At 07:51 08/08/2011, Mike wrote:
Keith wrote:
> You can sleep tight. If it's any consolation, you have probably
> eaten a great deal of GM food already with no ill effects. When
> digested, modified genes break down into a standard set of amino
> acids just like normal genes.
Jeez, Keith, you musty have fires that off in a snit of some kind.
Agreed that engineered genes are made of the same stuff as natural
ones but they're *not* made of amino acids.
Proteins are made of amino acids and yes, the proteins engendered by
engineered genes are going to be made of the same amino acids.
Yes, you're quite right! I fired it off too quickly. Instead of
"amino acids" I should have written "nucleotides" (of which there are
only four, whether in normal genes or modified genes). It doesn't
alter my point in any way, however.
All irrelevant.
Engineered genes *in the engineered organism* are the keys, the
templates, for engineered proteins. Those proteins may be *active*,
active membrane proteins, enzymes etc. What active proteins do,
especially classic enzymes, is control all the other chemistry of the
organism's cells, of the organism in toto.
Yes, but the point is that all genes are digested down to simpler
chemical forms in our gut (by bacteria which we host) from which our
own unique genes and our own unique mix of proteins are subsequently
made in our own body cells.
And we are gradually coming to realize that subtle, sometimes
miniscule, variations in biochemistry at one place, in one organism or
substance, can have stupendously amplified effects, or effects that
propagate silently for some time before being expressed, or.... etc.
Yes.
> The only 'danger' of growing GM food is if it escapes farmers'
> supervision...
The only danger of growing GM food is is that I'm pretty sure that the
people doing it, from Monsanto's CEO through Dr. Whoever, Phd
(Biotech) to Joe Farmer don't have a shpxvat clue what the long-term
systemic consequences will be.
That's true. But on the basis of past experience (particularly the
import of tens of thousands of exotic plants as already mentioned)
the chances of anything catastrophic are deemed to be remote so far.
Thus, for the same reason as those who build nuclear reactors --
profit -- Monsanto and co influence their governments to allow them
to go ahead.
And if a few *do* have a clue, they
don't care because their careers or profits or share values trump
misery, chaos or even megadeaths.
If a few have a clue. There are now so many biology scientists in
independent research in academe, or research foundations or even in
highly competitive businesses that if there were any conceivable
specific danger, don't you think that someone would have pointed it out?
When I campaigned in the 1970s against the dumping of toxic wastes
from industry in Coventry, my own employers, Massey Ferguson, were
also party to it (in the sense that they allowed some criminally
irresponsible disposal companies to have their waste business). I was
not of a management level that I could have changed that situation or
influenced others personally. I would have needed to have been at
director level. I was only a bog standard manager. However, if I had
campaigned within Massey Ferguson I would have undoubtedly been
sacked. But when I (and Noel Newsome) wrote a report to the
Department of the Environment about what was going on (from which
later emerged the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972) I was
diplomatic enough not to mention my own employers in particular.
Besides M-F, there were seven other large automotive firms in
Coventry also getting rid of considerable quantities of stuff such as
spent cyanide and chromic acid residues -- and Massey Ferguson were
diplomatic enough not to sack me. But after the act was passed, M-F
had to do as they were told, just like all the other firms!
The whole show -- everything that matters to us -- is biology. And we
don't really understand it yet. If you dick around with biology
globally without understanding the global consequences, you're playing
something worse than Russian roulette, playing it on behalf of everybody.
You're right about one thing. Genetics is about the most complex area
of scientific investigation there has ever been. But that hasn't
prevented mankind from entering into this potentially dangerous area
if benefits seem to be had. I'm thinking of vaccines, for example.
Although vaccination has got rid of smallpox, for example, we might
also be deselecting a vital part of our immune system because it's no
longer required. We might, in fact, be opening up a potential niche
into which a close cousin of the smallpox virus might enter with
deadly effect. The human population might then be at greater danger
from this than it ever was against smallpox (when at least some of
the population had natural immunity). A better example is
antibiotics. Its wide use has encouraged the mutation of several
previously benign bacteria and turned them into killers (MRSA, etc).
When it comes to messing around with biology, particularly genetics,
we simply don't know the possible full consequences in detail.
Because no-one has raised specific dangers about GM maize, for
example, Monsanto has simply gone ahead, sometimes by bribing
politicians into allowing them to (as in America) or by guile
(substituting it in exports).
Keith
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
Keith Hudson, Saltford, England http://allisstatus.wordpress.com/2011/08/
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
