Posted on 01/11/2005 9:00:52 PM PST by neverdem
Almost everywhere food is sold these days, you are likely to find products claiming to contain no genetically modified substances. But unless you are buying wild mushrooms, game, berries or fish, that statement is untrue.
Nearly every food we eat has been genetically modified, through centuries of crosses, both within and between species, and for most of the last century through mutations induced by bombarding seeds with chemicals or radiation. In each of these techniques, dozens, hundreds, even thousands of genes of unknown function are transferred or modified to produce new food varieties.
Most so-called organic foods are no exception. The claims of no genetic modification really refer to foods that contain no ingredients that are produced through the highly refined technique of gene splicing, in which one or a few genes are transferred to an organism. But alarmist warnings about the possible hazards of gene splicing have made the public extremely wary of this selective form of genetic modification.
Such warnings have so far been groundless. "Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients," said Dr. Henry I. Miller, a fellow at the Hoover Institution and author, with Gregory Conko, of "The Frankenfood Myth," a new book that questions the wisdom of current gene-splicing regulations.
"There hasn't been a single untoward event documented, not a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill from these foods," he said in an interview. "That is not something that can be said about conventional foods, where imprecise methods of genetic modification actually have caused illnesses and deaths."
Ignorance vs. Progress
It is no secret that the public's understanding of science, and genetics in particular, is low. For example, in a telephone survey of 1,200 Americans released last October by the Food Policy Institute at Rutgers University, 43 percent thought, incorrectly, that ordinary tomatoes did not contain genes, while genetically modified tomatoes did. One-third thought, again incorrectly, that eating genetically modified fruit would change their own genes.
In another telephone survey, in which 1,000 American consumers were questioned last year in research for the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 54 percent said they knew little or nothing about genetically modified foods. Still, 89 percent said that no such food should be allowed on the market until the Food and Drug Administration determined that it was safe.
What most respondents did not seem to know is that almost none of the foods people eat every day, which contain many introduced genes whose functions are unknown, have ever been subjected to premarketing approval or postmarketing surveillance.
Why should people object to the presence of a single new gene whose function is known when for centuries they have accepted foods containing hundreds of new genes of unknown function?
A junior high school student in Idaho, Nathan Zohner, demonstrated in a 1997 science fair project how easy it was to hoodwink a scientifically uninformed public. As described in "The Frankenfood Myth," 86 percent of the 50 students he surveyed thought dihydrogen monoxide should be banned after they were told that prolonged exposure to its solid form caused severe tissue damage, that exposure to its gaseous form caused severe burns and that it had been found in tumors from terminal cancer patients. Only one student recognized the substance as water, H2O.
Without better public understanding and changes in the many arcane rules now thwarting development of new gene-spliced products, we will miss out on major improvements that can result in more healthful foods, a cleaner environment and a worldwide ability to produce more food on less land - using less water, fewer chemicals and less money.
The European Union has, in effect, banned imports of all foods produced through gene splicing, and it has kept many African nations, including those afflicted with widespread malnutrition, from accepting even donated gene-spliced foods and crops by threatening to cut off products they export because they might become contaminated with introduced genes.
Even more puzzling, Uganda has prohibited the testing of a fungus-resistant banana created through gene splicing, even though the fungus is devastating that nation's most important crop.
A Continuum of Techniques
In a new report, "Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," published by the National Academy of Sciences, an expert committee notes that any time genes are mutated or combined, as occurs in almost all breeding methods, there is a possibility of producing a new, potentially hazardous substance.
Citing a conventionally bred potato that turned out to contain an unintended toxin, the report says the hazard lies with the toxin's presence, not the breeding method.
Among the foods developed through induced mutations are lettuce, beans, grapefruit, rice, oats and wheat. None had to undergo stringent testing and federal approval before reaching the market.
Only those foods produced by the specific introduction of one or more genes into the organism's DNA are subject to strict and prolonged premarketing regulations. But as the academy's report points out, gene splicing is only a process, not a product, a process on a continuum of genetic modification of foods that began more than 10,000 years ago when people first crossed two varieties of a crop to improve its characteristics.
In fact, gene splicing is the most refined, precise and predictable method of genetic modification because the function of the transferred gene or genes is known. It is also important to realize that genes are rarely unique to a given organism.
Regulate by Degree of Risk
All new crop varieties, whether produced through gene splicing or conventional techniques like cross-breeding or induced mutations, go through a series of tests before commercial introduction. After greenhouse testing for the look and perhaps taste of the crop, it is grown in a small, sequestered field trial and, if it passes that test, in a larger trial to check its commercial viability.
The potential risks associated with genetically modified foods result not so much from the method used to produce them but from the traits being introduced. With gene splicing, only one or two traits at a time are introduced, making it possible to assess beforehand how much testing is needed to assure safety.
While such safety tests are important, it is possible to become fixated on hypothetical risks that can never be absolutely discounted.
Indeed, Dr. Miller, once director of the Office of Biotechnology for the Food and Drug Administration, argues that overly stringent regulations can needlessly raise public fears. "People naturally assume that something that is more highly regulated is more dangerous," he said, adding, "Government officials should have done less regulating and more educating."
A risk-based protocol for safety evaluation would greatly reduce the time and costs involved in developing most new gene-spliced crops, many of which could raise the standard of living worldwide and better protect the planet from chemical contamination.
Of course, the Left would rather have people starve so they can boast of their "green" credentials than support a technology that could wipe out hunger and disease. Like with biotechnology, they're automatically against it since the free market would leave them outside looking in. So its no wonder the Left wants to regulate, restrict and ban biotechnology applications as much as it can to make sure people look to THEM for solutions.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
BTTT!!!!!!
Exactly right.
Anyone that says that there is no significant difference between gene splicing and induced mutation is either stupid or is trying to fool people. If gene splicing is a good thing, then say so; just don't try to tell me that we've been doing it for centuries.
We've been manipulating genotypes to effect changes in phenotypes for quite a while. How's that?
bttt
Cross breeding and induced mutation mimic processes that occur in nature and differ only quantitively, say, in the amount of radioactive bombardment of genetic material. Gene splicing, especially between species, is entirely new and qualitatively different.
All I am saying is that it is different. It, if history is a guide, may be a long time before we know if it is a good or bad thing. I am always leery unintended consequences.
And how would you categorize current theories of evolution of species quantitative or qualitative?
How about genetic selection, quantitative or qualitative?
How is cross breeding between different species quantitative when a single gene is qualitative? I think your distinction is non-existent.
You flatter yourself. And be careful when you quote part of someone's sentence, without ellipsis, in a way that changes or obscures the intended meaning. Perhaps you did not get the intended meaning.
And how would you categorize current theories of evolution of species quantitative or qualitative?
I wouldn't. It's a nonsense question.
How about genetic selection, quantitative or qualitative?
A selection may be made for either a quality such as agility or a quantitative measurement such as size. So?
How is cross breeding between different species quantitative when a single gene is qualitative?
More nonsense. Cross breeding between species, which, by the way, results in infertile offspring, occurs rarely in nature. It occurs more often in man's domain, an example being a mule. The difference in occurence of cross breeding between nature's domain and man's domain, (an artificial reductionist difference) is quantitative as "frequentness" may be measured as a quantity.
I’m sorry my disagreement makes you so touchy that you feel you must attack me personally.
You are using the words “quantitative” and “qualitative” wrong in the genetic context. Here is a definition:
“Quality vs. Quantitative Traits
All traits of swine are not controlled by just one gene pair. In fact, very few economically important traits are controlled by a single or few gene pairs. Traits such as age at 230 pounds, litter size, and average backfat thickness are controlled by possibly hundreds of gene pairs.
Consequently, traits are generally grouped into two categories, qualitative and quantitative.
Qualitative Traits
Qualitative traits have four distinguishing characteristics. These are:
1. Qualitative traits are controlled by a single or a few gene pairs.
2. Phenotypes (the visual characteristics we see), of qualitative traits, can be broken into distinct categories, in which every member in that category looks the same. For example, the red-black color condition in pigs is a qualitative trait and pigs are either red or black.
3. The environment has little effect on the expression of the gene pair(s) controlling a qualitative trait. In the red-black color example, red pigs would continue to be red, regardless if they were raised in environmentally controlled buildings or dirt lots.
4. The genotype of an individual for a qualitative trait can be determined (identifying the genes that occupy the gene pair(s)) with reasonable accuracy.
Quantitative Traits
Quantitative traits are dissimilar in their attributes when compared to qualitative traits. Characteristics of quantitative traits include:
1. Quantitative traits are controlled by possibly hundreds or thousands of gene pairs located on several different chromosome pairs. Some gene pairs will contain additive genes while others can contain nonadditive genes. Most economically important traits are quantitative traits.
2. The environment does affect expression of the gene pairs controlling quantitative traits. If two pigs are similar genetically, with one raised in a confinement unit and the other raised in a dirt lot, their growth performance will probably be different.
3. Phenotypes of quantitative traits cannot be classified into distinct categories since they will usually follow a continuous distribution. An example would be average daily gain. If average daily gain records from weaning to market weight of every pig in a group, were plotted the points would form a continuous line. An exception of this are some of the reproductive traits. For example, litter size is a quantitative trait but can be grouped into distinct groups of 7, 8, etc. It is impossible to accurately determine how many gene pairs are controlling a quantitative trait; therefore, an exact gene type can never be determined.
These factors make it difficult to identify individuals that have superior genotypes for quantitative traits. “
http://www.nsif.com/Factsheets%5CNSIF-FS2_files/NSIF-FS2.html
Qualitative changes require less genetic tampering than quantitative ones. How would less change pose more risk? How would controlled change pose more risk than uncontrolled, ie “natural” change? Why do you assume (this appears to be the assumption of many Greens) that natural change is both benign and not cataclysmic?
Interesting. And thanks for taking the time and trouble.
But if you were to read my post #11 again you could see that I am applying the qualitative/quantitative angle to the PROCESSES of inducing genetic mutation and not to the resulting traits. The resultant traits are qualitative and/or quantitative changes in either case.
Splicing genetic material from a spider to that of a tomato is qualitatively different from bombarding seeds with radiation. Genes are subject to natural radiation and stepping the the rads is just a quantitative change, in my humble abstract reductionist analysis.
Sometimes I feel that people are trying to misunderstand just to muddy things up just as Ms Brody does in her article, sorry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.