GM seeds - who benefits?

[Az]

Life forms aren't like computers, Azazel. Because we know how a gene will work in one organizism doesn't mean we know how it will work in another. That's why we test and test and test.

we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

[chequita guevara]

lotm's on the mark.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Azazel

we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

Yeah, the genome is essentially the same between different types of cells, but the expression pattern is completely different which affects the nature of the cell produced and thus the histology of the tissue. And yes, one organism should be able to transcribe the gene, but the issue comes about in the correct expression: what cell do you want the gene to be switched on in? Where do you want the protein product to be localised to? It's trickier than just sticking a gene in and expressing it...the devil is in the detail after all...

[Az]

first of all, I must admit that I am not quite knowledgeable on the exact technique of transgenic engineering in plants.

of course, the switching of the gene is an issue, but the gene can be either activated or not acitivated. the protein will remain the same. thus, if the protein itself is not harmful to humans, while in the original species, It will remain harmless if produces by a plant.

The other part is the influence the protein may have on the biochemistry of the target tissue/organism, and whether it is actually localized to a certain tissue. as we both already said.
In theory this can be checked fairly easily as well, through the master key genes system, or any parallel system the plant world has, by checking the way genes are trasncripted in different tissues, and using the same code to isolate the transcription of this gene to a certain tissue.

But when the GM organism is ready, We can already see all the effects. Either they're bad -> back to the drawing board. or they're good -> Let's make more of this baby.

Of course, all this sounds very easy on paper.... but some parts, esp. the specification of the expression of genes in certain tissues... well, there is plenty more work to be done in standartising the working process. If this is achieved, however, we can churn out GMs in enormous numbers, even assuring genetic variety, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
lotm's on the mark.

Thank you.

I also thank you for refocusing me and all of us on the issue of world hunger.

[Az]

oh, lotm, I know what he said, but then he shouldn't go and blaim the Biotechs.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: GM seeds - who benefits?

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, an easy way to stop grain from going towards meat would simply be to mandate that animals can't be fed grain. This, however, would cause the price of grain to collapse, since it's major market would vanish (more grain goes to feeding animals than humans). It would probably also kill the meat market, as grass feed meat isn't very flavorful.

Not sure about that. Aussie and Kiwi beef isn't half bad, and I am quite sure they much on grass only.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Azazel
we do know that pretty much. the transcription mechanism is pretty much the same in all eukariotic species, although transcription in different occasions, but that also varies from tissue to tissue in the same organism as well ( the so-called unactive genes). The same mRNA is created, and thus, the same protein is created.

if I am mistaken somewhere, I am sure Provost will correct me.

It's not that simple. If you have a gene in a GM plant, you know exactly where it is. However, if it is somehow spliced into another species via actions of insects or becteria, for example, there's no telling where the gene will go.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
what hes saying is that GM grains do not reduce starvation, since people who are starving have NO money, so a reduction in grain prices brings them no benefit. Now one could argue that a reduction in grain prices is a good thing anyway - there are a lot of poor non-starving people who have SOME but little money, and whose standard of living would be improved - but then we would also have to look at the social disruptions increases in grain yields and lower prices have on marginal grain producers, etc. And in the context of fears of ecological damage, well the case might not look open and shut. Certainly not as much as it does when we are talking about saving human lives.

It's worse. Most of the Third World are agrarian, and these farmers plant food crops. When food prices drop, they are driven out of business, and these countries will be forced to import more food, when the money could go toward education or infrastructure before. So GM crops will only help to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.

[Az]

It's not that simple. If you have a gene in a GM plant, you know exactly where it is. However, if it is somehow spliced into another species via actions of insects or becteria, for example, there's no telling where the gene will go.

The chances of that are not higher than for a gene coming from a regular source.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It's worse. Most of the Third World are agrarian, and these farmers plant food crops. When food prices drop, they are driven out of business, and these countries will be forced to import more food, when the money could go toward education or infrastructure before. So GM crops will only help to concentrate wealth into the hands of a few.

If they're subsistence farmers then low food prices cant drive them out of business. Food prioces only hurt farmers if they are producing for the market. Theyre certainly not producing for first world markets, since no basic food products (i exclude items like coffee, bananas, and sugar) are imported by the 1sr world from the 3rd world. So you are presumbly talking about 3rd world farmers seling food to 3rd world non-farmers (or at least non food producers) in which case the farmers are hurt, but the non-farmers benefit.

Again if low food prices are always a bad thing for 3rd world people, why the protests when the IMF presses 3rd world govts to drop food price controls and subsidies????