Oh joy--yet another GM foods are teh evul thread

In GD. There is one poster there who seems to think that ALL biotechs are evul soulless companies that just randomly plant untested GM plants in the wild with no experiments under controlled (greenhouse) conditions.
I've tried to point out that gm technology is used in biologics and has been proven pretty safe..to no avail of course.
Since this is not my area of expertise, can anyone who is more well informed give me a rational overview of gm foods/agr good and bad? My understanding is that the big danger of eating gm foods is potential allergies, which is common in non-gm foods.
Thanks.

A few years ago, His Majesty Prince Charles horked up an op-ed, in which The Royal Woo pronounced himself deeply worried about genetically modified food. Especially since it was so new.

Richard Dawkins fired back with his own op-ed, telling the Prince that it wasn't new at all. Dawkins noted that we humans have been genetically modifying stuff ever since we first popped up on Earth.

Dawkins pointed out that wheat is genetically modified grass.

He also noted that the Queen's beloved Corgis are genetically modified wolves.

:rofl:

are the biggest problem, so far, with pollen from GM crops crossing over to fields of non GM crops, plus pesticides like BT inserted into the genome decimating the monarch butterfly population. Then there's the built in sterility, something that kills third world farmers who now can't save seed over from their crop for the next year. GM produced seed can be eaten but it won't germinate, the worst thing Monsanto built into it. Look for GM induced starvation in the not too distant future, especially with the cross pollination problem.

I don't think fish genes in winter tomatoes are going to make us grow gills, but I haven't seen much of an improvement in flavor or texture, either.

Personally, this is one of the few areas where I'll turn conservative and suggest they study the release of GM crops for years before they release them large scale. Unfortunately, it's too late for that in too many crops in too much of the world.

Europe was right to be very cautious on this one.

One major problem with the development of the technology was the adoption of the strategy to pretend it was "just the same as plant breeding" and thus avoid public testing of any sort prior to seed release for field testing and then sale.

I ran the first greenhouse trial for an engineered bacteria that produced a different strain of the B.t. toxin than the old commercial line. Back in those days we had to kill the engineered organism prior to testing and I had to design and build a greenhouse that would contain any runoff or other source of potential bio contamination into the environment.

Imagine the shock ( you should have seen my boss's face) when the EPA and the FDA ruled that it was the same as plant breeding to insert genes cross species and therefore no testing or buffers or new regulations of any sort would be required.

And no liability insurance requirement of the company to pay for any damages to other companies' genetic materials should the new genes now in their plants outcross and find their way into another's breeding program or seed line. In fact in the case of one breeder in Canada whose seed line was contaminated by their genes through cross pollination Monsanto sued the breeder whose seeds they contaminated. It should have been the other way around, but small companies and independent plant breeders don't usually have a lot of money for lawyers.

The first folks to engineer the B.t. toxin gene into plants ( a very big deal and not something someone can do in a greenhouse) promised the entomologists at companies producing the real B.t. toxin that they would use a different strain ( there were over 1600 strains identified in the mid 80's probably more now) so as to prevent the toxin becoming useless over time due to the insects developing resistance. But the scientists were overruled by the business people and they did not and this is still being fought over. B.t. resistance management is this big deal for the field entomologists.

The Union on Concerned Scientist website has a good deal of information on the risks of the technology. My friends who work for pharmaceutical companies that do genetic engineering are totally aghast at the cowboy mentality of the companies employing the technology in agriculture. Scientists don't take things on faith, they test. And they contain the products of a new living organism until it is proven safe.

I think that it is a grave disservice to all the creative people working on such an advanced technology to say that it is the same as plant breeding. I am a plant breeder now and I used to work for some brilliant genetic engineers and let me assure you it is not the same. If you want to avoid testing then you may say it is the same idea. But it is a disservice to the real scientists doing the work to say that it is the same technology.

Only the business people trying to save money would insult the scientists in this way.

It's nice to have my misgivings confirmed by an expert.