Genetic Modification

[Cabra West]

I've been cooking (a little bit!) for myself and sometimes for Rejistania (when she visits). I've never cooked anything that requires a specific type of potato and I suspect neither have most people.

As I said, my grandfather was a passionate gardener. As a result, it's a bit of family lore what types of potatoe are best for what dishes. Waxy ones will not fall apart and go soggy when you make a salad, but you can't use them for mash, as they'll go very gooey. And no, that's not really a secret, a good recipe book will give you the same kind of information.

However, if you grow up only knowing floury potatoes, you will never think to ask for anything else. Supermarkets are creating a viscious circle of reduction of choice in this way. Take it of the shelves, placate the one or two customers who will ask, and in a few years nobody will even remember that there is such a thing as a sour, but very fragrant apple that made the best apple pies anybody ever knew.

[Allanea]

As I said, my grandfather was a passionate gardener. As a result, it's a bit of family lore what types of potatoe are best for what dishes. Waxy ones will not fall apart and go soggy when you make a salad, but you can't use them for mash, as they'll go very gooey. And no, that's not really a secret, a good recipe book will give you the same kind of information.

So basically you're complaining that supplies for your hobby are not available at mainstream stores. That's like if I complained that there are no D&D materials in most bookstores in Israel.

[Cabra West]

So basically you're complaining that supplies for your hobby are not available at mainstream stores. That's like if I complained that there are no D&D materials in most bookstores in Israel.

No.
I'm complaining that mainstream stores have for years no reduced their choice of fresh food bit by bit. It's like complaining that mainstream bookshops are reducing their stock to just 3 titles of novels.

[Allanea]

That's basically... what mainstream bookshops do.

[Cabra West]

That's basically... what mainstream bookshops do.

Wow, you must have really bad bookshops.
Next time you go into one, try and count the titles of novels they stock. I'll bet you it'll be more than 3.

[Allanea]

Well, obviously it's not literally 3.

But it's my experience that bookstore chains constantly stock only really mass-print crap like Dan Brown. And some classics. Local bookstores usually have better choice, and ordering off the Internet is the best.

[Peepelonia]

So basically you're complaining that supplies for your hobby are not available at mainstream stores. That's like if I complained that there are no D&D materials in most bookstores in Israel.

No.
I'm complaining that mainstream stores have for years no reduced their choice of fresh food bit by bit. It's like complaining that mainstream bookshops are reducing their stock to just 3 titles of novels.

Two words for you Cabs!

farmers and market.

[Cabra West]

Well, obviously it's not literally 3.

But it's my experience that bookstore chains constantly stock only really mass-print crap like Dan Brown. And some classics. Local bookstores usually have better choice, and ordering off the Internet is the best.

Not round here, they don't.... obviously they will stock Dan Brown, but they will also have good selections of lesser known writers, as well as classics and local writers of course.

Yes, the choice is best online, but I don't like buying books online personally, only if I've got no other choice.

[Cabra West]

Two words for you Cabs!

farmers and market.

I know, they're my salvation!
Luckily, Cork has a good market 5 days a week, albeit awkward to get to for me. But I still think it's nothing positive to be losing choice of fresh produce in supermarkets.

[Peepelonia]

Two words for you Cabs!

farmers and market.

I know, they're my salvation!
Luckily, Cork has a good market 5 days a week, albeit awkward to get to for me. But I still think it's nothing positive to be losing choice of fresh produce in supermarkets.

Ohhh on the contrary I disagree. It is a good thing that choice is restricted in supermarkets, as it means that the 'little shops' stand a chance of some trade. I would love to see the return of the crocer, the green crocer, the butcher, the baker to our streets.

[United Technocrats]

Wait, wait, wait. I believe the topic at hand here is gene modification of crops. But the risk factor you're talking about here seems tailored for humans. How would a GM crop alter the genetic makeup of a human through ingestion unless it was designed with a specific toxin or disease?

Yes, the most problematic aspect of GM is in humans, but this pertains to GM crops as well. Introducing changes in crops could potentially lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, esp. considering the massive amounts of cultivated lands. Suppose they start producing chemicals that repel certain insect, bacterial, or fungal species vital to the ecosystem? Or they stop producing such important chemicals? The eradication of those species in favour of others, or induced mutations in bacteria could severely impact the whole ecosystem and disrupt the entire food chain. The second scenario could include seemingly harmless substances that the organisms already present in the environment could metabolize into something more hazardous. The third scenario .. the GM plants could start producing chemicals that aren't directly toxic to humans, but mimic certain regulatory proteins (or other reg. chemicals) in the human body in a way certain pharmaceuticals do... There are too many unknowns here...

[Allanea]

Ohhh on the contrary I disagree. It is a good thing that choice is restricted in supermarkets, as it means that the 'little shops' stand a chance of some trade. I would love to see the return of the crocer, the green crocer, the butcher, the baker to our streets.

This.

The role of the supermarket is to provide people with tons of generic, mainstream shit. That's just what supermarkets do.

[Peepelonia]

Ohhh on the contrary I disagree. It is a good thing that choice is restricted in supermarkets, as it means that the 'little shops' stand a chance of some trade. I would love to see the return of the crocer, the green crocer, the butcher, the baker to our streets.

This.

The role of the supermarket is to provide people with tons of generic, mainstream shit. That's just what supermarkets do.

Heh and I thought that the role of the supermarket is to make oddles of profit?

[Cabra West]

Ohhh on the contrary I disagree. It is a good thing that choice is restricted in supermarkets, as it means that the 'little shops' stand a chance of some trade. I would love to see the return of the crocer, the green crocer, the butcher, the baker to our streets.

Interesting aspect... I would agree with it if I thought that those shops would come back. But given all factors of leases, infrastructure, supply chains, etc. I think it's not all that likely, sorry.
Farmers markets and buying directly of the farms is probably going to be the way forward. Hopefully.

[Peepelonia]

Ohhh on the contrary I disagree. It is a good thing that choice is restricted in supermarkets, as it means that the 'little shops' stand a chance of some trade. I would love to see the return of the crocer, the green crocer, the butcher, the baker to our streets.

Interesting aspect... I would agree with it if I thought that those shops would come back. But given all factors of leases, infrastructure, supply chains, etc. I think it's not all that likely, sorry.
Farmers markets and buying directly of the farms is probably going to be the way forward. Hopefully.

Ahh no need to be sorry, I agree with you. I think also that more and more people are being bitten with the self sufficency bug. Not wholely you understand but it seems that more of us are after allotments and getting intersting in growing our own veg. That is the way I can see things going.

[Vault 10]

Wait, wait, wait. I believe the topic at hand here is gene modification of crops. But the risk factor you're talking about here seems tailored for humans. How would a GM crop alter the genetic makeup of a human through ingestion unless it was designed with a specific toxin or disease?

Don't you know? Most people believe that genetic modification can be performed after birth, in a live person. That it's like a syringe you inject and mutate over the next month. Some even believe it's always performed that way.

With that in mind, it's not such a big step to plant genes infiltrating into the human via consumption.

[Cabra West]

Ahh no need to be sorry, I agree with you. I think also that more and more people are being bitten with the self sufficency bug. Not wholely you understand but it seems that more of us are after allotments and getting intersting in growing our own veg. That is the way I can see things going.

*lol Sheer desperation is what's driving me to that. Just for a bloody CHOICE in lettuce... I can't stand the sight of iceberg any more.
Might not be the worst thing, going forward. Especially in the UK and Ireland, where the majority of people will have a small garden anyway. It's a bit of excercise and gets them out into the fresh air for a bit.
The only slight worry there is... what about folks on the dole, and living in council housing? They'll have to eat the shit the supermarkets will provide them with. Immoral, if you ask me.

[Non Aligned States]

Yes, the most problematic aspect of GM is in humans, but this pertains to GM crops as well. Introducing changes in crops could potentially lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, esp. considering the massive amounts of cultivated lands. Suppose they start producing chemicals that repel certain insect, bacterial, or fungal species vital to the ecosystem? Or they stop producing such important chemicals? The eradication of those species in favour of others, or induced mutations in bacteria could severely impact the whole ecosystem and disrupt the entire food chain. The second scenario could include seemingly harmless substances that the organisms already present in the environment could metabolize into something more hazardous. The third scenario .. the GM plants could start producing chemicals that aren't directly toxic to humans, but mimic certain regulatory proteins (or other reg. chemicals) in the human body in a way certain pharmaceuticals do... There are too many unknowns here...

GM crops imbalancing the ecosystem is one thing. That's fairly understandable. But the second and third scenarios have absolutely nothing to do with causing genetic damage that you implied with your first post on this thread. Both scenarios are merely cases of producing foods that are toxic to the human body which would be caught out in any stringent trial period. The genetic damage to people eating it claim doesn't work.

Don't you know? Most people believe that genetic modification can be performed after birth, in a live person. That it's like a syringe you inject and mutate over the next month. Some even believe it's always performed that way.

With that in mind, it's not such a big step to plant genes infiltrating into the human via consumption.

I understand gene insertion/alteration via modified virus vectors. It's the "Eat this GM crop and your DNA is changed" that confuses the hell out of me.

[Peepelonia]

The only slight worry there is... what about folks on the dole, and living in council housing? They'll have to eat the shit the supermarkets will provide them with. Immoral, if you ask me.

Immoral, not sure I see it that way. I don't think that the want to make profit is inherently a bad thing, and of course all of us consumers do have a choice where we shop. Food in the UK certianly has changed a lot over the last 20 years. When I was a kid I remember the first ready made packet curries, now of course such produce is all over the place, and yes I can see why people use them for convinieance, but really it's a false economy.

My mother-in-law uses such stuff as pre-mashed spuds from a packet, that is pre mashed spuds not the dried stuff, and ready cut carrots, ready grated cheese, and belive it or not the very worst/funniest one has to be pancake mix. I asked her once how she uses this, what she has to do with it to make pancakes and she told me tip it into a bowl and add and egg and some water or milk!

So a small bag of flour and probaly salt and some chemical presurvatives, all for double the price of normal bag of flour. Maddness.

Proper food, need not be expensive, in fact if you just refuse to buy any ready made shit, your food bill WILL go down. So perhaps then (as with many things) education for the poor about food?

[Vault 10]

Don't you know? Most people believe that genetic modification can be performed after birth, in a live person. That it's like a syringe you inject and mutate over the next month. Some even believe it's always performed that way.

With that in mind, it's not such a big step to plant genes infiltrating into the human via consumption.

I understand gene insertion/alteration via modified virus vectors. It's the "Eat this GM crop and your DNA is changed" that confuses the hell out of me.

Well, you should remember how it works in movies, series and books (not just cartoons). They always change the DNA on the fly. It's almost never 'grown in a vat', it's always "Got his superpowers from a DNA injection". And of course people grow third arms if exposed to radioactivity.

In reality, it's most likely impossible to change the DNA of a living organism, except the simplest ones, since its immune system will lead to self-destruction. It's avoidable when you're transplanting complete organs, but when you want a gradual change throughout the body... that's asking for a lot more.

[Allanea]

Vault. I'm trying to reach you through MSN.

[Andaluciae]

Humans have been genetically modifying food for millenia, by cross-breeding plants and animals for dozens of generations to gain access to the most desired characteristics.

Lab modification is virtually no different from cross-breeding, in any manner other than the precision of the act. Whereas cross-breeding of plants and animals had the accuracy and subtlety of a sledgehammer, and was a process roughly as fast as a stone rolling by force of gravity on a hill with a 1 degree slope, lab modifications are more akin to using a moderately sharp butchers knife and a moderate walking pace for speed.

[Flameswroth]

Definitely. Genetically modified foodstuffs seem like a good application for genetic work. In fact even now if a food item that is plant or animal based does not explicitly state that it was naturally grown, I just assume it has been tampered with at length.

/shrug

[Lackadaisical2]

Amazing. It's common to have 4-5 types of apples at the really crappy local supermarkets next to my house, and there are bigger SMs where we generally go for the better choice of stuff (these are also conveniently outside of town and therefore allowed to sell non-kosher food).

Wait, do you live in Israel or something? That sounds shitty and backwards to say the least.

Anyway, On-Topic:

GM food sounds fine, extensive testing period and all that.

[United Technocrats]

Yes, the most problematic aspect of GM is in humans, but this pertains to GM crops as well. Introducing changes in crops could potentially lead to an imbalance in the ecosystem, esp. considering the massive amounts of cultivated lands. Suppose they start producing chemicals that repel certain insect, bacterial, or fungal species vital to the ecosystem? Or they stop producing such important chemicals? The eradication of those species in favour of others, or induced mutations in bacteria could severely impact the whole ecosystem and disrupt the entire food chain. The second scenario could include seemingly harmless substances that the organisms already present in the environment could metabolize into something more hazardous. The third scenario .. the GM plants could start producing chemicals that aren't directly toxic to humans, but mimic certain regulatory proteins (or other reg. chemicals) in the human body in a way certain pharmaceuticals do... There are too many unknowns here...

GM crops imbalancing the ecosystem is one thing. That's fairly understandable. But the second and third scenarios have absolutely nothing to do with causing genetic damage that you implied with your first post on this thread. Both scenarios are merely cases of producing foods that are toxic to the human body which would be caught out in any stringent trial period. The genetic damage to people eating it claim doesn't work.

Well, the question was not just about direct damage to human DNA, wasn't it? As I understood, it was about whether GM foods are okay in general, taking everything into account. My greatest fear, pertaining to GM, lie with the unpredictable ecosystem changes. I do not remember saying that GM foods would cause direct genetic damage to humans (?) However, these changes, if possible, would probably not be detectable in the first filial generation. The "third scenario" I mentioned is my most immediate concern however, and the reason I don't like the idea of humans eating GM foods. The human body has many regulatory systems, which have ways to compensate for externally induced changes, thus making them more or less invisible; if you constantly exert pressure on those systems, say by inadvertently introducing hormone-like substances, it's like taking a medication on a regular basis: there will be side effects. These may include hormonal imbalance, compromised immune system, allergies including anaphylaxis, or even indirect DNA damage (for example, through production of metabolites that readily bind to DNA or the protein basis of the DNA/protein structure called a Chromosome, or interference with enzymes operating on DNA/RNA etc.).

The problem with subtle DNA damage is that it's not immediately detectable -- it takes decades of testing, including monitoring of changes in filial generations... You can monitor for phenotype changes, or do a DNA fingerprinting which depends on mobility of chains in the agarose or polyacrylamide gel substrates during electrophoresis, so you usually don't get to directly "read" the sequences. Actually, most of these changes are difficult to detect because the most commonly used research tool is statistics, which cannot easily discriminate between the different possible causes of allergies or other unwanted conditions...

Don't you know? Most people believe that genetic modification can be performed after birth, in a live person. That it's like a syringe you inject and mutate over the next month. Some even believe it's always performed that way.

With that in mind, it's not such a big step to plant genes infiltrating into the human via consumption.

I understand gene insertion/alteration via modified virus vectors. It's the "Eat this GM crop and your DNA is changed" that confuses the hell out of me.

Until recently, it would have seemed illogical to assume something like this was possible, as the ingested foods have to pass through the digestive tract and thus be broken down before being absorbed into the bloodstream. However, the research on prion infections suggest that the primary way of getting such an infection is through ingestion. If GM foods contain such "misfolded" infectious proteins, they could pose a serious health risk... So, while I'm not a priori against GM foods, I shall wait until more research is available...