"Perhaps Federoff is pushing an open-source approach to GMOs"?

Tom, I realize, or at least hope, that you were being facetious, but considering the massive amount of PR lies the genetic engineering industry has put forth, it's a bad idea to even make a statement like this in jest in a forum where it could easily be taken seriously.

But more importantly and fundamentally, you should explain to readers why genetic engineering does not in any way mimic nature, as a lot of people seem to have fallen for this outright lie.  Nothing in nature blasts a cell of one organism into the being of another.

Setting aside our disagreement over the definition of nature and whether GMOs are a good idea, I'd like to respond to the following comments.

"But more importantly and fundamentally, you should explain to readers why genetic engineering does not in any way mimic nature, as a lot of people seem to have fallen for this outright lie."

Viruses can and do transfer genetic information from one species to another. Viruses can be used as a tool for genetic engineering. Bacteria can pick up DNA from their environment, though I don't know whether they do it routinely. Bacteria can and do transfer genetic information from one species to another. Bacteria can be used as a tool for genetic engineering. So, genetic engineering actually does, in some way, mimic nature.

"Nothing in nature blasts a cell of one organism into the being of another."

And your point is?

Genetically engineered plants are created by moving small segments of DNA from one organism to another, not by blasting "a cell of one organism into the being of another". I doubt genetically engineered animals are created by blasting cells together, but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

It is an interesting remark, however. Conventional breeding of plants can involve forcing sexually incompatible species together by fusing their cells and regenerating hybrid plants containing  a full set of chromosomes from each "parent". The hybrids can then be crossed with one or the other species to move desired traits across species boundaries.

It seems odd that moving a small piece of DNA from plant to plant is rejected by organic agriculture, but violently forcing sexually incompatible species together -- combining thousands of genes that nature would never bring together -- is just fine.

There's almost no food that isn't genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution.... The paradox is that now that we've invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that's terrible.

I thought for a moment I must be reading the script of a Simpsons episode, like the one where Mr. Burns claims the three-eyed fish caught near the nuclear plant is the result of evolution.

The paradox is that now that we've invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest..

Of course anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of genetics knows this is false, that any genetic change can reverberate in unpredictable ways.

  It's a Monsanto trade policy, not US national trade policy. I'm sorry, how are transgenically manipulating plants and animals supposed to benefit humankind? When Americans waste 30% of our food, and most "food insecurity" is caused by improper or unequal distribution and the uncertainty of war-zones,etc., how can the profitability of any product take precedence over human and other animal life? Listen, there are numerous studies which indicate that there is enough food to go around, it simply isn't getting to where it should. These companies are experimenting with something they(and science in general) do not even yet fully understand. Experimenting on life and taking a learn-as-you-go approach is absurd and idiotic. It is one thing to experiment with polio in a lab, it is entirely another thing to experiment with our food supply on an industrial scale.

The mellotron is your friend.

What about the antibiotic resistant marker gene, CaMV promoter sequence that is constantly turned on instead of regulated, and the risk of promoter gene transfer in the gut of consumers?  This does not in any way shape or form mimic nature. The promoter gene is somewhat similar to cancer proliferation, though.

Mainstream scientific thinking now does not say 1 gene = 1 function or trait. That old theory has been revised (see 2007 and definitely suspected before) with our growing knowledge of genetics--and more importantly since the development of gmo crops and foods.  The initial approval of GMO crops hinged on the one gene/one trait fallacy.  It is now believed that genes operate as networks and even interacting networks. So the insertion or disruption of one gene has an unknown cascading effect.

 Regarding the above sentence:  Round up residues are not exponentially increased on foods.
This should have read residues ARE exponentially increased on food crops and fda/usda has according increased the allowable limits, IMO, to accomodate the Industry.

I must admit I should and will learn about this.

You raise a whole series of questions regarding whether DNA survives transit through our digestive system, whether it is taken up by human cells, whether it makes its way from the cytosol to the nucleus, whether it is incorporated into the human cell's nuclear DNA, and whether human proteins recognize the promoter.

For now, however, I have to ask several other questions...

If there is even a remote possibility that a bit of plant DNA or plant virus DNA can be imported by a human cell, incorporated into the cell's own DNA, expressed, and affect cell growth, then why, over the past several decades, has no one identified cancerous tumors containing active plant genes? After all, we consume vast quantities of plant material, often including plant viruses (as well as fungi and bacteria). Shouldn't some DNA from some of our food -- GMO or not -- have shown up in a human cell? An what about all of the animals consumed? Shouldn't some of their DNA shown up in a human tumor by now?

I get so tired of GMO advocates putting forth the false premise that modern genetic modification is the same thing as Fr Mendel experimenting with his peas or the indigenous Americans developing maize from a wild grass. While it is technically true that both are genetic modification, it is also true that removing a wooden splinter from my thumb is surgery, but I wouldn't compare it to a neurosurgeon's art. It's misleading and intellectually dishonest and shows a deliberate attempt to obfuscate instead of having a fair and open debate on the merits or lack thereof.

Support your local family farmers!

  One of the strategies employed by GM boosters is to claim that foreign genes inserted into the genomes of plants and animals are somehow equivalent to the results obtained by conventional breeding is a blatant untruth and they should be called on this lie.

  Of the 181 amino acids which make up bovine growth hormone there is a change of one amino acid to facilitate the insertion of the hormone gene into bacterial cells for growth in a culture medium. Considering that a change of one amino acid in the human protein ,hemoglobin, which contains over 400 amino acids results in a condition called Sickle Cell Anemia, how can they state that GM products are identical to the natural one?

  I posited two years ago that the death of honeybee colonies might be the result of the bees collecting pollen from corm containing the bT gene and using that pollen to nurture their young. Interested readers need only to Google, "John McDonald, Honeybees", to get access to the two articles published in the San Francisco Chronicle.

I wrote...

"I must admit I should and will learn about this.

You raise a whole series of questions regarding whether DNA survives transit through our digestive system, whether it is taken up by human cells, whether it makes its way from the cytosol to the nucleus, whether it is incorporated into the human cell's nuclear DNA, and whether human proteins recognize the promoter."

I admitted I should learn more about the subject. I indicated there are several questions that should be answered. I DID NOT say there are no results showing transfer of plant DNA into human DNA! I merely expressed skepticism regarding whether it happens... the transfer of DNA from the food we consume into human cells. And I'm surprise that, if it can occur, it has not been documented by now.

So... Thank you for the the links. I will look at the papers when I have time.

(I appreciate your pointing out unsubstantiated claims. I should be able to defend my positions. But I find it rude to accuse someone of doing something they have not done.)

I fully agree that there should be a move toward open-source biotechnology.

Anti-GMOs people might be surprised to learn that the broad patent rights given to corporations severely interfere with research and innovation at academic institutions.

For example, the corporation that holds the patent on the "gene gun" -- whoever that might be -- also has a say in what can be produced using the "gene gun". As far as I'm concerned, this is like patenting a hammer and then claiming you own a percentage of each building constructed via hammers.

Or... a corporation-- or academic institution, actually -- can patent not only a single gene they might isolate or create, they can extend that to include all genes or the proteins coded for by those genes, similar to that gene or protein, discovered or yet to be discovered, in remotely similar species. I find this absurd.

(Mr. Forrester, I could be wrong. This is what I've heard, but cannot easily document it. I do know patents have interfered with release of plants from this lab, plants that patent holders have no interest in permitting release of because they own a competing technology.)

I would really like to see more environmentalists trying to wrestle the hammer away from the corporations, rather than ban hammers.

I also agree that there should be full disclosure and labeling of products made from GMOs. It is important for consumers to be fully aware of what was done to produce a product.

But I would carry this one step further...

There should be a concise labeling system to indicate -- at least -- whether a product contains GMOs (as in transfer of a gene or a few genes by bacteria, viruses, the gene gun, or similar technology), what sort of chemicals were used (persistence in the environment, herbicide, insecticide, harm to wildlife, etc.), and EXACTLY where the ingredients came from (country of origin).

When a consumer has to choose a bag of potatoes, say, they might read "GMO, zero chemicals", "non-GMO, copper sulfate", "non-GMO, rotenone", "non-GMO, zero chemicals",  "GMO, RoundUp", "organic, zero chemicals", et cetera. Then they can make an informed decision based on price, quality, and their personal values.

If they don't want GMOs, then no one will grow them.

Industrial agriculture made an enormous mistake when they committed themselves to stand in the way of labeling. It does and should make people wonder what they are hiding. They should have permitted labeling and focused all that money on addressing public concerns and, if necessary, making GMOs safer. Also, they could have lowered the cost of the technology and made it more available to farmers who need it.

You will not see me defending this awful behavior... broad patent rights and covering up where our food comes from.

wiscidea said: "You will not see me defending this awful behavior... broad patent rights and covering up where our food comes from".

I have been a critic of patenting laws for over 25 years. A long time ago I was having lunch with my old PhD supervisor when he asked me (I had moved away from academia had had become an independent  "science entrepreneur") what could be done to enhance innovation, especially in "biotechnology" (this was when the term covered a much broader field than it does now).

My immediate response was "get rid of the patent system, it does far more to discourage and prevent innovation that enhance it".

He was shocked by my response since he was of the belief that the patent system protected small innovative companies. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I also agree that GMO's should be labeled as such.

I have found our discussion to be enlightening. I hope that you have not found be too overbearing but the way large multi-national companies have abused science and the regulatory sytem gets me very angry.

Tom wrote...

"I can go to the farmers market, buy tomatoes, and save the seeds, and plant them, and no one has any claim on me."

I'd like to know whether this is truly accurate. Consider the following scenarios...

(1) I intentionally buy an attractive heirloom tomato available from one vendor, save the seed, grow it the following year, and set up my own stand at the farmer's market to sell the fruit. No one will accuse me of stealing their heirloom tomato variety?

(2) I intentionally buy a packet of seed --seed for a known, named, open-pollinated tomato -- from Johnny's or Baker Creek, grow the plants, dry the seed, and sell it to someone else. I put the name of the variety on the packet. Is this legal?

(3) I intentionally buy a packet of seed -- seed from a NEW superior cross of two heirloom tomatoes -- from an organic seed distributor, grow the plants, dry the seed, and sell it to someone else. I even put the name of the new variety on the packet. Is this legal?

Please don't assume I think it is okay to patent GMOs. I do not. But I'm trying to get a grip on when it is okay -- legally, not morally -- to patent a variety of plant and when it is not. Who draws the line?

This is not just a conflict between GMOs and organic. This is a conflict between decades of financially-driven traditional breeding and apparent principles of organic agriculture.

... if Monsanto or any other corporation can't keep their genes in their jeans, they shouldn't have a say in what happens to them once they are released into the environment.

Go ahead, collect some plants from distant lands and clone genes. Go ahead, plant GMOs in your own fields. But once that DNA leaves the field, it is fair game for anyone who cares to propagate it and profit from it -- just as the corporations appropriate life from the natural commons and profit from it.

If a corporation wants to lay claim to a component of the natural commons and externalize the costs, they should also accept someone else laying claim to the NEW component of the natural commons and externalize the benefits.

consistency, consistency, consistency

Anti-GMOs people might be surprised to learn that the broad patent rights given to corporations severely interfere with research and innovation at academic institutions.

I known that for some time, and it didn't surprise me when I did learn it. It's just one example among a disturbingly long list of ways in which universities become compliant corporate feeding troughs.

Here we're talking about predatory agribusiness, but I could also mention the (increasingly privatized) military-industrial complex, the techno-surveillance complex, the totalitarian brain-scanning industry, industrial irrigation in California (for anyone not familiar with that history, you might not believe how much California irrigation has been state and federally subsidized to benefit a relative handful of big landowners).

In these and other cases, a malevolent corporate force ponies up pennies matched by public dollars and public university research facilities, to develop products and technologies for which the corporation generally walks away with the patent rights (the university might get some measly royalty or fee), which products and technologies are then used to assault our socioeconomic structure, our dignity, and our very freedom.

This is a big part of why I consider America's system of "higher education" to be rotten beyond redemption.

(Off-topic rant concluded.)  

"In this day and age, it seems perfectly natural that U.S. ag-development policy should be dominated by the agenda of such companies. Let's hope that changes soon."

It's not going to change.

Victory in Pattani