Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hi Dyan
The risks that are posed by the introduction of species that have entirely new gene sequences - and the implications of that vertical transmission - are not yet understood by anyone Bart, certainly not by those who work in the sole field of biotechnology.
Ok I don't want to dismiss this because it is a very real concern for many folks.
If I can be forgiven for simplifying what you are saying is,
We don't know what we don't know.And from that you are saying it may be dangerous so we shouldn't do it.
There is no question that we don't know what we don't know and there is also stuff we know we don't know.
BUT I've said this before and I don't mean it to be insulting, but just because you don't know that we collaborate across many many disciplines and you don't know how genes interact in genomes doesn't mean that knowledge isn't out there.
In fact we know a hell of lot about what happens when you move genes around in genomes. It isn't the mystery that it is sometimes portrayed as. We also regularly combine groups of scientists from different disciplines.
But you are right in the sense that the unexpected does happen.
But that is a reason to test and study and monitor. But it isn't a reason to stop doing experiments and it isn't a reason to prevent crops that have passed those tests from becoming part of our agriculture.
There are very real benefits from this technology and to pretend that those benefits are not real is as bad as pretending there is no risk.
In the end it comes down to risk versus benefit. The sky has not fallen, many of the risks first stated have not proven to be real.
Also understand for the scientists doing the work it really is not a profit driven job, none of us want to harm the planet and we really believe based on all we know that GE will help.
-
Oh well since now we're talking Friday and Ben Affleck
not entirely safe for work
-
Heh I think it's just you and me here now JLM
Developing resistance is just a fact of life with any drug/pesticide/herbicide. The issues are the same with all. If you apply enough low level selection pressure you will see resistance.
That's one reason there is so much effort put into controlling how farmers manage BT crops - to avoid the development of resistance - and so far it's worked. The only Bt resistance seen thus far has been when BT was sprayed.
As for herbicide resistance yes it will develop eventually especially if folks misuse the herbicide. Not much more to say. Think of it as the same problem as antibiotic resistance and you'll see why scientists are keen to have farmers educated (conspiracy theorists would describe that as big business controlling the farmer).
-
Hi Peter
Good to hear you are still around and good to see you are standing up in the greens.
Oh JLM the link you gave refers to breeding of a herbacide resistant crop but it isn't roundup. Just a minor point but the herbicide is a bit nastier than roundup.
-
Sorry JLM I wasn't very clear. Yes it is possible to breed roundup resistant plants sometimes. After all the first gene to provide roundup resistance in the GE crops was a plant gene.
But it wouldn't be possible for all plants, some just would never develop a resistant enzyme. And even for plants where is was possible it would take a huge effort, which would be pretty silly given the ease of using the GE approach.
And more important than the waste of time and resources - the exercise of selective breeding and in all likelyhood deliberate mutation to get a "naturally bred" roundup resistant plant would result in massive changes to the genome. Essentially you'd replace a relatively precise process of adding one gene with a random shuffling and mutation of the genome.
Both approaches should leave you with a plant that should need lots of testing to make sure the changes had done no harm. But oddly only the more precise technology would require such testing.
-
I understand that alot of genetic research on plants is about enhanced natural selection (eugenics?). Once you isolate the gene you want, you can test for it and select your breeding stock. I also understood that more glysophate (roundup) resistant crops have been bred using these methods than using GM methods.
Yes sometimes it's easier/better to figure out how things work and then use directed breeding. But that's only a path to market because the better and simpler methods of engineering are blocked. Even with those blocks the vast majority of work will only see commercial viability as a transgenic.
No roundup resistance is almost all GE. It is plausible to breed resistance but not practical.
-
Hi Mikaere
Fair enough, we'll disagree on the viability of keeping the research in the lab and still making progress.
I think you probably misunderstood me on this though
However, Bart, your post about the awesomeness of GE being realised in the near future with respect to longer shelf times etc, is basically a pandering to the worst kind of Western consumerism.
Storage and shelf life aren't just western issues. it's not about having 5 month old tomatoes that look just fine in the Parnell fruit store.
And I agree entirely eating "in season" food is a great idea.
But a huge amount of the food we produce on the planet for humans is lost because it rots before it can get to the people who need to eat it. Yes the business argument for storage life and shelf life is usually around supermarkets. But talk to the scientists and they'll point to places where there are no cool stores. There silly ideas like storage life become matters of hunger.
If it can't be bred conventionally, then ditch it.
On this we just will disagree. This ain't a discussion we could resolve online. Over coffee we could talk about whether there is any difference between breeding and engineering but it is too long and involved. And I'm also conscious that it steps into ideology areas and I just don't like trying to changes someone's ideology.
-
Hi Paul
do you think that all universities and research institutions are as careful about their transgenic research
In New Zealand? Yeah the penalty in terms of lost funding is so great I don't know of anyone who would risk not being really careful.
That said there is an issue when the researchers concerned know with absolute certainty that what they are doing is risk free yet the regulations require them to treat the plants as if they were deadly organisms about to wipe the planet clean of all life.
It's really really hard to stay serious about safety sometimes because of the ridiculous nature of some of the rules. But as far as I know everyone really does try.
But with the best efforts possible issues still occur. There was a transgenic brocolli left in the field to flower that shouldn't have happened. Nobody in their right mind could consider that plant as "dangerous" but it still should have been pulled out, or more accurately the researchers still should have gone back to the field to make sure everything got pulled out on the first pass.
For me it's one of the basic problems with safety regulations. If you overregulate then you end up with situations where people have to handle safe things as if they were deadly - that inevitably leads to a bad attitude (that's human nature folks).
For the folks in NZ who do handle dangerous stuff I know they are very careful.
Worldwide? Who knows. My experience is that researchers are very aware of the real risks associated with their work and behave accordingly.
But when you are worrying about stuff it seems strange to worry about a group of people (researchers) who are universally trying to do good and who are all pretty smart about it. There are other groups of people I'd be much keener to have you worry about. It's perspective bro.
-
Ok, Ok, back to work to make a Frankenmato - well I would but I need to figure out the "benefit to New Zealand" and confirm "end user support" first but just as soon as I've done that... oh and filled out the safety impact form... oops I need to enter the project into SAP... and fill out the projected budget sheets for the next 5 years ... and sort out the development of human resources ... er what was I doing again...
-
Also, how do you commercialise a GM crop when a large chunk of our customers reject GM food?
You develop GM crops and GM food that offers significant advantages to the consumer.
At present most consumers don't notice the beneficial effects of GM crops. The benefits are either local, less use of harmful chemicals on the farm and around farming communities and more money to farmers. Or abstract, most consumers really don't think about topsoil when they buy food.
But over the next 10 years you will see foods with altered nutritional content, anthocyanins, vitamins etc or reduced harmful compounds, reduced allergens or toxins. Foods that are higher quality at the supermarket because of improved shelf life or improved storage. And foods that are cheaper.
All those will change some peoples minds. Especially when you remember the sky has not fallen because of GE corn or cotton or soybean or beet.
Some people will still buy organic.
Oh and expect to see a real change in EU policy as european companies start to want to market their own GE crops - that's a bit cynical.
And if all that doesn't convince you then just consider the tiny wee market that is the USA.
Although it's worth noting that they're probably wearing GM cotton.
shhh they don't realise the keep NZ GE-free T-shirt is made using GE cotton