I think there is a valid argument against GMOs, but it revolves more around the dangers of creating a monoculture (i.e. one bad crop disease could then wipe out a large fraction of the food supply), rather than health risks, since as I'm sure many HN readers are aware, humans have been genetically modifying food since they've been cultivating it.
back
3 comments
I know even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been pushing the "we've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years!" line but I think it's a bit disingenuous.
Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
> I know even Neil DeGrasse Tyson has been pushing the "we've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years!" line but I think it's a bit disingenuous.
Its not. Not that its his field or anything, but I suspect Tyson has educated himself somewhat on it before making that statement, and it certainly matches what I've learned from direct contact from people working in the field.
> Crossing a tomato and a deep sea fish is fundamentally different from crossing two strains of corn and we should expect different risks.
We don't cross tomatoes with deep sea fish; we might take genes from deep sea fish (or some other similarly distant species) and insert them into tomatoes, but then, one of the ways that the genetic changes occur that natural and artificial selection both work on is horizontal gene transfer between species (including ones that are very far apart on the tree/web of life), so this is not as fundamentally different from what goes on in traditional breeding as many people seem to think.
> horizontal gene transfer between species (including ones that are very far apart on the tree/web of life)
If you don't mind me asking, how far apart does this happen in nature? How many genes have made if from fish into plants?
Are you engaging in hyperbole or is there a link you can provide where someone has spliced fish genes into a tomato intended for human consumption?
It's a thing, though it didn't work. (Wiki links to more in depth sources):
> An early tomato was developed that contained an antifreeze gene (afa3) from the winter flounder with the aim of increasing the tomato's tolerance to frost, which became an icon in the early years of the debate over genetically modified foods, especially in relation to the perceived ethical dilemma of combining genes from different species as the tomato gained the moniker fish tomato.[18] The antifreeze protein was found to inhibit ice recrystallization in the flounder blood, but had no effect when expressed in transgenic tobacco.[19] The resulting tomato was never commercialized, possibly because the transgenic plant did not perform well in its frost-tolerance or other agronomic characteristics
Thanks for info. Yes I would have been surprised if such a radical transfer would have been found not to actually harm the agronomic viability. Skeptical a promoter could even be found, but anything is possible.
Helpful characteristics approaching commercial reality involve nothing of the kind such as the recent StAs1 and StAs2 Simplot potato or the AquAdvantage salmon opAFP-GHc2 construct.
Take it with a grain of salt, but this report of fish genes in tomatoes seems credible: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/pop_genetic_gallery/
Apparently fish tomatoes do exist, but have never been on the market.
How is it fundamentally different? Sounds almost exactly the same, to me.
It's all DNA based, all from the same tree of life, true.
But is there any evidence of gene sharing between biological kingdoms in nature? Why can't an animal and a plant create an offspring that shares both of their genetic information? There's clearly lack of a mechanism for fish-tomato sex but evolution is known to create very elegant mechanisms for things that are beneficial.
Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't.
EDIT: I'm not allowed to comment on the response below? So, here it is...
> Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion?
Clearly I was unaware this happens at all in nature which is why I asked if it happens. Horizontal Gene Transfer is fascinating. However, it's been around since the beginning but sexual reproduction supplanted it as the preferred method of gene sharing as the complexity of organisms increased.
> But is there any evidence of gene sharing between biological kingdoms in nature?
Yes. Horizontal gene transfer can operate between different kingdoms (or, more relevantly to how life is usually divided these days, between the three phylogenetic domains of archaea, bacteria, and eukaryota.)
> Intra-species gene sharing has been selected for as being beneficial, inter-species gene sharing hasn't.
Given that it is observed in nature, what is your basis for that conclusion?
Is there anything specific about GMO that would lead to monoculture. Even with just normal artificial selection, I would expect farmers to converge on a few best strains and create a monoculture with those.
Pre-harvest use of glyphosate is not something we have been doing for thousands of years.
It is bad, and GMO consumers should be aware of that.