Pharmacology was more my area of endeavour for 20 years, specifically, neurohypophysial hormones. Genetics was only a side curiosity. Genetics is what my wife does now.
You seem to be well versed in genetics. I'll leave your statements to stand as the higher authority.

 

^^ Wow you went from being a pharm to firefighting? That's quite a change... In a long past life, I was a biochem major. Still amazes me that a few things have stuck in my mind.

 

Yeah, when you have your head buried in a very focussed topic for that long, it's hard to take interest in anyone else's research. It wouldn't have been fair to myself or any prospective employer. I simply wouldn't have cared what they were doing. When my former professor retired, I became a fireman just to do something different. I loved research and I love what I do now just as much. My wife, on the other has been in research for over 25 years, the last 10 years in genetics. She invents new ways to screen for human genetic defects.

To keep this on topic, I wouldn't hesitate to consume any federally approved food, G.M. or otherwise.

 

I would.

When I asked a friend of mine who is a molecular biologist the same question -- "what's the difference between breeding and GMOs" -- her answer was that GMOs can have genetic sequences spliced in from entirely different types of organisms.

For instance, a grape hybrid may be selected with a mix of genes from other grapes, but it is very unlikely that it will incorporate genes from a cedar tree. But you might well add a cedar tree gene to a GM grape.

It's just something to consider. Personally I don't worry about it too much, but I do tend to have more distrust of the government approval process than you do.

For instance, people have known for a long time now what the source and risk of BSE (mad cow disease) is, but the government still resists a 100% ban on animal proteins in feed and it still resists a 100% testing program. The technology exists for each cow to be tagged from birth and tracked all the way to the package on the supermarket shelf, but that is not being implemented.

 

since this is near and dear to my heart--I will post my thoughts as soon as I organize them.

 

[QUOTE=steven975,Jan 5 2005, 09:58 PM] protein is protein.

 

given that the most common uses of GM and breeding techniques serve the same goal - increased hardiness and yield - the "threat" of GM foods is minimal to non-existent. There is a tiny chance that some innocuous genetic change could cause allergic reactions or other negative side affects, but by and large, there is little risk of irreversible harm from consuming a gentically modified food item. Keep in mind that the results of breeding and genetic engineering make food production possible in many parts of the world. Before making any rash generalizations, try to understand how the benfits of modern technology help put food in the bellies of children that would otherwise starve to death.

 

I cant wait to eat beef that tastes like chicken

 

Prions aren't inherently bad, though. There are normally occurring prions that don't hurt anything - look up PrPc (harmless), and alternatively, PrPsc (pathogenic).

 

First off, even though I am pro GMO, there are risks that people should take seriously, however I believe that there are environmental nuts out there that believe anything anyone tells them about how bad GMO's are without looking at the research and data. Since I am in Horticulture, GMO's are a hot topic at the moment--there are both sides of the fence in my department that feel strongly on both sides. Here are my thoughts and some things that the general public does not understand about GMO's:

-The current genetically modified crops are modified against pests and herbicide resistance. For example, the general process involves the scientist identifying a problem for a crop. For example ear worms in corn--everyone knows how when they goto the grocery store and they pull the shucks back to check for corn worms--that is a problem that corn has been modified for. Well a gene from a bacteria called BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) that encodes for an enzyme (remember that all enzymes are proteins) which is toxic to the worms that ingest it. This enzyme is activated when the enzymes in the worm's stomach cleave the BT enzyme. And basically this enzyme helps destroy the worm's stomach lining thus killing the worm. You may think that this is awful and that what if the enzyme is activated in humans and animals. First let me mention that BT is a natural bacteria that occurs in the soil and on plants naturally. In fact, BT is one of the only natural pesticides that is approved in Certified Organic farms because BT poses no threat to humans--the enzyme doesnt get activated by humans and animals because we don't have the enzymes in our body to activate it like worms and other insects do. Therefore, there is no problem. There is no crossing of other organisms like cows and pigs that I know of--but then again I'm not an animal person. The only cocommercialene insertions that I know of are bacteria derived. And the only approved GMO crops are ones that protect against pests and are resistant to Round-Up (sometimes like in rice betacarotene genes have been added for beta carotene deficient countries)--therefore there are no genes that are inserted for increased 'jujuicinessor 'better yield. These traits are obtained through traditional breeding methods by crossing pollen and asexual propagation.

-This brings me to my next point, that the reason for GMO's is for chemical reduction. The EPA is coming down hard on traditional Pesticides and Herbicides, however the loss of these chemicals means increased costs that will be passed onto consumers. I'm not going to get on my pesticide/herbicide soapbox for this thread, however too many people are concerned that people will get sick by these chemicals even though most are safe and study after study has shown that you would have to consume tons and tons of sprayed produce every day just to develop an illness. So, you may be thinking, how does Genetically modifying crops decrease spraying chemicals? Its pretty simple in the example given above, but in terms of herbicide resistance, let me explain this. Roundup is the most widely available herbicide in the world and is the safest chemical that we know of. It's LD50 is less than that of AsAspirinwhich basically means you would die of ingesting asAspirinefore ingesting Glyphosate (the chemical in roundup). I don't recommend ingesting roundup because there are other surfactants that are included with Glyphosate that help increase the effectiveness of the chemical that might make you sick if you were to drink it. Anyways, Roundup is so ideal because it is widely effective, and it breaks down so rapidly that it has no residual effect in the soil unlike other herbicides such as diquat and paraquat. Since weeds are a problem in crop situations, crops such as soybeans, cotton, and corn have been made roundup ready--basically they are resistant to round up to the 4-leaf stage. Four leaf stage means that you can apply roundup over the top of the crops and the crops themselves will not be killed as long as they have 4 leaves or less--however the weeds will. Once the crops get large enough, they can outcompete the weeds physically and there is no longer the need to spray. This practice has saved farmers millions of dollars in pesticide/herbicide costs and has prevented the use of millions of gallons of chemicals while increasing productivity and surplus such that can be given to people in need.

-The problem with GMO's is that people do not trust them. Even though Billions of dollars has been spent on research and the committees in Europe have concluded that they pose no threat, the people still will not trust them because of the environmental nuts out there. Even in countries where malnutrition is a serious problem, the people would rather starve than eat GMO food. To me, this is silliness, because even IF the foods were bad, they are going to die sooner of malnutrition than of the effects of the food. Its just common sense.

-Finally, Americans are picky. That is why we use pesticides. We would throw a fit if the apples oranges and other produce looked like crap and/or were expensive. That is what would happen if we didnt have chemicals or GMO's. This is how picky americans are. Take apples for example, Apples are sprayed with a fungicide to kill brown apple scab. Brown apple scab is a fungus that forms on the skin of the apple and turns it brown. The fungus in no way affects the quality of the fruit--in fact it actually is a good source of Vitamin A and would be a health benefit for people. But all the morons in this world would not buy the apples because they don't look like a Red Delicious apple and how it should look.