<< home  < Articles

Sunday, 15/9/2002,  Chris Forbes-Ewan gave a talk on Ockham's Razor on Genetically Modified Foods - Potential Benefits and Regulations
 

Tasmania has a moratorium prohibiting the growth of GM plants under most conditions. In July last year the moratorium was extended for two years. Laboratory or other 'inside' trials (e.g. in tents) of GM food crops and
small field trials of GM opium poppies are permitted (Tasmania is one of the world's major legal producers of morphine and other derivatives of opium).

On the ABC news tonight, a plan to grow GM opium poppies in the open is being challenged. I'm not sure of the grounds for this challenge. As far as I know, poppies don't have any edible relatives, or closely-related weeds
that might acquire the genetic modification (presumably Roundup resistance), so the aim of the moratorium--to prevent the inadvertent genetic modification of food crops--shouldn't be affected.

The Tasmanian Minister for Primary Industry also said that the government is considering extending the moratorium to three years. Despite this, in their submission to the (federal) Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR), both Monsanto and Aventis have requested that Tasmania be included as one of
the States where they may grow GM canola. They state that, as yet, they have no intention of growing canola commercially in Tasmania, but are interested in continuing trials in this state. Monsanto's representative (Brian Arnst) said that Tasmania grows excellent canola.

Stay tuned for further information!
 

Ken Simpson, commented

Re Chris Forbes-Ewan and his talk on radio today

First it was an interesting talk, but I do not fully agree with all of what Chris said. I personally am opposed to the use of gene manipulation in any form in crops or animals, although I must accept that in the natural way of things
Mother Nature can do this on her own. The example that Chris gave of inserting genes in to rice to produce beta carotene  and iron MAY turn out to be one of the few usful uses of gene manipulation to be developed but I personally would not want to see food that I and my family eat be manipulated to act as carriers for so called usfull medications or supplements. It is bad enough NOW with the over manufactured foods that have the natural goodness processed out of then and then so called "additives" added, to make them "natural and wholesome" again.

Thank you Chris but NO thanks leave things as thay are and let Nature do her own thing.

I generally agree with Forbzy as far as he went.  The good that could be done is significant - people may live and may live without going blind.

As a general principle, I don't have any qualms about my family eating GMOs or their products provided the testing is adequate, which I have some doubts about, but my reservations are at the level of detail.  nature has never been left to do its own thing.  The varieties of the major crops we have now are dissimilar to those that existed just 40years ago, and are almost unable to be compared with the dominant features of crops of the same name that existed 2000years ago.

BTW, do you really think we have not been eating GM edible oils anyway? More than two-thirds of the soybean oil used in Australia is imported and GM soybeans are just about ubiquitous in the US.  One does not need to eat food which is manufactured overseas to have eaten GM oil already.  What is more, the boundary between GM foods and non-GM foods is quite blurred.  Would you classify the herbicide resistant genes in canola that has been grown for the last seven season in Australia as GM or not?  The gene existed as a natural mutation , supposedly, but was selected for by using the herbicide.  We leave aside the present discussion about multiple herbicide resistances, but the same principles apply in the main.

What really concerns me is the way anti-social agendas are appropriated by the companies involved in the technology with a view to making a buck.  If these cowboys are allowed to dominate the industry as they are presently, genetic engineering for agricultural purposes probably has a limited future. The crap decisions taken by Governments like Zambia (to kill a few million people now so that they don't have to have genetically modified crop material) will be seen to be normal, instead of being irresponsible and cruel.  In our own subculture, it is irksome that people of doubtful past behaviour like Percy Schmeiser are lauded as heroes simple because they appear to be opposing a bunch of known cowboys.

A further concern is the lack of resources available to the OGTR.  It took Forbzy with his remarkable persistence and persuasion two months to get a reply to a few questions and the answers, when they arrived, took the narrow view about what the OGTR is about, not about agricultural systems and the particular features and their social desirability.

Anyway, regardless of what you and I might think, Ken, it does appear that we are now at the start of a major experiment as to the long-term effects of changes to the way food is produced, and participation is not going to be optional.  The way I see it, labelling can answer questions of food origin in a narrow way.  It cannot hope to give a simple answer to the complex question that those who seek it really want answered.  OTOH, it may be that it is not possible to answer questions comprehensively about food safety anyway.

Forbzy say more when he gets back, no doubt.  You may be sure I will remind him.
 

Stephen Berry added:

G'Day Toby,I agree with your sentiments.However a small correction,The Zambian government did not kill anyone,they rejected one(1) shipment of unmilled grain from one(1) donor the US.Because they refused to mill the grain.They accepted milled grain from Canada which has a large GM crop havest and many other countries.About the only thing Zambia earns export dollars from is GM free produce to luxury markets in Europe the loss of those markets from any GM cotamination of their havests would bankrupt the country and lead
to a massive increase in poverty in a nation already struggling to make ends meet.Also they are not the only country to reject grain that the US refuses to mill before shipment.The US is also the only country that refuses to mill grain shipped as aid.

and in response to a further query from Toby

G'Day Toby,Sorry but the interview I heard with the Zambian foriegn minister was on an MP3 sent by a cousin in Wales and was from BBC Wales.I seem to have lost/deleted the file.Maybe you could track it on the Beeb english langauge site?Also try tainted aid in the letters column of New Scientist
31st August2002.This is a letter from Andrew Clegg,Windhoek Namibia, which apparently has a similar problem.Cheers Steve B.

Sorry to report, Steve, that this is incorrect. A Reuters story today has the Zambian Home Affairs Minister correcting this misinterpretation. Zambia will not allow *any* GM food, milled or not, and is blocking the UN's World Food Programme from feeding the GM maize to refugees. Zambia's major exports are: copper, electricity, cobalt and tobacco.

You might be thinking of Zimbabwe, which has indicated that it *might* be willing to accept GM maize if it is already milled. Might.

Neither country is looking all that concerned with human rights and alleviation of suffering right now.

Where did you get your information?
 

Toby asked Chris Forbes-Ewan:

The public pre-occupation seems to be (somewhat ignorantly in my view) with the mere fact that something is genetically modified rather than the allergic potential or any of the other potential effects.

Will the labelling of foods indicate the origin of the genetic material?

What definition will be used for "genetically modified" foods?

What do you think of the proposition that food should be "entirely safe"?

I don't believe that the 'allergic potential' is a major problem. From FSANZ (Food Standards Australia New Zealand, formerly Australia New Zealand Food Authority, ANZFA):

"Safety testing must take into account nutritional, toxic and allergenic effects. Allergenicity prediction is not a simple matter. Reliable animal models do not exist, for example. Potential allergenicity can be indicated by examination of some particular factors, including:

"(i) the source of the transferred genetic material (any known allergens); (ii) physicochemical characteristics of the new proteins (most allergens are between 10,000 and 40,000 Daltons and resistant to acid and protease degradation.

"Where new proteins might reasonably be suspected of causing allergic reactions, tests can be conducted in vitro (using sera from sensitive individuals) and in vivo (using skin tests on sensitive people)."

Because testing for allergenicity must take place, it is probably less likely to be a problem than some other aspects of GM (e.g. possible environmental effects). The only allergenic GM food I know of was a GM soy bean that had the DNA for a Brazil nut protein inserted in its genome. This was (somewhat unexpectedly) found to be allergenic and so did not proceed to  commercial release. As far as anyone knows, no-one has ever suffered an allergic response to any GM food.

This contrasts with the effects of naturally-occurring allergens of food origin. For example, according to 'usually reliable sources', such as nutrition educators on several professional e-mail discussion groups, about one hundred people die annually from 'anaphylactic shock' resulting from allergy to peanuts. Dozens of other foods are also known to cause illness in susceptible people. These foods include eggs, milk, a wide range of nuts, seafoods, and foods containing gluten (including all wheat-based foods).

> Will the labelling of foods indicate the origin of the genetic material?

Do you mean their country of origin? If so, the short answer is no. If you mean the species of animal, plant of bacterium, the answer is still 'no'. Come to think of it, the answer to any interpretation of your question is 'no'.

> What definition will be used for "genetically modified" foods?

FSANZ defines a 'GM food' as one that contains novel DNA and/or novel protein.

It does not include highly refined food, such as canola oil, where the effect of the refining process is to remove novel DNA and/or novel protein. Nor does it include a processing aid or food additive, except where any novel DNA and/or novel protein from the processing aid or food additive remains present in the food. Also excluded are flavours present in the food at a concentration of no more than 0.1%.

There is also room for some 'inadvertent' mixing of GM with non-GM, up to 1% GM food in the final product. For example, if the same truck is used to transport non-GM food after a shipment of GM, and inadvertent mixing leads to no more than 1% GM food being present, then that food does not have to be labelled as 'GM'.

Otherwise, the label on or attached to a package of genetically modified food must include the statement 'genetically modified' in conjunction with the name of that food or ingredient or processing aid.

> What do you think of the proposition that food should be "entirely safe"?

I suspect I think the same as you do--that the concept 'entirely safe' has no useful meaning. *Nothing* is entirely safe. Only the dead are at zero risk to their health. 

On the 30/9/2002, Wolfie started a new thread, titled Stealth

I have just been reading a huge list of all the food containing GM material, it's quite terrible how it's suddenly in almost
every commercially available food on supermarket shelves.

they bought it in by stealth, and this in itself is disturbing.

I don't know if any of you have noticed, but people have been trying to convince me of it's safety or presumed safety.

for me this is not an issue, I will never accept GMOs even if they're proved safer than the spit in my own mouth.

There is nothing that will ever change my mind, ever.
 

 Toby Fiander replied:

Next thing you know you will be eating DNA!

>  There is nothing that will ever change my mind, ever.

What impeccable logic you have sometimes....

Gerald Cairnes added:

Hi Wolfie,
There is nothing that we can do with such profound logic so will not even try to answer you on the subject other than to make sure such views do not have an unfortunate influence on any impressionable members of the List.

All I will say is this, you have been genetically engineered, we all have, by viruses and bacteria over a very long time otherwise we couldn't survive nor would your mother's pregnancy with you have been possible without incorporation of virus genes now described as endogenous retroviruses, they make it possible for the uterus to do it's job! I would think that would be the ultimate insult to a philosophy such as yours.

Wolfie responded:
Oh yeah, I've got cane toad genes in me so dinosaurs won't eat me, what did the men in white coats put in yours?

Breeding and evolving is not genetic engineering.

You cannot get spider venon in corn because corn plants can't hump spiders and you can't get glowing monkeys or goat udders producing spider silk

How do you guys have the gall to throw that tired old phrase around that "GM is somehow natural because we've been doing it for years"

we haven't been getting sheep to hump kangaroos to produce woolly jumpers.

we have been crossing one type of cow with another, that happens... and they've always produced milk.

my argument that it's not natural doesn't seem to get past the very determined pro-religion shown very clearly by members of this list. If I am religious then fine, but don't those few of you opposing me go throwing any stones in glass houses.

There is a religion here, those of us who just want to be left out of the game, and those so involved that they can't see the forest for the trees... but the food that I want on my table already has altered genes, without my consent.

If I wanted a fat free, gluten free, caffein free, sugar free diet then nobody here would complain, and would even assist me... but say anything anti-gm and they look at you like you're a pathetic worm far too small minded that it disgusts them to speak to you.

well fuck it guys.

I know you're agendas.

Stephen Berry replied:

G'Day Wolfie,  Yes you do have genes from anphibians and spiders and plants and bacteria. These have been delivered by virus/bacterial infections.  Every time you get an infection there is gene transfer altough most of the genes thus traded are usually of no value to the organism receiving them and are never used.  It was the discovery by medical researchers that a virus or bacterium were carrying RNA/DNA into the cells they infected that lead to so call GM.  Spiders don't have to hump corn to have their genes passed to it all they have to do is be exposed to the same micro-organisms in the enviroment.  This is still the major method of doing GM in the lab,expose a harmless virus/bactterium to the DNA you want to transfer then expose the target organism.  We are all the result of micro-organisms carting DNA around and dumping it willy nilly in other cells.

Gerald Cairnes responded:

I have said it before you are capable of delivering some good posts so why do you insist on weakening your own arguments with crap like this? Virtually all of what you say here is incontrovertibly and demonstrably WRONG! All you achieve is to destroy your own credibility and while you continue to deliver such posts they will receive the reaction they deserve.

In respect of GM being unnatural I suggest that you need to consider what Homo sapiens actually is. The fact is the man is a natural part of the environment doing in his own way what every other organism does to guarantee the survival of the species and that makes the things we do natural also, albeit that some of those activities are unwise and inappropriate. All that GM has done is deliver into our own hands just as our large brains have delivered a superior intelligence, tools based on natural mechanisms with which to better survive. Some of the uses we make of these tools are unwise but those issues have much more to do with politics than science. In the end if we do ourselves in then so be it but most scientists are working very hard to avoid such situations. Your diatribe adds absolutely nothing to the debate, other than to demonstrate a totally closed mind, such oriented organisms usually go extinct sooner or later.

Your organic position is justifiable and there is much to be said for it but NOT on the bases that you put forward. Stop wasting the time of a lot of very busy List members who generously give of their time to educate, assist and in turn receive the same and that includes me. There is no ulterior agenda here, rather your mindless posts of this quality should be regarded as the Alternative Agenda and it is WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Zero Sum commented:

When is everyone going to wake up that Wolfie's attitude is about the choice being taken away from him not about GM per se.

I'm not going suport the Australian invasion of Iraq even if it *is* proven that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction.  Mind you, like Wolfie, there is nowt I can do to oppose it.

Wolfie has a valid point about choice and regulation and how it has been "forced" upon him.  He has reasons for mistrust.  We have seen some of that evidence on this list over past months.

This isn't a scientific argument it is an ethical one.

Ray added:

Wolfie, with my beginners understanding of gene cutting let me try to explain how it is that nothing which is being done by genetic engineering is new.

Bacteria have, for well over 1 billion years, been producing enzymes which slice up the DNA of invading virus.  It is a defense mechanism.

All genetic engineers have done is discover this ability, isolate these bacterial enzymes, and cut DNA at the precise points dictated by the specific enzymes.

This skill, plagiarised from microbes, is used to isolate and to sequence DNA, and to manipulate DNA in ways like recombining one thread of nucleotide base sequences for a particular protein (eg silk, vitamin B, insulin..) into another genome.

No big deal.

Zero Sum commented:

I don't need reminding.  I registered that.  And he is *still* right.

I live in a house whith three young kids.  There have to be rules. One rule that I had formulated for myself long ago is one that they have to abide by.  It is "the principle of infliction".

If a place is silent and somebody wants the radio on/burn incense/practice flute/whatever, that is fine only so long as no one wants the "natural" unpolluted state.  Okay, there is some flexibility because there is more than one room.  But the principle remains.

So, unless you can find a way of consuming GM that does not force Wolfie to do the same, his point is (as you say) "a fair criticism".

Now, please don't think that I agree with him, but he does have a valid point.  He just does not express it particularly well.

The ability to refuse GM food has been taken from him without his consent.  No one can argue that this is not true.  Anyone who claims otherwise is lieing (sic.).

For a list of science communicators, shees.  Remember that there is not a huge point in science communicators communing with science communicators.  The point is to communicate with non-science-communicators clearly and accurately.  While people have tried to "project" at Wolfie in the "science-communications" manner, I can't see *anyone* who has been listening.

Yeah, he is emotional about it and that makes it hard work to understand.  But real communication (not just shouting at one another) is often hard.

Sorry folks.  I just like all of you pretty well and it hurts to see friends fighting.

Science content:-
As far as GM goes, I'd make the comment that if a patented gene is found in the wild, the patent should be void or voided.  Either the manufacturer has not been careful enough, is trying to "gain a monopoly" or it was already in the wild population.  Anyway, it would meant that the Monsantos of this world would have to tread more carefully.

Toby Fiander responded to the Science content:

That was one of Schmeiser's defences, and it might have been his whole reason for resisting Monsanto, but that is not the law either in Canada or here.  It might be argued that is should have been but it is too late now.  There is also evidence that gene flow is a widespread and natural phenomenon.  There is a serious possibility that all DNA is probably eventually accessible by all species.

Owen Veenstra observed:
Just my opinion and worth all of $0.02, but:

I find myself agreeing with Wolfie standpoints,
(1) regarding the introduction "by stealth" of GM, and
(2) the inability to accept that GM of food is proven safe.

>From the little knowledge that I have about genetics (Honours degree in computer science - genetic algorithm research), the only thing that I am truly certain of is how little we understand about how genetics works (with respect to the what is encoding into chromosomes and how this impacts on the overall organism, and successive generations of the organism).  Sure, you can sequence all the genes you want, you can engineer blowflies to grow wings out of their eyes, etc; this buys you some knowledge but not constitute understanding.  Knowledge does not make wisdom, and at the moment (WRT GM) I believe we don't even have alot of knowledge.  From this standpoint, it seems to me premature to start GM'ing food for consumption and claiming that it is safe; it's just too early days yet.

It seems that we are offered that GM is the only solution (to what I don't know!).  I do not believe that it is the "only" solution, especially if it is merely for more efficient ways to grow food (lower cost, increased yield, etc).  I seem to recall that only 15 months ago some research in China managed to increase rice crop yield by more than 90%, simply by growing a mixture of two different types of rice plant in the same fields rather than one.  I don't mean that we should all start growing fields of mixed plants, just that alternatives exist.  "If the only tool you have is a hammer ...".  (Whether alternatives are better requires a case by case analysis, and depends the definition of the problem situation.)

Zero Sum continued:

It may have been one of Scheiser's  (yeah, it is not a typo) defences, but I don't put myself in the same boat.  I wouldn't even call Scheiser's defence a defence.  It was damn well designed to be an offense, a test case, it doing it so badly he cost us all...

I'm not concerned about what the law *is * in the USA (or here)  I am concerned whith what it should be....

And the "serious probability" you mention is more like a certainty - which is why patenting genes is nt a good idea anyway.  Or probably even valid - prior art (of God?)...

George added:

One of the differences between man and all the rest of creation (as far as I can tell) is that man has self-awareness (consciousness) and thus a sense of morality and ethics. I won't argue with you about whether man is a "natural"
part of the environment or not; there was a very lengthy discussion about this issue quite some time ago on this list. However, I suspect that non-human animal behaviour is determined (to a very large degree) by instinct, while the instincts, and therefore actions, of man are significantly modified by his neo-cortex.

Therefore, i don't agree that man does "in his own way what every other organism does to guarantee the survival of the species", in that whatever he does may be influenced by his abilities to reason, reflect, moralise etc.; abilities not possessed by non-human animals.

Peter Macinnis responded:
> I'm not concerned about what the law *is * in the USA (or here)  I am
> concerned whith what it should be....

Canada, actually . . .

The real question should be: where will the damage come from?  It will come in the form of a protein that is expressed by a novel gene, or by some other product created by that protein which is probably an enzyme.

Now call me wacky and zany, but I thought proteins were broken down in digestion, so the only ones we have to worry about are the VERY few that cause allergic reactions.

The average cell has literally thousands of proteins in it at any time, and almost certainly some of these will be natural mutants -- so every food we eat is full of novel proteins, in tiny amounts.  The same thing applies to GM crops and animals -- there are novel proteins there.  Most are digested and broken down to amino acids before they can have any effect.

Keep your eye on the ball, boys and girls -- watch the proteins, not the genes.  You eat, swallow and process grams and grams of foreign DNA, every day -- and what harm has it done you?

Proteins, now, they can be a problem.  There is one case, much loved by the wilfully ignorant, the scientifically illiterate, of an allergen being introduced into a GM product.  Clear evidence of what might go wrong, they say.  What a pity they forget to mention that the allergen selected was a notorious one, and the experiment was a test to see if the GM product would cause an allergic reaction.

That's right -- it wasn't a frankenfood at all, just another careful test by responsible scientists to see what might go wrong, if people did not take care.  What a pity the irresponsible Luddites tell lies about it and how it came about.

What a pity that "natural" breeders don't have to watch out for the same sorts of risks when they hybridise across species barriers.  I say get rid of all transgenic crops and hybrids, they are an abomination!  What?  Sugar cane is a hybrid of several species?  So is wheat?  And all those others?  Been like it for thousands of years? Granny Smiths breed in an unnatural way?  No matter -- if they crossed the species barrier, they're immoral.  Destroy them all, I say!  My mind's made up, don't confuse me with facts . . .

Toby replied to a post from Wolfie, saying:

>  Explain to me how monkeys would come to glow in the dark or why
>  certain vegetables would end up with jellyfish genes.

>  This is patently NOT natural.

If after more than three years on this list you can't explain it to yourself, then there is something wrong with your reasoning.  You just don't want to see.

This is not a matter of ethics or choice.  It has been explained for almost as long as I have been on the list.  DNA is common to every living thing.  Most of it is in most living things.  So there is no such thing as a "jellyfish gene".  There is simply DNA which codes to proteins.

If you choose not to see, you will excuse me if I choose not to take part any more.  Anyway, you would reckon that someone called Wolfie would understand about the commonality among living things.

I don't think the use of GMOs are occurring by stealth.  There is legislation now nearly 20 years old dealing with it.... keep up!

This is about reactionary individuals highjacking the debate for supposedly ethical reasons and telling everyone they have the high moral ground, when they don't - they don't even have the status quo supporting them.  The illusion of equilibrium in nature is merely fuelled by the shortness of human life is so short.

There are serious issues to discuss like how this technology is going to be used, not whether it should exist.  I don't think there is any choice but to be part of what is occurring anyway.  It is at least 20years too late to have a debate on whether the human race should do this.  Individuality of choice is not open either.

If you choose on some arbitrary ground (Zero says it is ethical, but I think it has no basis, so it is arbitrary) not to want to be part of then you need to move to another planet, but... no I won't say it, I will just think it.

What a pity I find myself siding with cowboys.

Gerald Cairnes wrote:

It has become very clear that there is only ONE form of life on this Planet and it occurs in a wondrous array of species and varieties therefore it is the speciation which could be regarded as the departure from the basic genome. In any case we share a very large number of genes with the lowliest of organisms which makes the "shock horror" reaction of the anti GM Luddites pretty hollow. Which touches on the thread on "lies" methinks.

Of course there are issues about GM which have been and still are being discussed on this List and elswhere and I share these concerns also. But for those who insist on driving down the wrong side of the road, unlike farming, the future is pretty clear!

Toby, in response to Peter, observed:

I have wondered at times whether Schmeiser is actually a "stalking horse" for Monsanto and a mole in the alternative camp, could he have been paid to do what he did after all it did Monsanto a power of legal good? Of course I doubt he would admit to that.