The Pros and Cons of Genetically Engineered Food

electric said:
The insertion of a gene with known products and mechanism of action
The simple response here is that there are no such genes.

But it's apt to be misunderstood by the poorly educated. So a little expansion:

The problem with GMOs of the bad kinds (if you recall, I have specifically endorsed genetic engineering that mimics ordinary plant breeding, above. I think it's a good and useful endeavor) is that the genes are being taken from very complex systems where only some of their role and potential function is known, and inserted into only loosely controlled (the "shotgun" technique is a standard one) regions of only partially understood entire functioning genomes that have never contained anything like them before,

and that in turn express themselves within very large and very complex systems up to and including the ecological situation as a whole.

(edit removed very complicated example, involving a side effect of the plasmid structures that detoxify glyphosphate, which does not serve)

The people who are doing this GM stuff are making significant changes in systems that are beyond their knowledge, and beyond anyone's control. And they have demonstrated, as with the Bt insertion, a cavalier disregard for even the easily predicted and probable harms they may cause.
 
Last edited:
I'll repeat the mechanism of action of a single gene is still beter understood the mechanism of action of a whole genome. Are knowledge of the affects of gene insertion are far beter then the knowledge applied to selective breeding and hybridization. Your argument is again an appeal to the unknown, everything we do has actions and effect that we may not predict but that should not stop us from doing those things or we would have to discontinue all technological development! If your worried about side-effect that ask for better standard of testing, if your worried about uncontrollable breeding then ask for sterility, but be warned that it is not fair to ask for these standards without placing them on conventional agriculture as well.
 
Understanding the mechanism of action of a gene does not predict the consequences of altering it and releasing it into nature.
 
Understanding the mechanism of action of a gene does not predict the consequences of altering it and releasing it into nature.

1. The gene is not altered (rarely it is) the genome is what is altered. Even so the action of that gene in the the whole plant can and is tested in a controlled environment (where escape is unlikely). Hybridizing on the other hand is often tried without such protocols.

2. Domesticate plants, including GM plants rarely survive in nature, plus GM plants have the advantage to be engineered sterile.
 
electric said:
I'll repeat the mechanism of action of a single gene is still beter understood the mechanism of action of a whole genome.
Taking "mechanism" in your apparent meaning, that's impossible.

You not only have to understand the functioning of the whole genome to predict the consequences of inserting various strings of genetic material at arbitrary places, you have to understand the functioning of the gene, genome, cellular proteins, cells, and organism, in the larger ecological environment.

At least when dealing with the hybridizing of entire related genomes, you have in front of you examples of their expression and functioning over many years in different circumstances.

The people inserting genetics for herbicide resistance, never before present in this organism, in an easily insertible form (and therefore easily removable form, easily transferable form, etc) have little ability to predict the consequences, for example. And they don't seem to be worried about that at all.

Incident, recent: It turns out that the sequestration of herbicide in bound protein complexes in cells of crop plants might be reversed by the processes of human digestion. In other words, the genetic modifications that provide herbicide resistance in certain crops are not only potentially transferable to weeds etc, not only invitations to abuse of herbicides and increased contamination of the landscape etc, not only economically damaging in their creation of cash dependency on corporate entities, but may function as transport mechanisms for toxins into the people who eat that food.

You don't get such widely and significantly unpredictable effects by hybridizing soybeans. That's because you're not fooling around with the very basic levels of biological expression, and you have a thousand years of human experience with agriculture and food informing your endeavors.
 
Taking "mechanism" in your apparent meaning, that's impossible.

You not only have to understand the functioning of the whole genome to predict the consequences of inserting various strings of genetic material at arbitrary places, you have to understand the functioning of the gene, genome, cellular proteins, cells, and organism, in the larger ecological environment.

Their alot we don't understand, therefor we should'nt do it right?

At least when dealing with the hybridizing of entire related genomes, you have in front of you examples of their expression and functioning over many years in different circumstances.

LOL! How dare you simplify whole organism like that! The combination its self can have features completely unpredictable! By that logic and lion and tiger hybrid would be no bigger then either cat! We also have hybrids now that we have never created before no years of experience accumulated! By your very logic of un-understanding even the most convention of agriculture has effects we simply cannot possible predict!

The people inserting genetics for herbicide resistance, never before present in this organism, in an easily insertible form (and therefore easily removable form, easily transferable form, etc) have little ability to predict the consequences, for example. And they don't seem to be worried about that at all.

Killing unintended insects was a predictable consequence, most of all if they had no worries that was their fault, not the technology.

Incident, recent: It turns out that the sequestration of herbicide in bound protein complexes in cells of crop plants might be reversed by the processes of human digestion. In other words, the genetic modifications that provide herbicide resistance in certain crops are not only potentially transferable to weeds etc, not only invitations to abuse of herbicides and increased contamination of the landscape etc, not only economically damaging in their creation of cash dependency on corporate entities, but may function as transport mechanisms for toxins into the people who eat that food.

Haven forbid such a potential danger be allowed, say on organic crops for decades, yes that right we have been spraying those very same proteins that you claim can activate in the acidic stomach of humans (not the alkaline kind in insects) we have been putting on plants label "organic" for decades.

You don't get such widely and significantly unpredictable effects by hybridizing soybeans. That's because you're not fooling around with the very basic levels of biological expression, and you have a thousand years of human experience with agriculture and food informing your endeavors.

Yaawn, Appeal to tradition. "These new concepts like democracy, and female rights, and punishment involving rehabilitation and not hangings or whippings, no more slavery: all men are created equal? These concepts are completely unpredictable! That because they are fooling with the basic level of human society, and we have thousands of years of experience with monarchs, female oppression, burning witches the rightful order of slave and masters!"

By that logic all those thousands of years of experience in agricultural would have not created killer bees.
 
electric said:
At least when dealing with the hybridizing of entire related genomes, you have in front of you examples of their expression and functioning over many years in different circumstances.

LOL! How dare you simplify whole organism like that!
WTF are you talking about ?

electric said:
Killing unintended insects was a predictable consequence, most of all if they had no worries that was their fault, not the technology.
None of the people doing this stuff are worried enough about any of the consequences.
electric said:
Haven forbid such a potential danger be allowed, say on organic crops for decades, yes that right we have been spraying those very same proteins that you claim can activate in the acidic stomach of humans (not the alkaline kind in insects) we have been putting on plants label "organic" for decades.
We're talking about glyphosphate and atrazine and the the like, not just Bt, and there's a big difference between spraying something on the leaves that degrades over time and can be washed or peeled off, and incorporating that same thing into the cellular matrix of the foodstuff.
electric said:
Yaawn, Appeal to tradition.
Recognition of knowledge and experience. Something the new genetic engineers have far too little of, for the kinds of stuff they are broadcasting into the world.
electric said:
Their alot we don't understand, therefor we should'nt do it right?
Right. Get some understanding first, then bet half your food supply and the ecological health of your continent on your latest neat trick.
 
The law of conversion of energy has nothing to do with if something has adverse side-effects or not. Things will have to change in order to people to continue socially and evolutionarily. By your argument having everyone go vegetarian would have produce side-effects.
advers or not but side-effect, and when we do not know what will be the side-effect we should at least indicate to people what we did to the food.

being vegetarian produce side effect of course, but we know them, vegetarianism exist since the beginning of humanity probably.
there has existed entire vegetarian communities still alive today. In india, the most learned people are vegetarians.

GM food are unknown, they existed even less than half a century. We have to wait some generations before knowing the side effect. That is why it is dangerous especially stupid when we do not need them.
 
WTF are you talking about ?

Just turning you very same argument back on you. :)

None of the people doing this stuff are worried enough about any of the consequences.

That hurts my feelings

We're talking about glyphosphate and atrazine and the the like, not just Bt, and there's a big difference between spraying something on the leaves that degrades over time and can be washed or peeled off, and incorporating that same thing into the cellular matrix of the foodstuff.
If spraying a synthetic pesticides could acceptably be removed we would not have organic foods to begin with, most of all dare you not consider the possibility that pesticides can incorporate them selfs in food or last longer then suggest (your argument). We have not engineered plants that produce atrazine. Also remember that natural pesticides can and do have harmful effects (remember rotenone).

Recognition of knowledge and experience. Something the new genetic engineers have far too little of, for the kinds of stuff they are broadcasting into the world.

I think your not giving us enough credit, our work is based on such knowledge and experience. Your just regurgitating your own fallacy over again.

Right. Get some understanding first, then bet half your food supply and the ecological health of your continent on your latest neat trick.

Again an example of you appealing to the unknown. We understand it, hence we use it. A complete understanding escapes us on almost everything, that does not mean our understand is not advance enough that we have reasonable control. A complete understand of the immune system has yet to be achieve yet we use vaccines. A complete understanding of electromagnetic waves has yet to be achieve yet our modern civilization relies on them. Conventional agriculture has relied for thousands of years on not even having a basic understanding of things like plant breeding and plant diseases, and only had a very crude working understanding of things like plowing and fertilizer, yet that did not stop them.
 
advers or not but side-effect, and when we do not know what will be the side-effect we should at least indicate to people what we did to the food.

Exactly, lets have a labels that state ever fertilizers, herbicide and pesticide that place on the foods. Organic foods should not just have a simple label that does not tell you about what you put on the plant, I would like to know if pesticides like rotenone was put on the "organic" food as was allowed by organic standard by-laws. And the concentration of known toxins in the plant should be labeled as well, I would like to know how much glycoalkaloids are in potatos. And then I would like to know every gene that be inserted, not just some generalized label which people can fear in their idiotic appeals to tradition, but a label that will tell me if a gene has been inserted to make it resistant to pesticide or to make it produce vitamin A!

being vegetarian produce side effect of course, but we know them, vegetarianism exist since the beginning of humanity probably.
there has existed entire vegetarian communities still alive today. In india, the most learned people are vegetarians.
Yeah and average lifespan for the last few thousand years was decades less then today. In fact average life span increase and meat consumption can be correlated, does that mean eating meat promotes longevity? No, the correlation is coincidental rather studies show vegetarianisms to be better, but just because that correlates with someones tradition does not mean traditions are good, again correlations must be proven! People for thousands of years did not bath regularly, there for we shouldn't? Really you need to learn what fallacies your spouting! People for thousands of years didn't "know" they only had a general assumption that something is not bad simply because people have been doing it for years and did not die outright from it. There was no testings, no studies and no reports.

GM food are unknown, they existed even less than half a century. We have to wait some generations before knowing the side effect. That is why it is dangerous especially stupid when we do not need them.

Appeal to the unknown, just because something has unknown factors does not mean it bad. Appeal to tradition, just because something is new does not mean it bad. Electro-magnetisms is both new and has unknown properties, vaccinations is both new and has unknown properties, organ transplants is both new and has unknown properties, etc. Don't you people know what a argument fallacy is? Its an illogical and invalid argument and you just shot them off over and over again, making your selves look stupider.
 
Exactly, lets have a labels that state ever fertilizers, herbicide and pesticide that place on the foods. Organic foods should not just have a simple label that does not tell you about what you put on the plant, I would like to know if pesticides like rotenone was put on the "organic" food as was allowed by organic standard by-laws. And the concentration of known toxins in the plant should be labeled as well, I would like to know how much glycoalkaloids are in potatos. And then I would like to know every gene that be inserted, not just some generalized label which people can fear in their idiotic appeals to tradition, but a label that will tell me if a gene has been inserted to make it resistant to pesticide or to make it produce vitamin A!
the point is that the company who is selling has to indicate what she did to the plant and from where did they take the plant. like this we can know at least everything if we want and with time.


Yeah and average lifespan for the last few thousand years was decades less then today. In fact average life span increase and meat consumption can be correlated, does that mean eating meat promotes longevity? No, the correlation is coincidental rather studies show vegetarianisms to be better, but just because that correlates with someones tradition does not mean traditions are good, again correlations must be proven! People for thousands of years did not bath regularly, there for we shouldn't? Really you need to learn what fallacies your spouting! People for thousands of years didn't "know" they only had a general assumption that something is not bad simply because people have been doing it for years and did not die outright from it. There was no testings, no studies and no reports.

I am not saying that you have to become vegetraian, it is your choice, but I just wanted to pointed out that contrary to GM food we have evidence of vegetarism is not harmfull for health.

Appeal to the unknown, just because something has unknown factors does not mean it bad. Appeal to tradition, just because something is new does not mean it bad. Electro-magnetisms is both new and has unknown properties, vaccinations is both new and has unknown properties, organ transplants is both new and has unknown properties, etc. Don't you people know what a argument fallacy is? Its an illogical and invalid argument and you just shot them off over and over again, making your selves look stupider.

it is not about argument, we cannot know the future, alright.
The point is: why making GM food while we do not know what the advantage and that we know that it will transform all other plants because of the companies interest.

that is why GM food are dangerous.

GM food has to be proven to be good for humanity and thus nature as a whole before being made because the processus is not easily reversible, that is the point.
 
the point is that the company who is selling has to indicate what she did to the plant and from where did they take the plant. like this we can know at least everything if we want and with time.
A simple label like organic does not tell me much, it does not tell me what pesticides were used, what fertilizers were used or how it was processes. It just a made up standard by people likely trying to make money.

I am not saying that you have to become vegetarian, it is your choice, but I just wanted to pointed out that contrary to GM food we have evidence of vegetarism is not harmful for health.

LOL! We have evidence that GM foods are not harmful to human health! We also have evidence that some fruits are vegetables are harmful (like potatoes) but we consider the risks and negligible. By the way I'm a vegetarian.

it is not about argument, we cannot know the future, alright.

Therefor no action can be taken without risk, live with it, alright.

The point is: why making GM food while we do not know what the advantage and that we know that it will transform all other plants because of the companies interest. That is why GM food are dangerous.
We do know what the advantages are, if cooperate interest are the problem, regulate the companies! Lack of regulation is why cooperations are dangerous.

GM food has to be proven to be good for humanity and thus nature as a whole before being made because the processes is not easily reversible, that is the point.

Conventional agriculture has to be proven to be good for humanity and thus nature as a whole before being made because the processes is not easily reversible, that is the point.
 
A simple label like organic does not tell me much, it does not tell me what pesticides were used, what fertilizers were used or how it was processes. It just a made up standard by people likely trying to make money.
That is why I said that we should remove the organic label .

in fact we should delete the word organic from the dictionnary, it has no meaning

LOL! We have evidence that GM foods are not harmful to human health! We also have evidence that some fruits are vegetables are harmful (like potatoes) but we consider the risks and negligible. By the way I'm a vegetarian.
We have evidence that GM food are harmfull and we cannot have evidence that GM food are not harmfull because they did not existed for long enough to know. I am also vegetarian ;)

Therefor no action can be taken without risk, live with it, alright.
No, you have to calculate the risk, for GM food, we do not have enough information of the risk, it is a too young technology

We do know what the advantages are, if cooperate interest are the problem, regulate the companies! Lack of regulation is why cooperations are dangerous.
in my opinion, it is lack of information taht is dangerous, companies should inform what they did to the product. people should decide what top buy, regulation have no meaning. if people want to buy pesticide it is his choice.

Conventional agriculture has to be proven to be good for humanity and thus nature as a whole before being made because the processes is not easily reversible, that is the point.

history is a sufficient proof
 
That is why I said that we should remove the organic label .

in fact we should delete the word organic from the dictionnary, it has no meaning

Well as much as I enjoyed organic chemistry, well ok. Great, lets get rid of the GM label while we are at it.

We have evidence that GM food are harmfull and we cannot have evidence that GM food are not harmfull because they did not existed for long enough to know. I am also vegetarian ;)

We have evidence that conventional foods are harmful. Again appeal to traditional, simply because conventional foods have been around does not mean they are not harmful.

No, you have to calculate the risk, for GM food, we do not have enough information of the risk, it is a too young technology

Do you ever stop appealing to tradition, you don't seem to relies your argument is not valid!

in my opinion, it is lack of information that is dangerous, companies should inform what they did to the product. people should decide what top buy, regulation have no meaning. if people want to buy pesticide it is his choice.

Your opinion is worth as much as mine, nothing. Again people are not informed about what pesticides are spayed on their organic foods, they should be.

history is a sufficient proof
Lets see, Humans live longer today then before, today we eat process foods, therefor process foods are better and the old way was killing us. See the problem with that logic? For thousands of year people eat stuff without knowing what it did, period, it has had bad affects, many had to die a slow a painful death before they bred potatoes that produced survivable amounts of glycoalkaloids, and to this day people keep eating potatoes simply because the toxic levels are not noticeable anymore by the non-scientific means people use. In fact scientific studies now show that carbohydrates the primary source of food for people for thousand of years is an inferior food to protein and vegetable fats, that without traditional starvation plentiful levels of carbohydrates leads to obesity and ailments, while plentiful levels of vegetable fats and proteins (even animals proteins) not so much so. Although the ideal natural solution would be to go back to hunting-gathering, bring nature back an stop all the damage farming and domesticated animals and plants have done to the ecosystem, and of course have only 1/30 people survive (the rest die from starvations) and live a natural (be it short) life on tree bark and rodents like people have for thousands of years..... right?
 
Last edited:
Well as much as I enjoyed organic chemistry, well ok. Great, lets get rid of the GM label while we are at it.
no because for GM there is transformation life for any other way being said to be organic or not.

We have evidence that conventional foods are harmful. Again appeal to traditional, simply because conventional foods have been around does not mean they are not harmful.
Yes but we have a lot of evidence that conventional food are good: we are still alive after so many generations
It is not appeal to tradition, it is appeal to induction.
GM food is too new to be considered a good way because it is more irreversible than any other modification.
tradition is a misleading word.

Your opinion is worth as much as mine, nothing. Again people are not informed about what pesticides are spayed on their organic foods, they should be.
Information is only what my opinion is here. We should inform, that is not what is done about GM food: there are mixed with non GM food.
Lets see, Humans live longer today then before, today we eat process foods, therefor process foods are better and the old way was killing us. See the problem with that logic? For thousands of year people eat stuff without knowing what it did, period, it has had bad affects, many had to die a slow a painful death before they bred potatoes that produced survivable amounts of glycoalkaloids, and to this day people keep eating potatoes simply because the toxic levels are not noticeable anymore by the non-scientific means people use. In fact scientific studies now show that carbohydrates the primary source of food for people for thousand of years is an inferior food to protein and vegetable fats, that without traditional starvation plentiful levels of carbohydrates leads to obesity and ailments, while plentiful levels of vegetable fats and proteins (even animals proteins) not so much so. Although the ideal natural solution would be to go back to hunting-gathering, bring nature back an stop all the damage farming and domesticated animals and plants have done to the ecosystem, and of course have only 1/30 people survive (the rest die from starvations) and live a natural (be it short) life on tree bark and rodents like people have for thousands of years..... right?

there are other factors
 
no because for GM there is transformation life for any other way being said to be organic or not.

Again hybridization and breeding transform life.

Yes but we have a lot of evidence that conventional food are good: we are still alive after so many generations

Again that not evidence of anything more then that conventional foods don't kill us outright, we have a lot of evidence that they do kill us slowly, that some foods we will live longer on then others. By that logic GM foods are perfectly alright in that they are tested for killing us outright and fail to do so. We know that a diet of mostly rice lacks vitamin A and thousands of children go blind because of that, we engineering a rice that produces vitamin A, what wrong with that?

It is not appeal to tradition, it is appeal to induction.
GM food is too new to be considered a good way because it is more irreversible than any other modification.
tradition is a misleading word.
Your telling me hybridization is irreversible, lets see you turn a mule back into a horse and donkey or turn todays hexaploid back into its original diploid species, in fact it would be easier to knock out a inserted gene then to do that. It still an appeal to the unknown as it assume that just because something is irreversible it therefor is dangerous.


Information is only what my opinion is here. We should inform, that is not what is done about GM food: there are mixed with non GM food.
No your opinion is a belief structure, it believes something and then tries for find evidence of that belief or well almost no evidence in your case. simply restating the belief over and over again as if it was evidence of it self. What does GM foods being mix with non-gm foods do?

there are other factors

surely there are but what are they and what relevance to they have?
 
Again hybridization and breeding transform life.
Hybridation made intentionaly should be also indicated
Again that not evidence of anything more then that conventional foods don't kill us outright, we have a lot of evidence that they do kill us slowly, that some foods we will live longer on then others. By that logic GM foods are perfectly alright in that they are tested for killing us outright and fail to do so. We know that a diet of mostly rice lacks vitamin A and thousands of children go blind because of that, we engineering a rice that produces vitamin A, what wrong with that?
The law of the conversation of energy makes it dangerous:
when we modify the dna, we modify the whole dna.

Your telling me hybridization is irreversible, lets see you turn a mule back into a horse and donkey or turn todays hexaploid back into its original diploid species, in fact it would be easier to knock out a inserted gene then to do that. It still an appeal to the unknown as it assume that just because something is irreversible it therefor is dangerous.
no but look at GM companies, and see what they do in purpose to make it irreversible: sterility...

you forgot the political and economic aspect


No your opinion is a belief structure, it believes something and then tries for find evidence of that belief or well almost no evidence in your case. simply restating the belief over and over again as if it was evidence of it self. What does GM foods being mix with non-gm foods do?
It lies because it does not tell what you are eating.
everybody has a belief: yours is that GM are good, mine is that we do not know and that we should give information instead of deciding without the consent of people
surely there are but what are they and what relevance to they have?

Much more relevance that what you are trying to say about food. (GM we do not know yet)

And if you look at life expectancy, it is still about people born before the second world war.
 
Hybridation made intentionaly should be also indicated

Well then labels all wheats for starters. Why stop their why not label selective breeding as well?

The law of the conversation of energy makes it dangerous:
when we modify the dna, we modify the whole dna.

We modify the DNA just be breeding it. Many plants contain and transmit plasmids carrying genes around, why is what we are doing any different?

no but look at GM companies, and see what they do in purpose to make it irreversible: sterility...

you forgot the political and economic aspect

Actually they rarely make their products sterile, rather they should for good measure. The technology has nothing to do with politics and economy, if you want to limit the companies do so, but limiting the technology is ridiculous.

It lies because it does not tell what you are eating.
everybody has a belief: yours is that GM are good, mine is that we do not know and that we should give information instead of deciding without the consent of people

My belief is not that GM is good or bad, rather like nuclear energy: it can take or give. I prefer to use it to give, you prefer to stop it altogether and appeal to ignorance and fear. Labeling it is only a tactic to make people fear it, its like calling a MRI and NMRI.

Much more relevance that what you are trying to say about food. (GM we do not know yet)

And if you look at life expectancy, it is still about people born before the second world war.
Appeal to the unknown, we don't know about a lot of technologies therefor we should not us them? And no life expectancy still goes up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Life_expectancy_1950-2005.svg
 
experience said:
Recognition of knowledge and experience. Something the new genetic engineers have far too little of, for the kinds of stuff they are broadcasting into the world.

I think your not giving us enough credit, our work is based on such knowledge and experience.
You don't have such knowledge, and less than thirty years of indifferently documented and proprietary relevant experiience in a field as complex as anything there is. If you truly think you know what you are doing, you are far more dangerous than if you have an appropriate wariness.

electric said:
Do you ever stop appealing to tradition, you don't seem to relies your argument is not valid!
There is a big difference between something humans have done for thousands of years, and something new we just got a start at.
electric said:
If spraying a synthetic pesticides could acceptably be removed we would not have organic foods to begin with, most of all dare you not consider the possibility that pesticides can incorporate them selfs in food or last longer then suggest (your argument). We have not engineered plants that produce atrazine. Also remember that natural pesticides can and do have harmful effects (remember rotenone).
I'm not sure whether you actually don't know what the problems are with this gene insertion business, poison sequestration within the foodstuff, unexpected effects from overlooked details such as the surfectants or the fungus diseases etc,

or whether you are deliberately deflecting the argument.

"Organic" is not the problem. Inserted genetics from unrelated and alien organisms released into new organisms and new ecologies and roles in human contact, even food etc, is the problem.
electric said:
Actually they rarely make their products sterile, rather they should for good measure. The technology has nothing to do with politics and economy, if you want to limit the companies do so, but limiting the technology is ridiculous.
They "rarely make their products sterile" because of politics and economics, and they sometimes make their products sterile on the same considerations; to point out the obvious among the huge areas of trouble you blithely overlook.
electric said:
We know that a diet of mostly rice lacks vitamin A and thousands of children go blind because of that, we engineering a rice that produces vitamin A, what wrong with that?
So have you bothered to google up and think a bit and get an idea of what could go wrong with that ?

Even that - the least hazardous and most obviously beneficial conceivable manipulation ?

Then take your enlightened point of view back to the introduction of herbicide sequestration, pesticide production, corporate dependency creation, and so forth, which are the main efforts of the genetic engineers.
electric said:
Many plants contain and transmit plasmids carrying genes around, why is what we are doing any different?
The fact that that may be an honest question from someone actually working in the field should be enough to warn the rest of us about the need for serious and enforced regulation of this stuff.
 
You don't have such knowledge, and less than thirty years of indifferently documented and proprietary relevant experience in a field as complex as anything there is. If you truly think you know what you are doing, you are far more dangerous than if you have an appropriate wariness.

Conventional argiculture did not know what it was doing for thousands of years, I don't see the point. I'm all for precautions like sterilization and for standard testing for toxicity, mutanganicity, etc but after passing all that their is no need for labeling.

There is a big difference between something humans have done for thousands of years, and something new we just got a start at.
I'm not sure whether you actually don't know what the problems are with this gene insertion business, poison sequestration within the foodstuff, unexpected effects from overlooked details such as the surfectants or the fungus diseases etc, or whether you are deliberately deflecting the argument.
There is no a difference (other then time), their is no value in non-scientific experience gained and longevity of a product without scientific testing will not detect side-effects other then outright killing you on the spot. Take Tobacco which we have been utilizing for centuries, it was not until the last few decades that it was scientifically proven bad for you. If I insert a gene to increase Vitamin A production there is no reason to expect some kind of far reaching side-effect that can't be tested for, it either let children go blind or the .0001 chance of some kind of complication with introducing the GM product is in your favor.

"Organic" is not the problem. Inserted genetics from unrelated and alien organisms released into new organisms and new ecologies and roles in human contact, even food etc, is the problem.
They "rarely make their products sterile" because of politics and economics, and they sometimes make their products sterile on the same considerations; to point out the obvious among the huge areas of trouble you blithely overlook.
So have you bothered to google up and think a bit and get an idea of what could go wrong with that?
Please do tell me what can go wrong, and I'll explain how to mitigate it.

Even that - the least hazardous and most obviously beneficial conceivable manipulation ?

Then take your enlightened point of view back to the introduction of herbicide sequestration, pesticide production, corporate dependency creation, and so forth, which are the main efforts of the genetic engineers.

Again if you have a problem with corporatization, take that up with the corporations of goverments to regulate them, but the technology it self is not the problem, regulate herbicides, regulate pesticides, regulate GM utilized for making plants produce herbicides or pesticides or be more resistant to such so more can be used, but don't generalize all GM, fighting against or putting a GM label on Vitamin A rice is only going to help children go blind.

The fact that that may be an honest question from someone actually working in the field should be enough to warn the rest of us about the need for serious and enforced regulation of this stuff.

Yeah, don't use transmittable plasmids for genetic insertion, problem solved.
 
Back
Top