Several posts above attempt to equate genetic modification with ordinary breeding and selection efforts.
That attempt is fundamentally in error, and quite dangerous as an intuitive basis for evaluation.
I presume “several posts” refers at least in part to a number of mine. Just to be clear I am not looking to equate all matters of GM with conventional breeding. Doing such while acknowledging certain caveats provides some interesting perspectives and is not fundamentally erroneous and certainly not dangerous.
Several of the techniques used in genetic modification are quite new, not seen on this planet before, and produce results (kinds of genetic combination) essentially never found in nature, with which we have no experience.
When 2 individuals of any species breed together, they produce a unique genetic combination never seem before, never found in nature, of which we have no experience. To simply say novel genetic combinations are dangerous based on novelty alone is an extreme stance. Keep in mind that conventional breeding also creates “kinds of new genetic combination”. GM or conventional breeding simply rearrange the order of the DNA bases, adenine, cytosine, guanine, thymine. A new gene inserted alters the arrangement of the genome by altering these 4 bases. The only new is the order of these at a molecular level. If you are applying some other kind of “new” outside of this, then I am not clear what you’re getting at. If you are concerned with unforeseen negative effects brought out by the genetic change (in theory they can happen, an arbitrary example. altered expression of certain secondary metabolites that could damage health), then ironically you should be even more concerned with conventional breeding where two entire genomes are “mashed together” resulting in a complete new “unique” genome. Whereas with GM, with one gene altered, the change in the genome (arrangement of the four bases) is clearly known and any affects should be easier to track. We can’t actually predict the outcome of conventional breeding trials as accurately as GM, this is one of the great advantages of GM in the first place.
These combinations are then reproductive and self-spreading, active in expressing themselves in surprising ways, and in general new and unknown.
No more general and unknown then any new rearrangement of genetic material, as already discussed above. I am not sure what you mean by “reproductive and self spreading” other than the fact that any inserted gene into an actual breeding population has the potential to become part of the genetic pool on a permanent basis. Many agricultural crops don’t breed at all, or have the chance due to harvesting practices. But there are cases to the contrary. There are accounts of crops breeding with close wild relatives. Often with little success as wild relatives proved unsurprisingly (considering the types of selection pressures over the decades via conventional breeding) better adapted to the wild. Perhaps this is beside the point. When there is a risk of such breeding (I am only referring to wild relatives at the moment), you have to give it due consideration. Such breeding will occur in certain instances and genes inserted can enter the wider genetic pool. This is clear because conventional varieties have done so in the past and GM varieties are simply one gene altered and unlikely to affect the ability to breed, one which if present, is already likely to be present before any modification. In certain instances there may be reasons to be concerned. But I haven’t seen any evidence to be overly concerned, or any theoretical explanations that warrant fear of some systematic risk. At least not one not also associated also with conventional.
If we note in addition that benefit for people in general - those who eat the food, wear the fiber, etc - is not the primary motive behind the large majority of actually marketed, actually employed genetic modifications, we see that the burden of proof is not on those with suspicions or doubts about its safety.
Much research has been done. Not all of it is completely adequate. On the other hand, much of it has been more thorough than research done on conventional breeding varities, which in many cases can result in the same theoretical problems. If you want my opinion double standards are occurring here to simply help alleviate worries regarding GM. No doubt some will fine this a controversial statement. I am not sure where you would draw the line of having reached the burden, but it seems to me that you may be drawing a line that in all reality can never be reasonably met. We definitely currently aren’t expecting products derived from conventional breeding to meet those standards.
or that people who can't possibly know what they are doing in this new field can guarantee the benign nature of certain types of their modifications.
Show me evidence of systematic lack of understanding. The experts don’t know everything but there also fairly good at knowing that they don’t know everything. Absolute guarantees are impossible ad unreasonable. Risks and gains are assessed and weighed on reasonable grounds.
Furthermore, we can see immediately - on ordinary Darwinian considerations - that the people marketing this stuff have imposed known risks or even almost certain harms on the rest of us for their profit.
I don’t understand what you mean by “ordinary Darwinian considerations”. What “certain harms” ?
Monsanto is willing to trash the effectiveness of Bt as a pesticide, for example, in a quite predictable and standard Darwinian setup: they have modified crop plants to express the bacterial Bt genetics throughout the plant regardless of pest attack, and have created a standard environment for breeding resistance thereby. The loss will be long term and to those who have found Bt useful in responsible employment, the profit will be short term and accrue to Monsanto.
Again what do you mean by “standard Darwinian setup”? Yes, resistance is a problem. Of course it’s a problem when just using insecticides/herbicides as well. This application of GM isn’t all its cut out to be and know one sensible should simply trust the Monsanto PR machine on this. Integration of herbicide resistant GM crops is likely to be far more effective in certain cases than others. Of particular importance is to consider the whole integrated system. That is case specific so there no point in trying to get into particulars.
Likewise the risks of the genetic modifications for herbicide resistance - the risks of the resultant chemical complexes in people's food, spreading of resistance to other plants, genetic uniformity in the host crop, effects on yield in various weather changes, dependence on the corporation, etc, are all borne by others: the corporation gets the short term profit.
What systematic threat and what “chemical complexes” of GM crops are a risk compared to conventional crops ? Genetic uniformity is a problem if we are stupid enough not to save seeds and conserve genetic diversity. Often we are that stupid. That isn’t an argument against GM. I don’t understand what you mean when you link weather changes to GM. Dependence on corporations and domination of GM, patents by the large multinationals etc is definitely a major concern and I agree with you on that. It doesn’t outweigh all the benefits GM has to offer. Have you considered the benefits against the risks? Also, what benefits the multinational, can also benefit humanity. Case by case, the benefit of GM crops should be considered, I don’t see any broad conclusion against GM that arises from the fact the multinationals are simply interested in profit.
cannot be trusted to regulate itself, study itself, inform on itself
What are you getting at? There are many educated expert opinions on all matters regarding GM ? and there not all sourced from Monsanto et al. I would be very disappointed if GM as a tool was simply utilised to further the profit margins of the likes of Monsanto. It has massive potential to solve global problems, to help billions of people. We can use it for good.
should at least make sure we can tell the GM stuff from the regular - we need at least the minimum of accountability: identification. It should be labeled.
I am not sure about this. Obviously this is my view, but I think such labeling only satisfies an irrational belief that GM carries some abnormal danger, when it doesn’t imo and labeling only furthers, for want of a better word, such a myth.
The salmon provide one specific example: if they are harmful to wild stock, as seems likely on Darwinian grounds, the fish farming corporations will not bear the cost (short term). And the kinds of harm they risk - by imposing genetic uniformity
The risk of genetic uniformity exists but not because of GM. It is already a risk carried by farmed salmon (you could say that is analogous to conventional breeding). I already discussed this in the thread so I won’t discuss again. See my previous posts.
the total range and mode of expression of a given string of new genetic material is not known for any multicellular laboratory organism
Exactly, but It’s the same for conventional, in fact as I already said, even greater as we are shuffling hundreds or thousands of poorly characterised genes in conventional breeding as opposed to one for GM.
And this salmon example is among the safest and least risky of GM approaches - the genetics inserted are from another salmon
No it isn’t and the fact that salmon escape into the wild so easily and the scope for interbreeding is already established I am amazed, even upon your own reasoning, not mine that you would deem it such. I presume your drawing your conclusion from the idea that a gene moved from one species to another carries greater danger, to exchanging genes within the same species. Genes vary in their arrangement of the four bases as I said above. Intuitive reasoning like this is often false, just because it sounds unnatural and alien at first, doesn’t mean it is dangerous. Such alien perceptions couldn’t be more wrong anyway. All DNA (all species) is written in the same genetic language. All species are related and evolved from the same common ancestor, linked by this shared genetic library over the history of life on earth. We even share genes with present day bacteria both “given” from bacterial species billions of years extinct. This doesn’t mean GM is safe, but perhaps it makes people think twice before associating GM and alien or unnatural in the same sentence.
The real answers rest with the actual effects the inserted gene expresses, to be determined by scientific research and reasonable risk assessment protocol. Any determined risks should then be weighed against the benefits that can be accrued from a particular application of GM. It is my honest opinion that that will favour the development of GM varieties in the vast majority of cases they have something significant to offer. The tool is only good as our intentions and the real benefits may often only be realised in conjunction with other aspects of complex and integrated agricultural systems.
