way that it's unlikely to ever be done. Gene splicing doesn't necessarily introduce risks that don't already exist with traditional methods, it just makes it so much easier to do certain things that the chances of triggering one of those risks becomes higher by sheer force of probability. But that is riding on the idea that a GMO crop carries additional risk by the nature of genetic modification, when in reality it does not. It's a false dichotomy. The risk comes in the unexpected side effects that come from genetic changes that occur regardless of whether those changes are natural, artificial, or caused by direct modification; those risks are present regardless of technique and are greater with traditional techniques QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
He's entirely talking about indirect & 2nd order effects of having a more efficient way to produce desired phenotypes that would be extremely hard & resource intensive to get to in non-gene splicing ways. That's why I responded: Etalommi posted:That's an argument against any kind of technological process that increases efficiency. It discounts all of the costs and risks of the status quo. which in this case comprises of changing climates and diseases like the one that threatened the papaya wiping out a crop we like, carcinogens already present in the food we eat (excellent example, btw. Thanks!) and 2nd or 3rd order effects from the resources we currently use to grow them. The reason why we're all confused is he keeps conflating diversity of protein expression with the range of desirable phenotypes that are achievable in a timeframe. Fly posted:Bingo! I'm not discounting the costs and risks of the status quo though. I'm saying that those are familiar costs and risks. The new technology shifts the focus to different costs and risks. Edit: Fly, sorry I'm talking about you rather than to you, just trying to get everyone else into the same discussion. Tom Clancy is Dead fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:But that is riding on the idea that a GMO crop carries additional risk by the nature of genetic modification, when in reality it does not. It's a false dichotomy. The risk comes in the unexpected side effects that come from genetic changes that occur regardless of whether those changes are natural, artificial, or caused by direct modification; those risks are present regardless of technique and are greater with traditional techniques No, it's not the nature of the modification. It's the types of feasible modification that may carry different risks. The nature of the modification only affects its feasibility, and unfeasible modifications simply won't be attempted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Apparently this is new? 25 August 2015 - http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/70 (Robin Mesnage, Matthew Arno, Manuela Costanzo, Manuela Malatesta, Gilles-Eric Séralini and Michael N. Antoniou)
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
Fly posted:No, it's not the nature of the modification. It's the types of feasible modification that may carry different risks. The nature of the modification only affects its feasibility, and unfeasible modifications simply won't be attempted. I'm not sure why this matters
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Apparently this is new? Seralini? Nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:46
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Apparently this is new? It's also loving Séralini and as such tainted to the point of irrelevancy. Go away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Seralini? Nothing to see here. Oh well! edit- Caconym posted:It's also loving Séralini and as such tainted to the point of irrelevancy. Go away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I posted the names specifically so that that no one could rear end in a top hat-up and act like it was missed. The study is worthless. Every study Seralini involves himself in has been found via peer review to be utter poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Apparently this is new? Another Seralini study using Sprague-Dawley rats published in a journal whose policy on peer review is basically "We trust that you aren't lying, so we won't bother to check your results.*" Nope, this definitely doesn't raise any red flags. Nobel prizes all around!  *The actual quote from the editor: "When we read a paper we invest its author with an extraordinary amount of confidence: that the citations say what the author alleges they say (although we can check this, few people check every reference; we take it on trust); that the methods were conducted as described; that the results accurately reflected what was actually found, etc."
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
Using Sprague-Dawley rats isn't an issue if they use enough. Which they haven't in the past.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Using Sprague-Dawley rats isn't an issue if they use enough. Which they haven't in the past. And attribute the standard high cancer rate common to sprague-dawley rats to glyophosphate instead of genetics....
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:20
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Using Sprague-Dawley rats isn't an issue if they use enough. Which they haven't in the past. He could be using 10.000 rats by now and still not be trusted to not straight up lie about the results.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And attribute the standard high cancer rate common to sprague-dawley rats to glyophosphate instead of genetics.... The high incidence makes it hard to detect an effect. I don't know how many you'd need but I think for a two year study it would make more sense and be more ethical to choose a strain with lower incidence so that they can use lower numbers and still get meaningful data. But he's not actually interested in getting meaningful data, or he would have listened to the criticisms of his previous experiments and adjusted his designs by now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Caconym posted:He could be using 10.000 rats by now and still not be trusted to not straight up lie about the results. I know, I'm just saying don't blame the rats, it's not their fault 
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 06:26
|
|
Thank you, thread, for teaching me about Seralini- I am looking into using his work (and particularly its ongoing publication  ) in my dissertation on scientific miscommunication....I think that journal has a higher impact factor than any in my field... 
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 07:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Thank you, thread, for teaching me about Seralini- I am looking into using his work (and particularly its ongoing publication edit - thats not the one I thought it was, but I cant find the other one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Fly posted:This has little to do with traditional means being different from gene-splicing. You also suggested that radiation mutagenesis followed by selection would have different risk patterns than "normal" unnatural selection. It does not. Fly posted:No, it's not the nature of the modification. It's the types of feasible modification that may carry different risks. The nature of the modification only affects its feasibility, and unfeasible modifications simply won't be attempted. It doesn't really matter, though. Resistant strains of crops (e.g. wheat vs wheat rust) are created via conventional breeding and have been for a long time. Farmers plant these crops all over the place, and face no restrictions regarding a minimum proportion of non-resistant wheat since no OMG GMO hysteria exists for conventionally-bred crops. Resistant wheat lines become useless in a few years as newly resistant wheat rust spreads. Go back to step 1. Since you're all hung-up about differences in practical application, please explain how this is meaningfully different from insects becoming bt resistant. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Aug 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 08:43
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!