GM cheese from cow clones

[Az]

do you know what a gene does?

A gene builds a protein. a protein can create certain chemical reactions.

If you take a couple of plants that have nothing wrong with them, what's the problem? If it's a food crop, we test it for toxicity, allergy ,and stuff like that. and there you go.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Azazel

we know that NOW. but what would happen if people at the time took your approach, and went on talking about them fearing things they don't know much about?

My approach when? Isn't this the time when such "modified" sorts/speices are just being introduced. As I said people never had a global reach like they do nowdays, doesn't it warrant some more attention?

[Az]

My approach when? Isn't this the time when such "modified" sorts/speices are just being introduced. As I said people never had a global reach like they do nowdays, doesn't it warrant some more attention?

yes they did. in the end of the 19th century, intl. trade was all over the place. What I mean is that if people were as afraid of ... say... electricity, as you're afraid of Genetic Engineering, we'd live with candles to this very day.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
Unreasonable situation is the development of a rice crop that has all the same charachteristics and produces 20% more for example. The sort should be dominant, and introduced world wide. That is reasonable I belive and will happen, and there might be a hidden effect that start developing after XY generations in that sort as is bread in the wild. RThe hidden effect can be a new disease that will wipe them all on which the former "normal rice" was resistant, for example thus wiping off % of population. Are you saying that the genetic scientists can predict everything 100% when they are making shortcuts? Add the pressure to deliver a profit on top of it and you multiply the risk for sure.

Then what you are talking about is the need for bio-diversity. I agree we shouldn't put all of our eggs in one basket and we should keep as many different possible subspecies alive since we never know who's genes are going to end up as the valuble ones. Bio-engineering doesn't have to lower bio-diversity infact it could very easily increase bio-diversity as different companies market different sub-groups.

That would make the threat of one desease whipping out most of the species less likely wouldn't it?

[Az]

Oerdin:

OFITG is just trying to come up with reasons to substanciate his fears that were implanted into him by propoganda.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Azazel
do you know what a gene does?

A gene builds a protein. a protein can create certain chemical reactions.

If you take a couple of plants that have nothing wrong with them, what's the problem? If it's a food crop, we test it for toxicity, allergy ,and stuff like that. and there you go.

Exactly... there you go... the fact that we do know most of the outcomes, does not warrant that we know all of them, and aren't some perhaps bound to be "undesireable".

While on the face value it all appears to be safe, do you (or the "scientists") really know all the mechanisms involved? Weren't Russians (or USSR than) claiming that there cannot be a nuclear disaster in next 1000 years a year before Chernobyl?

Can I really trust a private profit chasing institution that they have tested all the possible outcomes of the species that they have modified and that I am supposed to consume?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Azazel

yes they did. in the end of the 19th century, intl. trade was all over the place. What I mean is that if people were as afraid of ... say... electricity, as you're afraid of Genetic Engineering, we'd live with candles to this very day.

a
Are you claiming that all newly introduced technology is harmless?

Better comparison is harvesting of nuclear enery than using the electrical one.

Then what you are talking about is the need for bio-diversity. I agree we should put all of our eggs in one basket and we should keep as many different possible subspecies alive since we never know who's genes are going to end up as the valuble ones. Bio-engineering doesn't have to lower bio-diversity infact it could very easily increase bio-diversity as different companies market different sub-groups.

That would make the threat of one desease wipping out most of the species less likely wouldn't it?

True, I agree with this sentiment, that would surely be useful as a matter of "prevention" however we are talking profits stimulated action here.

[Az]

While on the face value it all appears to be safe, do you (or the "scientists") really know all the mechanisms involved? Weren't Russians (or USSR than) claiming that there cannot be a nuclear disaster in next 1000 years a year before Chernobyl?

is the USSR a private enterprise?

Exactly... there you go... the fact that we do know most of the outcomes, does not warrant that we know all of them, and aren't some perhaps bound to be "undesireable".

if you build transgenic crops ( this is almost the only way to genetically engineer these days, our knowledge in planning new proteins is rather lacking ), you already are familiar with the protein. When the plant evolves, if the protein is synthesized, THERE WILL BE EFFECTS! there is no hiding here. It either occurs or not. we can confirm the existance of the protein then using f.e. Western Blot, and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Azazel
Oerdin:

OFITG is just trying to come up with reasons to substanciate his fears that were implanted into him by propoganda.

I don't blame him or think he is a bad person. The European press has been very anti-GM mainly because stories of "Franken-Foods" sell newspapers but also because political groups have found this is a good way to pass protectionist measures for "safety" reasons. They just want to keep competetor's products off the market. Period.

That's fine because we can always retaliate and remove their products from NAFTA or the Free Trade Area of the Americas. That would be a lose-lose situation though and it would be best if the Euros just started to play fair instead of trying to be sneaky and underhanded.

[Az]

Neither do I. He was told something, and believed it. It's not his fault that he was told a half-true.

He should double-check things, though.

[Dinner]

I conceed that there is a remote possibility that something could go wrong, but, mainly it would be something like people having allergic reactions to a given protein and not of the mutant GM monkeys attempt to take over the world type thing.

Playing around with viruses would be much more dangerous since I could see a new desease arriving there. It is unlikely but it is possible. Plus I think common sense guide lines should be put in place by the government but not so strict that they kill the goose which will lay the golden egg.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Azazel

is the USSR a private enterprise?

Are you saying that private enteprises are moral and telling the truth always, or that they are aware of it? What makes you think that your Biotech CEO is any better than Ken Lay (of late Enron)?

if you build transgenic crops ( this is almost the only way to genetically engineer these days, our knowledge in planning new proteins is rather lacking ), you already are familiar with the protein. When the plant evolves, if the protein is synthesized, THERE WILL BE EFFECTS! there is no hiding here. It either occurs or not. we can confirm the existance of the protein then using f.e. Western Blot, and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

True - in your answer lays my problem - and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

especially - "when we see" - are you claiming that all the observations are always "true"? I know this is the aim. But I know as well that this is bound to be "false" now and than. And this is a specific field where a "false", depends on severity of the oversight, can be harmful more than a "false" in the CPU/Car design for sure. And if the CPU/Car is "false", you simply take it out of production, if a GM plant/animal is "false" - can you take it out?

And Oerdin? Don't I (or Euros for that matter) have a good reason to be suspect in GM meddling with our food? To create a clone cow and grow some proteins from it - OK, maybe a moral question but "impact on the industry" and "economic benefits" - on cheese industry - well sooner or later someone is going to make an error. I would rather have my cheese 20% more expensive and have it from a "regular" cow. Not that hungry ethiopians are going to eat it and that they have nothing to lose as they will most likely die of hunger anyway.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
And Oerdin? Don't I (or Euros for that matter) have a good reason to be suspect in GM meddling with our food? To create a clone cow and grow some proteins from it - OK, maybe a moral question but "impact on the industry" and "economic benefits" - on cheese industry - well sooner or later someone is going to make an error. I would rather have my cheese 20% more expensive and have it from a "regular" cow. Not that hungry ethiopians are going to eat it and that they have nothing to lose as they will most likely die of hunger anyway.

Yes, you have a right to have it objectively examined by scientists. That said when will it ever be enough? There has been study after study for nearly a decade on many of these GM foods and almost to the last they found that they are safe and not different in a significant way. Yet the Eurocrates still want to keep it banned.

Why does evidience not matter to them? How long will it take before they finally accept the scientific legitamacy of the food's safety? I find their continued intransience even more suspicious since they are politically & economically benifeting from the extended delays. It is also funny that countries like France have a past history of using safty concerns to trump up protectionist measures. Why has France continued to ban British beef even after the British government and the EU government have said Britain is mad cow free? Please forgive me if this makes me believe their claims are some what dubious.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Sure, the reasons can be doubted and there is certainly a bit of both worlds, as I can alse bet that Euro biotech people would want to get onto the bandwagon, and this is a good question: When is there enough of testing?

What about when is there a need to introduce such food? Clearly the need for "20% more cheeze cows" is purely profit oriented.

Is it now? What will it do to Europe or US that are already saturated with natural products? Are the risks worth taking for the benefit of the biotech industry? As I cannot see anyone else prospering here from that. Perhaps countries where there is hunger etc... but thunger is more a consequence of local political/economic conditions and not of "not enough land to grow existing crops".

In my view the desire behind GM is profits and not some sudden attack of altruism and compassion on the Wall Street.

So the gain for Biotech investors is on one side and the potential risk of damaging or food chain is on the other side.

Well part of the reason why Euros resist certainly lies in the facts that you mentioned, but no GM is good for the reasons mentioned above in my eyes.

Anyway IMHO there is no way to stop GM, unless there is a disaster one day, I just hope that the labels will always be clear.

[Az]

DISASTER! DISASTER!

didn't you learn anything from the thread?

True - in your answer lays my problem - and when we see that it doesn't harm the plant, is not toxic or allergy-precipitating in humans/animals, then you can grow it!

I am glad that we agree.

especially - "when we see" - are you claiming that all the observations are always "true"? I know this is the aim. But I know as well that this is bound to be "false" now and than. And this is a specific field where a "false", depends on severity of the oversight,

OMFG. any GM product takes a lot of time to devise, plan, produce, and test. They don't just churn out new GM products by the thousands. "severity" of oversight? damaged manufactured goods come out wrong not in the planning stage but in the manufacturing stage. Some equipment doesn't fit the specs, etc.
This is not the case in genetic engineering. If a plant is ill, it will die, or show deformation. The biological process of production is much more precise and efficient.

can be harmful more than a "false" in the CPU/Car design for sure. And if the CPU/Car is "false", you simply take it out of production, if a GM plant/animal is "false" - can you take it out?

YES! the GM-crops are planned in a lab. If the new product will be a "false" the specimen will be destroyed.
Do you thing that some will start to behave differently? they're clone, for crying out loud. their biochemistry is the same.

It seems that you nothing whatsoever about genetic engineering. I am not a fully-fledged pro (yet), but you don't know even the basics of the process it seems.