tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18386629475867282722024-02-19T06:39:18.809-08:00The Genetic Engineering DebateDebating genetic engineering, genetic modification, proposition 37, biotechnology, transgenic organisms, synthetic life, patenting life, monsanto, corporate control, evolution, labeling, GMOs, food security, education, democracy and the sacred.Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-65736241379373625192015-07-16T18:00:00.000-07:002015-09-18T13:08:04.369-07:00Let's stop with the silly memes and start learning the science! As the debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) polarizes, a clear understanding of biotechnologies and their effects becomes increasingly unlikely. The fight to control 'public understanding' of biotechnology has each side choosing what to voice, what to keep silent, and how to present themselves and their opponents. Not only has the debate devolved into mudslinging and character assassinations, but it has also seen the rise of internet memes as primary warfare. As it stands, with proponents claiming 'science' on their side and activists championing justice against conspiracy and greed, it seems likely that those concerned will be increasingly pigeon-holed into oblivion. Activists are in part responsible for the corner they are getting painted into. They gauge their effectiveness through quantifiable indicators (number of 'likes' or 'followers' they are gaining on social media, for example), indicators that hide the much greater number of people they are distancing themselves from. <br />
<br />
Social media has a tendency to attract like-minded people together, giving the impression of gradually increasing breadth of influence, when in reality much of the media activist's effort is merely consolidating a geographically distributed minority. The increase in "likes" or "followers", essentially guaranteed in a world of seven billion people, ensures that page managers continue the approach they have been taking. A typical meme, consisting of an image with a caption, inevitably comes across as simplistic and silly to those who have an opposing view or are 'sitting on the fence.' After some time, the continued onslaught of memes even has the effect of dulling many of those who are sympathetic to the cause. While I identify as someone very concerned about the impacts of the 'biotech revolution,' I now skim past most of the GMO-related news that ends up on my facebook feed. I know of many others who do the same. The essential problem is that the GMO debate has turned into another instance of partisan bickering, thereby attracting only those who enjoy aggressive oppositional battles. For the great majority, the issue gets passed by. Most people consider themselves moderate and are suspicious of what seem to be excessively one-sided characterizations. <br />
<br />
The danger for the anti-GMO movement is that when this majority does pass over the GMO issue, they end up siding with the proponents of GMOs. This is because most food already has GMOs in it and it takes an effort to avoid them. <br />
<br />
A social media page manager should only consider significant increases in likes or page views as indications of success. And by significant, I mean doubling or tripling within very short periods of time or even better, exponential growth curves. The new 'likes' should be people who are not already following half a dozen other social media sources that are pretty much the same sort of content. It is my opinion that this sort of success can only happen when activists take a much more self-reflective and experimental approach to how they manage their social media. With pages like Biofortified and the Genetic Literacy Project, the pro-GMO crowd is reconstructing itself, and is writing material that seems much more well-written, well-reasoned, and believable that the stuff I am reading on the Organic Consumers Association website. They are approaching their writing as a pedagogical activity. They are slowly and carefully building up a collection of writing and resources that will convincingly present themselves as the scientific authority on the matter. The fact that their science is largely based on an early and erroneous way of describing the relationship between genes, traits and organisms will become increasingly irrelevant. In the science wars, it is not science itself that triumphs but the image of it. <br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-26092369182199303752014-09-16T13:07:00.002-07:002014-10-05T19:55:12.492-07:00The precedent-setting effect of first-generation GMOs Current debate between proponents and critics of "genetic engineering" is, by and large, a battle to determine whether or not GMO foodstuff can be proven safe for ingestion. Each side seems to rely on authority to build their argument, citing scientists that back their stance and ignoring studies that suggest otherwise. As a result, the broader ethical and philosophical questions about the consequences of genetic engineering, questions that have remained unresolved since they were first raised in the 1970s and 1980s, are being swept under the scientist's rug. This narrowing of the breadth of public debate should be a concern for those on both sides of the transgenic fence line.<br />
<br />
It is simply a fact that most of the peer-reviewed studies available on commercialized GMOs currently attest to their safety, though there is reasonable concern about the independence of many of these studies, as well as the comprehensiveness of their scope and their methodology. Despite these concerns (and allied ones involving the control of seed supplies by corporations and patenting laws), I will assume for the sake of this article that currently approved GMOs for food consumption are 100% safe, as their advocates claim. After making this assumption, the next question is: Does this imply, as GMO advocates seem to declare, that we should no longer be concerned about further developments by the biotech industry? That 'labeling' or restricting the production of GMOs is unnecessary or misguided? Or that the debate as to whether GMOs are "good" or "bad" has been resoundingly solved?<br />
<br />
I argue here that the safety of first-generation biotech crops (i.e Roundup Ready and Bt crops) not only fails to provide us of any evidence that future GMOs are safe, but for several reasons actually increases the likelihood of dangerous future crops. Their safety would set a precedent that would alter the risk assessment landscape of both researchers and the public in fundamental ways that would gradually erode our capacity to evaluate the progressive advancement of increasingly extreme employments of the technology. It is vital that society develops the means to ensure against such a "snowball effect." <br />
<br />
Advocates of genetic engineering should understand that the level of testing and scrutiny that the first-generation of transgenic organisms have received is likely to be more rigorous than it will be for future organisms approved for commercial release. There are several reasons for this. <br />
<br />
First, because Roundup Ready and Bt crops were the first crops approved for human consumption, they were perceived by scientists, governments, companies, and the public as having a greater potential risk. "Science" was introducing something new and controversial and therefore bore the burden of assuring the public of its safety for consumption and release into the environment. Scientists were more vigilant and they were forced to be even moreso by an incensed consumer base. Regardless of whether or not you consider some biotech activists' positions on GMOs as 'extreme,' it is difficult to deny that the anti-GMO movement did influence policy, slow down the approval process, and ensure that more studies were undertaken than was perhaps anticipated. At the time, long-term studies on humans had never been conducted so no one really knew what would happen. Now, obviously, over the last decade or so, some sort of large human trial has gone on, and it has buttressed the confidence of industry and government in the safety of the products. If the public can be tranquilized, there is no reason to continue with the same level of scrutiny. <br />
<br />
Second, at the time industry was also unsure about what sort of culpability they would have in the cases where their patented GMOs spread in the environment. At first, insurance companies refused to insure them and early lawsuits were yet to be resolved. Court cases since then have appeased these concerns by repeatedly letting industry off the hook, again facilitated a climate whereby we can expect less caution for the production and release of upcoming crops.<br />
<br />
Third, while many geneticists remain quietly concerned about genetic engineering, some of the most vocal advocates against GMOs have been non-scientists who have made dubious claims confusing causation and correlation or who have a past that is easy to ridicule in <i>ad hominem </i>character assassinations. The result is that shareholders, governors and business leaders are not only unpersuaded by the anti-GMO crowd but actually galvanized in their belief that concern about GMOs is limited to those with fundamentalistic commitments to grand conspiracy theories instead of reason and commonsense. All said and done we can therefore expect to witness a new level of confidence emerging amongst corporations and lawmakers that first-generation biotech crops are safe.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja16s1WU7rtqbR9VcweC7sdsZimX_PbpR5kNgGoCCpol3ZHU_LPaW-1VGqZpOoF-0LvJXOd0_UrrRJnTZHpoE9guupuO2zv1Dozy_Z7RuzLXuf8k-563f7ISlvy8U9CiSevkcsQGVC2Y7m/s1600/ID-100186231.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEja16s1WU7rtqbR9VcweC7sdsZimX_PbpR5kNgGoCCpol3ZHU_LPaW-1VGqZpOoF-0LvJXOd0_UrrRJnTZHpoE9guupuO2zv1Dozy_Z7RuzLXuf8k-563f7ISlvy8U9CiSevkcsQGVC2Y7m/s320/ID-100186231.jpg" /></a></div><br />
As a result, it is unlikely that subsequent generations of GMO crops will be pushed through the same amount of testing as had occurred with first-generation crops. Industry itself has claimed that many of the studies that have been conducted by independent researchers to assess the safety or substantial equivalence of existing crops (such as proteomic studies) are unnecessary. We should expect that risk assessment procedures will get streamlined and optimized to save time and money based on the precedent-setting fact that existing GMOs have already allegedly been shown to be safe. As the depth and duration of testing is likely to taper, we will also expect to see the gradual increase in <i>types</i> of GMOs approved for commercialization. The types of approved GMO crops, animals, micro-organisms, both wild and domesticated, will increase as companies, now working in a climate that has attenuated the threat of non-GMO thinking, become more motivated to dedicated research and development funds into producing new biotechnologies. The number of companies will also predictably increase, as will the number of "garage biotech" tinkerers, who are increasingly able to purchase gene sequencers and genetic material online. A combinatorial explosion resulting from the interactions between these myriad novel crops introduced simultaneously would conveniently prevent the feasibility of any public health studies on them, effectively detonating the possibility of gathering conclusive data that would throw such releases into question.<br />
<br />
More alarmingly, however, is that as this is occurring we should also expect to see a steady increase <i>in the degree</i> to which commercialized organisms have been genetically modified. Biotech proponents are fond of pointing out that commercialized GMOs only have 1-3 genes inserted into them, a trifling change in light of the vastness of their genomes. Even if we ignore the fact that these 1-3 genes can have nonlinear effects on other genes and regulatory molecules at different points in their expression, we can hardly take it for granted that there is some 'law' about genetic engineering limiting the number of transgenes to such a low number. We are already starting to see "stacking", where packets of genes coming from many different sources are inserted into host DNA with the goal of creating more significant alterations to the anatomy, physiology or behaviour of the transgenic organism. As the number of genes inserted moves steadily upward, we should also expect that genes themselves are going to be adjusted and edited in increasingly extreme ways with the computational assistance of computers. Researchers are even developing new chemical bases to add to the existing four-"letter" nucleic acid alphabet (<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050314/full/news050314-8.html">Marris, 2005</a>). Further, entire genetic regulatory networks are being created in labs as well as synthetic chromosomes, and even "gene drives" designed to intentionally spread genes through an entire population of a wild species through extremely small initial interventions.<br />
<br />
The problem is that there is no dividing line between single-gene insertions and completely novel chimeras with genomes composed entirely of patched together, synthesized, or designed sequences. They are all considered to be GMOs. A very gradual slippery-slope exists between them. If we accept first-generation GMOs, we may find ourselves sliding into a world where the integrity of other organisms, the health of ecosystems, the deeply humble sense of awe and sustenance we derive from the natural world, and of course our health and vitality, are all increasingly compromised. The gravest possible consequences are not whether or not GMOs cause leaky gut syndrome or increased potential for allergenicity (as some charge Bt crops of doing), but in how their widespread acceptance will affect our very sense of what it means to be human in the biosphere and its prospects to continue functioning as the life-support system for all its varied creatures. <br />
<br />
And we'll let it all unravel if only because we have already accepted the argument that GMOs are safe and that the governing bodies have the appropriate mechanisms to ensure our safety. Perhaps anti-GMO activists would have a more level-headed approach to genetic engineering if they could witness a more honest discussion of the medium and long-term risks of normalizing genetic engineering. Until we see a deeper level of engagement, a culturally democratic way of collectively thinking about our shared future, and a capacity of governments and industries to assess GMOs in less biased and more comprehensive ways, it remains entirely reasonable for biotech activists to continue their struggle. They are the only ones keeping this runaway train from flying off its tracks.<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-42570467943547029002014-08-28T12:31:00.004-07:002014-09-03T17:16:38.201-07:00Unpredictable genes<i>Genes are unpredictable.</i> <br />
<br />
A given gene may behave in many different ways, depending on the signals it is receiving from other parts of the genetic code, from other areas inside the cell, and from outside the cell. In this article, I want to outline the basic reasons it is wrong to say that a gene has a particular function, which is the basic assumption underlying much of commercial biotechnology (where the basis of their logic is something like this: if we take a gene "for X" and put it into organism "Y", then organism "Y" will now express the novel trait X indicated by that gene).<br />
<br />
In a moment, I will explain some of the reasons why genes cannot by thought of in this way. I want to be clear that I am not proposing some radical and idiosyncratic version of the science of genetics. All of the points I raise can be found in basic undergrad textbooks (such as Gilbert, 2003). The problem we are facing is that the fact that genes are so complicated and adaptive is being ignored by companies seeking profits and by consumers who are being told a juvenile version of what genes are in an attempt to appease them. As long as geneticists remain coy and unwilling to express the overwhelmingly complex and interconnected nature of the genome in simple terms, influential people from <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/biotechnology/opinion/gm-opponent-to-advocate.html">Mark Lynas</a> to <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_30776.cfm">Hilary Clinton</a> are going to keep pushing a vision of the biosphere not based on reality. And with dire possible effects for those living within it.<br />
<br />
But before I get into details, a very brief primer is needed for those of you who don't yet understand how genes do what they do... <br />
<br />
A <i>gene</i> is a segment of DNA that "expresses" a certain protein product. Because proteins are the <i>building blocks </i>of bodies, genes are continually orchestrating the building and rebuilding of the body, in all its forms and functions. However, on their own, genes are inert molecules capable of doing very little. Throw a bunch of DNA into water and it just sits there. What turns genes into a source of <i>information</i> are the <i>cells</i> that they are found in, which have the context to read meaning <i>into</i> the genes. Without going into details, what happens is this: the information contained in a gene is "transcribed" into RNA. It is then edited down so it only includes relevant information, and then it is sent to the ribosome. The ribosome then "translates" the information in the RNA by producing a specific protein based on the coding of the RNA (a visual overview of the process can be <a href="http://www.news-medical.net/health/What-is-Gene-Expression.aspx">seen here</a>).<br />
<br />
What makes genetics so <i>interesting</i> and so <i>beautiful</i> is not the machine-like consistency by which this process occurs, but the fact that it is <i>open</i>. It is responsive and subtle, adapting and re-adapting with incredible versatility to what comes along as the cell (and the organism it is a part of) lives its life. A gene does not simply enable the production of a protein, like a fixed blueprint of operating instructions for a giant factory. Instead, the information in the gene is itself fluid and dexterous, changing depending on how it gets read and re-read by the cell. Depending on the evolving circumstances of the cell, a gene is capable of getting turned off, turned on, getting stimulated to work more rapidly or more slowly, capable of collaborating (or ceasing collaboration) with other genes, and even of producing new types of protein. There is therefore a wonderful circularity and mutual dependence between the form and function of the genes and that of the organism. Scientists are trying to model the infinitesimal interactions that occur every second within and between the various genes in a cell but even with extremely powerful computers, they are a very long way off from understanding the diverse behaviours of genes and how adaptive they are to the environments they occur in.<br />
<br />
I will discuss two major ways by which the information within genes is adapted or modified by the cell: <i>chromatin remodelling</i> and <i>alternative splicing</i>. Both ways enable an indefinite variety of possibilities for new behavior and ongoing sensitive response and learning on behalf of the lifeform.<br />
<br />
<b>Chromatin remodelling</b><br />
<br />
In multicellular organisms such plants and animals, DNA is not naked and floating around on its own. It is found in a giant string of molecules known as chromatin. Chromatin is made up of DNA coiled around proteins called histones. Depending on how tightly the histones are packed together, the genes in the DNA can behave in very different ways. <br />
<br />
For example, if the histones are very tightly packed (forming solenoids), genes in the DNA will usually be pinched off and therefore not expressed. Conversely, if the chromatin is stretched out, the genes will usually be exposed, allowing RNA polymerase to come in and initiate transcription.<br />
<br />
However, there are also an infinite number of middle states between a closed off segment of chromatin and one that is open. If the chromatin chain is bent or folded in different configurations, different active genes can be put closer or further away from one another. Depending on the architecture of chromatin, the interactional possibilities between the various genes and regulatory sequences in the DNA changes. Much of these structural changes in chromatin are a result of alterations in the shape of the histone proteins that the DNA is coiled around (Baker, 2011). Histones have chemically reactive ends and are known to form bonds with over a hundred different molecules (for example, histones can be methylated, acetylated, phosphoylated, etc.). Each molecule that a histone reacts with will create a slightly different shape of that region of the chromatin, and thereby nudge interactive possibilities between the genes one way or another.<br />
<br />
In organisms, chromatin is being adjusted and readjusted all the time in continuous adaptation to ongoing circumstances. As this occurs, individual genes and clusters of genes become expressed, attenuated or silenced at different rates, altering the nature of the gene products. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTJwsz4cV-HUBUEzBumZeywd64cbOEKmqcbNs_UTjCxQM1nWtg_ElUNUOw2CaWXbKlDPvJpmfgWcjQbTn3i6RixB0w2XBIK-VkiPkoGDAqrfulDYRyPJySfElBB-mGmGveJxnOdHpVndkf/s1600/640px-Nucleosome_1KX5_2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTJwsz4cV-HUBUEzBumZeywd64cbOEKmqcbNs_UTjCxQM1nWtg_ElUNUOw2CaWXbKlDPvJpmfgWcjQbTn3i6RixB0w2XBIK-VkiPkoGDAqrfulDYRyPJySfElBB-mGmGveJxnOdHpVndkf/s320/640px-Nucleosome_1KX5_2.png" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<b>Alternative splicing</b><br />
<br />
Plants and animals' genes also undergo what is called "alternative splicing" (Sharp & Richards). After a gene is transcribed into RNA, it is then edited to produce "messenger RNA". A gene is typically a very long molecule of DNA, only some parts of which are used for expression. The parts that are not used are cut out before the RNA is delivered to the ribosome. Alternative splicing refers to the fact that the same gene can be edited in different ways, producing many different variations of messenger RNA, each which will be expressed slightly differently by the ribosome. It is estimated that half of human genes produce RNA that is alternatively spliced in certain circumstances (Wu, Yuan, & Havlioglu, 2007), and some genes (such as those active in the nervous system) are even capable of hundreds or thousands of different alternative splicings.<br />
<br />
What is kept and what is edited out from the gene to create the messenger RNA again depends on signals received from other parts of the DNA, from within the cell, and from outside the cell. This is therefore another means by which genes are continually readjusting how they behave in ongoing adaptation to their environments. <br />
<br />
I'll stop here, but readers should know that there are many other mechanisms making genes supple and flexible. For example, sometimes a gene is transcribed into RNA but the RNA does not reach the ribosome for translation because it gets censored along the way (Gagnon, 1992; Gilbert, 2003). The RNA is prevented from leaving the nucleus, implying that there is a "selection process" culling undesired RNA before it becomes expressed. There are also "post-translational modifications" that occur to regulate the shape of the proteins produced by the ribosome (Seo & Lee, 2004).<br />
<br />
As long as activists can understand <i>chromatin remodelling</i> and <i>alternative splicing</i> and communicate these concepts in the <i>comment sections</i> of articles on GMOs, we will be able to lodge better arguments against those quartering us in as ignorant and irrational.<br />
<br />
<b>Take home message</b> <br />
Genes are complex, unpredictable, and still poorly understood.<br />
Genes in multicellular organisms do not usually have specific and unalterable behaviours throughout the lifespan of the organism. To say that they do is obviously misleading. To create technologies that are based on this assumption is dangerous. The novel genes inserted into a genetically modified organism will interact in unpredictable ways, especially through the ways their expression changes through chromatin remodelling and through alternative splicing. We do not have the technical or financial capacity to test for all these changes, in part because we don't really yet know the extent of what we are looking for. Because the ways in which the new gene interacts within its new cellular environment can cause it to produce alternative chromatin structures and perhaps alternative splicings, the gene is unlikely to behave in the ways it did in its original cellular environment. OMIC studies, which catalogue snapshots of the expression products of genes at various stages of their transcription and translation are available but not required by regulatory bodies and therefore not conducted by biotech companies. <br />
<br />
However, they are occasionally conducted by researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals. Tellingly, they reveal some of the true complexity of the genome. Let me quote from a proteomic study conducted on MON 810, one of the most commonly planted GMO maize varieties, produced by Monsanto: "Approximately 100 total proteins resulted differentially modulated in the expression level as a consequence of the environmental influence (WT06 vs WT05), whereas 43 proteins resulted up- or down-regulated in transgenic seeds with respect to their controls (T06 vs WT06), which could be specifically related to the insertion of a single gene into a maize genome by particle bombardment. Transgenic seeds responded differentially to the same environment as compared to their respective isogenic controls, as a result of the genome rearrangement derived from gene insertion" (Zolla et al, 2008). Approximately 100 unpredictable expression effects revealed from a proteomic study conducted at two different times! One might imagine what proteomic studies undertaken at other times but additionally reveal, and also what other differences would be exposed were transcriptomic or metabolic studies also conducted.<br />
<br />
Establishing "substantial equivalence", which implies that the GMO should not bear any special scrutiny compared with its non-GMO counterparts, is a far off pipe-dream.<br />
<br />
The attempt to convince policy makers and consumers that genes are not incredibly complex and contingent things is painfully immoral. The public has the right and the need to understand something about this complexity before they are fed arguments as to why genetic engineering is "safe" or why citizens concerned about it are "wrong". <br />
<br />
And geneticists should become confident in expressing this wondrous complexity to the public. Indeed, they have a duty to do so.<br />
<br />
<b><br />
References</b><br />
<br />
Baker, Monya. 2011. Making sense of chromatin. Nature 8:717-722.<br />
<br />
Gagnon, M.L, L.M. Angerer, and R.C. Angerer. 1992. Posttranscriptional regulation of ectoderm-specific gene expression in early sea urchin embryos. Development 114:457-467.<br />
<br />
Gilbert, Scott F. 2003. Developmental biology. 7th ed. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.<br />
<br />
Seo J1, Lee KJ. 2004. Post-translational modifications and their biological functions: proteomic analysis and systematic approaches. J Biochem Mol Biol. 2004 Jan 31;37(1):35-44.<br />
<br />
Wu, Jane Y., Liya Yuan, and Necat Havlioglu. 2007. Alternatively spliced genes. In Genomics and genetics, edited by R. A. Meyers. Weinheim, Germany: Wiley-VCH.<br />
<br />
Zolla, L., Rinalducci, S., Antonioli, P., & Righetti, G. (2008) Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. Journal of Proteome Research, 7(5), p. 1850-1861Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-25943803800107318892014-02-06T19:32:00.001-08:002014-02-07T21:53:23.681-08:00De-extinction: Extreme GMOs in conversationist's clothing<i>De-extinction</i> is the name given to several approaches that Biotech Boosters promise will eventually be able to bring back extinct species. <br />
<br />
It is offered as a plausible solution for healing what <a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready.html?quote=2089">Steward Brand</a> calls "the huge hole" that humans have made in nature over the past 10,000 years. <br />
<br />
It is hard to deny we have created a "hole" in nature. Ever since the dawn of agriculture, we certainly have been messing things up, and we sure aren't slowing down. We have now converted most of the world's arable land into farms and fields. We are pushing the rest of the biosphere into fragmented "nature reserves" while we line the Earth with rows and rows of the few dozen species of plants and animals that we've come to depend on. This massive conversion of the world's diversity into human foodstuff created a food surplus that spurred the rapid growth of the human population. Further, it provided the opportunity to specialize human labour: in the past, everyone had to subsist through finding their daily bread. Now, we have food production systems that allow us to become soldiers, scientists, politicians, miners and bankers. Many of these professions devastate the land, air, and sea through feverish cycle of extraction, production, consumption, and waste. And the "hole" gets bigger.<br />
<br />
Thousands of species have been driven to extinction, and with accelerating industrialization, hundreds of thousands more are either endangered or vulnerable (Barnosky et al., 2011). Environmentalists have been sounding the alarm for decades but their appeals to change course are hushed by the clamour of progress. Industries are digging their claws ever further into ecosystems that have been until now "off limits" --the steepest mountains, the thickest jungles of the Amazon and Congo basins, the deep ocean waters, the once permanently frozen Arctic-- and an increasing population expects and demands the very lifestyle responsible for ripping the hole Brand claims we've made ever more wide.<br />
<br />
In light of this harrowing situation, <i>de-extinction</i> is being tossed around in newspaper articles and magazines, from the New York Times to National Geographic, as a radical and powerful way of healing the wounds we've cut and are cutting still every day. Indeed, Brand himself has claimed that because we have the technology to bring back lost species we may have "the moral obligation, to repair some of the damage." With his wife, he's co-founded a nonprofit organization to get the idea up and running. <br />
<br />
Not all are so enthusiastic, however. Perhaps the hesitant tone of many feature articles indicates just how well <i>Jurassic Park</i>'s dystopic lesson was burnt into our memory cells with a dire warning as to what could happen if we don't keep our hubris in check. <br />
<br />
Of course, few people are intent on bringing back velociraptors or tyrannosaurus (let alone another opportunistic sequel with Goldblum repeating (again!) the lines: <i>life will find a way!</i>). Instead, on the table are what appear to be relatively benign discussions about resurrecting those beings we've personally had a hand wiping off the face of the Earth: the passenger pigeon, the wooly mammoth, the thylacine, to name a few. (Needless to say, however, we shouldn't rule out what they may try to do: scientists are stretching their genome sequencers into the remote depths of the past as best they can and have recently decoded a 700,000 year old horse ancestor's genome (Shapiro & Hofreiter, 2014)). In any case, perhaps the more mouth-watering prospect amongst such conservation-minded technophiles is that of resuscitating species now poised at the edge of the abyss, such as the Javan rhino, with its 40-60 kettled souls, or the Siberian tiger, whose numbers have slunk below 400. Some of these critically endangered species do not breed in captivity and producing these species in labs could protect them from what is otherwise certain annihilation. The World Wildlife Federation has called the possibility "exciting." <br />
<br />
But, like every fairy tale, we should know that "happily ever after" is really just a literary device employed to make us feel good, not something that is actually conceivable in a complex, messy and everchanging world. This article's intent is to inject an ounce of sobriety into the discussion. Of course, you may now be thinking that I am making the typical "safe is better than sorry" claim that holds back great ideas. Perhaps you want to quote Goethe at me, reminding me that boldness has genius and power and magic in it. Perhaps you would like to bring to my attention that Jurassic Park's "worst case scenario" is highly unlikely (do we really expect the removable ceiling panels to collapse, only to leave our feet dangling for the vicious fangs of the velociraptor poised below?). Indeed, what do we really have to worry about? That passenger pigeons are going to take over our cities? We already have those spikes on every possible roosting spot to prevent our urban pigeons... surely they will also prevent passenger pigeons from causing similar sorts of mischief?<br />
<br />
<i>1. De-extinction may well be just a promissory note for laissez-faire economics</i><br />
One of the biggest problems with de-extinction is that it keeps us complacent towards the environmental crisis. It helps prop up the attitude that the march of science will essentially guarantee that all of our ills are solved. We will not need to change our lifestyles and can continue existing under the spell of consumerism and infotainment. It is not our responsibility to take personal initiative in helping address issues like "extinction" because we have technical experts working on it. <br />
<br />
And yet, one might wonder what would happen if we continue to plunder and destroy while leaving extinction to the experts. The experts may well bring back the Eastern Elk (that disappeared in 1896) or the Newfoundland Wolf (the last one was shot in 1911), and dozens of other species to boot. But in what meaningful way can we be healing the "huge hole" in nature if the habitats that these creatures would live in no longer exist? What is the value of de-extinction if the resurrected species end up in zoos or in the über-affluent's bizarre collection of personal curios to show off with? <br />
<br />
Nor should we underestimate the impact that de-extinction technologies could have on pushing ahead the business-as-usual agenda. In a recent interview, Stanford University's Hank Greely warns that in a world where resurrection is a technical possibility, rare species may cease to be a political inconvenience suppressing the free pace of economic development. As he notes: "suppose developers want to build on a last bit of land where an endangered bird lives. And suppose they say, ‘We will be happy to pay for freezing [the DNA or eggs]. Now let us build our golf course’” (<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/19/science/earth/research-to-bring-back-extinct-frog-points-to-new-path-and-quandaries.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0">link</a>). Like the worthless "fish ladders" and "wilderness corridors" used to squelch out concern over hydro-dams and mining projects, de-extinction could easily become a part of the repertoire of options that corporations have to sway public sentiment. In the simplest terms, we may be trained not fear extinction anymore because the marvels of biotechnology have made <i>extinction itself</i> go extinct!<br />
<br />
In a broader sense, de-extinction could thereby functions like advertising for the biotech industry. Like "golden rice" engineered to "cure" vitamin A deficiency in children, de-extinction would be an idea with considerable moral force, useful to compel people that the biotech industry is a beacon of good in the world. This is a particularly important message to promote, considering the scrutinizing public continues to paint the industry as secretly hiding its trident and diabolical horns (Geez, I mean Monsanto has been voted the world's most unethical company for <i>how</i> many years now?). De-extinction can boost the dividends of these companies immeasurably if it is part of an integrated strategy to sway the Average Josephine from reluctantly accepting unlabeled foods (as they do now) to praising the industry for its ethics and responsibility.<br />
<br />
<i>2. Hodge-podge biology</i><br />
Beyond economics, the biology itself turns out to be less promising that it seems. The term "de-extinction" is itself a lie. Scientists are not actually capable of bringing back <i>anything</i>. This is not hyperbole. There are solid genetic, epigenetic, and environmental reasons why current plans to de-extinct a lost species amount to nothing more than risky, transgenic chimera-making; extreme GMOs <i>masquarading</i> as restored species.<br />
<br />
First off, it is unlikely that scientists will have access to a full genome of an extinct species. Without this access, they will have to either take the missing genes from a related species or synthesize them in the lab. In both cases, this means that the genetic code is not the genetic code of the extinct species. It is a trans-species hybrid, a genetically modified organism, modified to an extent far surpassing anything that has ever appeared on earth before. If you don't know anything about the risks of GMOs, browse this blog site and familiarize yourself with the subject. I will not repeat the arguments here.<br />
<br />
Still, we can ask the question: Is it possible to imagine a scenario where patching together DNA from an extinct species with its closest known relative avoids these risks? Consider humans, chimpanzees and bonobos. We are said to share 99% of our DNA with chimps, and 98.7% with bonobos. And yet, we are widely different from either of them. In turn, chimps and bonobos apparently share over 99% of their DNA with each other, but again, there are significant differences in the physiology, form, and behavior of both these species. The take home message is that small differences in DNA can have huge impacts (especially when multiplied by the effects of epigenetic and environmental factors, see below). If rock pigeons and passenger pigeons differ in 1% of their DNA and we are only missing fragments of the passenger pigeon genome, then the likelihood that the missing DNA is different from a rock pigeon is certainly less than 1%. But it is also certainly more than 0%, and the only way to ascertain with absolute confidence that the difference is 0% is if we had an intact passenger pigeon genome to compare it to. But if we did, then this would make the whole enterprise of substituting rock pigeon DNA for passenger pigeon DNA superfluous. So we are left gambling.<br />
<br />
Even if scientists have the <i>entire</i> genome of an extinct organism, they are not out of hot water just yet. In fact, this is where the real problems come in. It is vastly unlikely that the scientists would have the full genome of a sufficiently different number of organisms needed to create a viable population. <i>A minimum amount of genetic diversity is necessary in a population in order for the species to propagate sustainably without entering into an ever-weakening cul-de-sac through interbreeding</i>. To create such a viable population, scientists would have to insert random differences into the genes of the different organisms of the species. This would be to mimic the normal genetic diversity that makes up a healthy wild population of any species. In practice, this implies undertaking hundreds of separate transgenic modifications on hundreds of genomes, or zapping the genomes with doses of radiation to induce mutagenesis, in either case multiplying exponentially the opportunities for something to go wrong by way of disrupting genetic networks, pleiotropic factors, etc. (see my <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2014/02/genetics-101-why-you-should-be.html">Genetics 101</a> for details on this).<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPK59vAP6SJPKJTzhA-xnSpx2y8uRkB-vHWlC7G1a1haOsqZvVrPwdHps_iWfZkQf14DpncUuoNN3NJ0BtdI6lG4kna75MCo9gsh-m-OxtEO-GiMhZQv7qmPkzAwwc4tAhkhQRMHWxPEF3/s1600/220px-Passengerpigeon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPK59vAP6SJPKJTzhA-xnSpx2y8uRkB-vHWlC7G1a1haOsqZvVrPwdHps_iWfZkQf14DpncUuoNN3NJ0BtdI6lG4kna75MCo9gsh-m-OxtEO-GiMhZQv7qmPkzAwwc4tAhkhQRMHWxPEF3/s320/220px-Passengerpigeon.jpg" /></a></div>Beyond the gene, we have epigenetic factors. Epigenetic factors can be thought of as all of the cellular elements that contribute to how a gene is expressed. Now because passenger pigeons died a long time ago, we no longer have access to viable eggs. We have passenger pigeon genome but we do <i>not</i> have a passenger pigeon <i>egg</i>. What we do have are eggs from related species, such as rock pigeons and band-tailed pigeons. We would need to somehow put the passenger pigeon's genome <i>into</i> one of these other pigeon's eggs so to initiate embryological development. The main de-extinction technique to accomplish this would be to take one of the other pigeon species' cells and modify the DNA within to match the cells of the passenger pigeon genome. We would end up with a rock or band-tailed pigeon egg interpreting and expressing a passenger's pigeon's DNA.<br />
<i><br />
Does this matter?</i> It turns out it does. The cytoplasm, mitochondria, biochemistry, size, temperature, and a host of other factors are all different in the two species. But these factors all influence how the passenger pigeon's DNA will be read. In other words, the context of the genome influences how it is expressed. Genes do not have functions independent of context, their context defines their function. A temperature difference, for example, can turn off certain genes and turn on others, and alter the way that groups of genes interact together. Genetics without epigenetics is just a bunch of inert strings of DNA floating around in a soup. Epigenetics is what activates the genes and plays a strong role in directing what exactly it is that they do. In other words, we may have created some sort of pigeon but it is not a member of either of those two species. We would have created an entirely new species and called it de-extinction just to make ourselves feel better and perhaps to excite the big conservation organizations.<br />
<br />
The problems don't end here either. At some point, presumably, the new organism (with its bricolage of a patched-up genome and its cellular structure lifted from another species) is born. What does it do? How does it live? People like to think that animals are unlike people in that the young of our species require an upbringing and initiation into culture by their caregivers, whereas animals can essentially make it on their own. This is increasingly recognized as an anthropocentric illusion. Countless species, from parrots to pumas, depend on interaction with their caregivers and peers to develop in such a way that they can make it in the world. Interestingly, some of this behaviour appears to be handed down, tweaking and adjusting itself generation upon generation, showing evidence of "cultures" or "traditions" in the animal kingdom (Avital and Jablonka, 2000). A human denied contact with other people during its critical early years ends up missing something essential. Its "humanity" is compromised. To some extent, this is true for other species as well. The relationship between organisms and what they pass on through their networks of relations, are all <i>a part of their species</i> just as much as their genes or their epigenetics. <br />
<br />
And then there's the ecosystems. Stewart Brand hopes that we may able to produce an organism that is "functionally identical" to how the original organism behaved in its ecosystem, but this is obviously untestable and unverifiable and therefore something that scientists would merely have to take on faith. Nevertheless, his hope is itself shortsighted for the simple reason that ecosystems do not remain static. They evolve so it makes as little sense to try and match an extinct species' DNA to an extinct ecosystem as it does to try and match an extinct species' DNA to a contemporary ecosystem. If, say, 500 years ago we compromised an ecosystem by destroying some species in it, the ecosystem has had 500 years to mend this hole through evolving new interconnections and relations. Because the ecosystem has evolved since that species went extinct, it may not be fair to either the introduced species or the persisting species to mess things up in the name of "healing the wounds." <br />
<br />
Stewart Brand: <i>Ecosystems are self-healing if we let them.</i> <br />
<br />
Or, dare I say... "life will find a way"?<br />
<br />
<i>3. Summary</i><br />
<br />
De-extinction is trying to pull a fast one on us: it is an extreme form of genetic engineering being pushed on the public for what are likely largely economic reasons (I am obviously not denying that there are some scientists that are pursuing this purely because they are interested and think it is "cool" or "ethical"). This does not mean that ethical and sustainable de-extinction is not possible. I could imagine a situation where large quantities of still living populations' DNA (and epigenetic structures) are conserved as a last resort in case their populations started plummeting. Such a bio-bank would provide some insurance in the case of a major catastrophe (human induced, or perhaps from an asteroid, etc.). If done correctly, it would need no transgenic (GMO) technology, no epigenetic cross-species shortcuts (it would be cloning instead of genetic engineering), and could even be part of a program introducing the new organisms into actual biological relationships ecologically established members of its species.<br />
<br />
However, I have very little faith that this is how de-extinction is likely to proceed, especially considering its main proponents are also those promoting synthetic biology, geo-engineering, and other extreme forms of human-induced changes to the biosphere (such as Church (2013) and Brand (2013)). It is therefore up to us to foster the dialogue we need to in order to ensure that de-extinction (if done at all) is done safely, humanely, and ethically. If we don't then overzealousness, economic interest, and hubris will continue to run their course and into the tragedy of our age another scene will be written.<br />
<br />
References<br />
<br />
Avital, E., & Jablonka, E. (2000). Animal traditions: Behavioural inheritance in evolution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.<br />
<br />
Barnosky, A. D., et al. 2011. Has the Earth's sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature 471:51– 57.<br />
<br />
Brand, S. 2013. The dawn of de-extinction: are you ready? TED 2013. TED, Long Beach, CA. Available from http://www.ted.co/talk/stewart_brand_the_dawn_of_de_extinction_are_you_ready.html <br />
<br />
Church, G. 2013. Hybridizing with extinct species. TEDx Deextinction/National Geographic, Washington, D.C. Available from http://longnow.org/revive/tedxdeextinction/<br />
<br />
Greely, H. 2013, March 15. De-extinction: hubris or hope. TEDx DeExtinction/National Geographic, Washington, D.C. Available from http://longnow.org/revive/tedxdeextinction/<br />
<br />
Shapiro, B., & Hofreiter, M. (2014). A paleogenomic perspective on evolution and gene function: New insights from ancient DNA. Science 343(6169), <br />
<br />
Switek, B. 2013. The promise and pitfalls of resurrection ecology. National Geographic. Available from http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/03/12/the-promise-and-pitfalls-of-resurrection-ecology/ Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-24910779749329821092014-02-04T20:28:00.003-08:002014-02-11T09:36:27.799-08:00Genetics 101: Why you should be concerned about GMOs.When genetic engineering hits the news, the headlines are so confusing and contradictory that it is hard for any of us to make sense of it. On the one hand, biotech proponents claim that genetic engineering is just a more precise way of breeding, one that holds great promise for ending malnutrition and alleviating ecological collapse. On the other hand, biotech activists claim that genetic engineering is unnatural, unethical and inherently dangerous. Is this a case of crazy, hypochondriac foodies picking fights they know nothing about with an established and highly regulated science? Or of biotech companies claiming science as their authority in order to force unwanted products on hapless consumers? <br />
<br />
As is often the case with polarized issues, each side overstates their own case. The fact is that there are many novel risks associated with genetically modified organisms (“GMOs”), many of which are not adequately acknowledged. This does not mean that every GMO will be perilous to humanity or to life on this planet. Indeed, some of them may turn out to be safe (though still not necessarily desirable). What is not safe is that many governments, regulatory bodies, and citizens are persuaded that the biotech companies' version of the story is the accurate "scientific" version. As it turns out, genetics as a science can hardly condone the haphazard mixing and matching of genes undertaken in company labs. It is simply false for anyone to claim that people concerned about GMOs are anti-science (though many of them do make scientifically questionable claims). To understand why the science of genetics leads to skepticism about genetic engineering, we need to familiarize ourselves with some basics of how genes and genetic engineering work. Doing so will provide the clarity we need to understand the risks of GMOs and enable us to make better choices in maintaining a safe and sustainable food system.<br />
<br />
<i>1. How is "genetic engineering" different from "traditional breeding"?</i><br />
Traditional breeding occurs by having two organisms of a single species mate (see footnote i. below). When they mate, their offspring will have a set of genes, some of which come from the male and others from the female. By controlling which organisms breed, breeders can gradually enable certain traits to get expressed more strongly. For instance, if I wanted to breed cats with longer ears, I would choose a male and female with long ears, create the conditions for them to mate, and wait for the results. Of their children, some in turn will have longer ears than others and I can choose to continue breeding them with other long- eared cats. Eventually, over many generations, the cats’ ears would get longer and longer, (provided, of course, that this trait was able to grow while maintaining the integrity of the rest of the organism's physiology). The point is that what can and cannot be bred is dictated strictly by what is possible for each species based on variations that are already occurring within it.<br />
<br />
With genetic engineering, something quite different is going on. A scientist will isolate a specific gene or genes that seem to be responsible for a specific trait and will then insert it into another organism with the aim of getting that trait expressed in the new organism. So, for example, scientists have isolated the genes responsible for making petunia plants resistant to the herbicide known as glyphosate and have inserted the gene into a number of stable crops, such as soy and alfalfa for animal feed, to produce plants that can withstand applications of herbicides. Biotech companies are doing similar experiments on a variety of lifeforms, from bacteria, to trees, to animals. In one particularly shocking experiment, scientists identified the genes that make fireflies glow in the dark and have inserted those genes into the genetic code of cats. As a result, they have now produced cats that glow in the dark (pictures on Google).<br />
<br />
While this may seem like a neat sci-fi tricks, and certainly appeals to the tech-geek in some of us, there are a number of well-documented ways in which these sorts of experiments can, and do go wrong. There are certainly ethical issues to be carefully considered when conducting these sorts of experiments too. These issues need to be steadfastly separated from the thrilling power and curiosity some scientists feel at being able to create a seemingly endless number of wild and wacky things simply by combining and recombining genes. Many bioethicists have opened discussions as to whether other species have a <i>right</i> not to be experimented on and modified in these ways (Vorstenbosch, 1993; Oritz, 2004). My purpose here is more modest. I seek simply to outline some of the established reasons why there are real risks associated with the production, release, and consumption of GMOs. Radical and exciting developments in our understanding of the genetic code have emerged in the last decade or so, casting serious doubt on the innocent-until-proven-guilty stance of proponents of GMO technology. At the very least, these developments indicate that a great deal more regulatory scrutiny is necessary than is currently required.<br />
<br />
To introduce the reader to how geneticists are now thinking about the behaviour and properties of genes, I will outline the concept of "genetic networks" and "dynamic gene activity." Then, I will discuss the techniques that genetic engineers use in order to create GMOs, showing how these methods contrast with geneticists' emerging understanding of how genes work.<br />
<br />
<i>2. Our current understanding: Genetic networks</i><br />
Biotech proponents usually tell a simplified and mechanical version of how genes work.The story, which some of you may remember from high school biology classes, goes something like this: DNA is a long string of molecules, most of which is random and meaningless. However, there are occasional segments of DNA which produce RNA which go on to produce specific proteins. These active segments of DNA are known as genes, and people generally abbreviate the process by saying that "genes code for proteins". These proteins are extremely varied and extremely important because they are the building blocks of the entire body. Not only do they build organs and tissues but they also metabolize many of the molecules that enable all the physiological processes that regulate the body. In other words, proteins are the stuff that make up both the form and the function of an organism. If the proteins change, the form and/or function of the organism changes as well.<br />
<br />
As the story is told, each gene has a specific and discrete role, so a genetic engineer can simply "knock out" a gene that is doing something undesired or insert in another gene that produces a valued protein, and thereby enhance the organism's form or function. The novel gene can come from a number of sources, either from a different location in the organism's own code, from a closely related organism, from a completely different organism, or even from the lab after being manufactured synthetically (see footnote ii below).<br />
<br />
The story is widespread in our textbooks, in the media, and on the internet. A part of the reason why it is difficult for people to see the dangers of genetic engineering is because when the process is framed in this way, it seems intuitive and logical. It appeals to our understanding of how machines work, for instance. We can (or should) be able to take out and replace or update parts of our car or computer. So why not bigger mechanical structures, like lifeforms? The problem is that the genome is not really built in the same way as a machine.<br />
<br />
Genetic engineering is based on a misleading understanding of what the relationship between genes in the genetic code is like. In fact, "genes" as isolated entities may only very rarely exist. The logic that assumes otherwise long ago fell out of favor with scientists who now prefer to think about "genetic networks" (Dillon, 2003; for a debate on how such networks evolved, see Sansom, 2011). The basic idea of a genetic network is that the behavior of a gene depends on other genes, and that combinations of genes influence each other in complex ways that make it difficult to isolate what a gene "does" except in some rare cases. A gene often has strongest influence (and in turn is most strongly influenced by) the genes closest to it on the genetic code, but this is not always the case. Intricate chain reactions can occur between relatively faraway parts of the code, especially when the code is bent such that certain parts come into closer contact with one another (as occur through what are known as "histone modifications" (Fischle, Wang, & Allis, 2003)).<br />
<br />
One way that genes can influence each other is through a process known as methylation. In methylation, a gene can be partially or completely silenced through having parts of its code bound to methyl molecules (Jaenisch & Bird, 2003). There are specific portions of the genetic code known as "regulatory DNA" that control the extent to which various genes are and are not methylated. Genes interact with each other directly but can also interact indirectly through influencing regulatory DNA, which in turn methylate or demethylate other genes. In addition to methylation and histone modifications, there are a number of other ways that genes influence one another, including acetylation, translocation, pleiotropy, and transvection. The field studying these processes is collectively known as "epigenetics" and it is a well-established field of research blossoming strong and fertile research programs (see Jablonka & Lamb, 1995; Francis, 2012, for accessible discussions; see footnote iii below). One of the most unexpected findings in epigenetic was the discovery that knocking out vital genes in animals often does not debilitate them because other genes will become activated to compensate for the loss (Suemori & Noguchi, 2000).<br />
<br />
In 2000, entrepreneur Craig Venter's company <i>Celera Genomics</i> mapped the entire genetic code of a human. The news hit headlines worldwide but the excitement faded fast once people realized the limited relevance of what had actually been done. The active coding portions of the DNA (i.e. the genes) had been identified, and many had been assigned specific functions in terms of their role in producing the human organism. But without any mapping of the actual genetic networks, the project ended up being a lot of hot air. Without knowing the relationship between the genes, it was like the company had pulled a bunch of words out of a storybook, produced a crude list of definitions for each word, and were left with little understanding of the story itself. The important point here is that while individual genes may have specific functionality, it’s the interaction of these genes through their specific positions in the genome and their proximity to other genes that really dictates their true nature and consequently, that of the organism. If the genome is a machine, it is quite unlike anything humans have ever built before, its parts threaded together and interacting in complex ways, like how the precise meaning of words and sentences get defined by the paragraphs and stories in which they are found.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJZBdWoAnrhSMt06FDr30L6kTVsPPjpWJVEfcdqPN0XKazgghOQ9dDV-D5cQ3g8bsYXy5u7dE71teX-D0SOOv_4wlu3KFc8ieBqp-VzE6t5YFwPpbuJT_NiPNrsWrQ8MqwGKQbUiUj4kxB/s1600/dna-double-helix1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgJZBdWoAnrhSMt06FDr30L6kTVsPPjpWJVEfcdqPN0XKazgghOQ9dDV-D5cQ3g8bsYXy5u7dE71teX-D0SOOv_4wlu3KFc8ieBqp-VzE6t5YFwPpbuJT_NiPNrsWrQ8MqwGKQbUiUj4kxB/s320/dna-double-helix1.jpg" /></a></div><i><br />
3. The dynamic genome: Context matters</i><br />
But even the storybook metaphor is misleading because it relays the sense that the relationship between the genes are fixed, as are the words in a book. Not so with the genome. The story of the genetic code hasn't been written yet; or rather it gets written and rewritten constantly as an organism interacts in its changing environment. Not only are genes embedded in complex, interconnected networks but the networks themselves are themselves ever changing. For example, one gene will cause another to get expressed, which will down-regulate another, but only as long as a third is still coding for proteins. Whether or not a gene is expressed and what in fact its protein products go on to do are entirely contingent, depending on the state of the rest of the genetic code and of the organism in which the gene is found. In an organism's infancy, a gene may do something quite different than it does in an organism's adulthood, which in turn is different from what that gene might contribute to in periods of environment-induced stress. For example, a recent study found that 86% of a fruitflies' genes change significantly in expression throughout its lifespan (Arbeitman et al., 2002). On the other hand, parts of the DNA thought to be non-coding may activate in certain contexts (Makalowski 2003; Biémont & Vieira, 2006)). In fact, large sections of supposedly random and meaningless portions of the genetic code have turned out to have important roles in the changing behavior of the genome. Normally silent and lurking in the recesses of the genetic code, these genes and other DNA elements can be thought of as part of the built-in resiliency of the system, containing important back-up information and alternative routes and pathways that can kick in when critically needed (for example, Schlesinger, 1994). <br />
<br />
The genome is therefore an incredibly complex and responsive system, adjusting itself to changes on multiple levels from changes within the cell, to changes between cells in the organism, to changes in the environment that the organism is continually adapting to. As a result, external changes can modify the way in which genes are or are not expressed. An intuitive way to think about it is to consider how a single fertilized egg cell eventually becomes a fetus and then a baby. That first cell, as we have all seen on TV, splits into two cells, and each of those cells split in turn, producing four cells. This splitting goes on and on until eventually a fetus emerges. But how did certain parts differentiate into separate body parts? The genes and the DNA in all of these cells are, after all, identical. How is it that some of the cells eventually become brain cells and others liver cells or blood cells? All of this happens precisely because of the genetic networks dynamically turning on and off certain genes at specific times, all based on the location of the cells relative to one another (Ridley, 1999). Context matters.<br />
<br />
It isn't just the human fetus that bears this complexity. All multicellular organisms do. And because of this complexity, it cannot be stated with any certainty that the genes that a biotech company lodges into a genetic code are benign. It is difficult to know whether or not inserted genes will be interfering with a genetic network, disrupting, upregulating or downregulating other genes, or perhaps even splitting apart an important gene that goes unexpressed until an organism meets some specific stressful or demanding environmental situation. Even the most expensive and thorough current tests, which go far beyond any regulatory requirements for the industry, are not technologically capable of providing this information because we simply do not know the entire genetic networks (nor how they can and do change over time) of the species that we genetically engineer. For example, "OMIC tests", which are more specific forms of gene expression profiling, can catalogue gene products (such as transcripts, proteins, or metabolites) to give more detailed snapshots of some of the physiological changes that occur in the organism (Heinemann, Kurenbach, & Quisr, 2011), but these are themselves limited, difficult to interpret, and not required in any current safety evaluations of GMOs (Lay, & Liyanage, 2006). One of the biggest limitations of OMIC tests is that each test only gives results of changes at one point in time so many tests would need to be taken to understand how the dynamic genome changes during the organism's lifespan.<br />
<br />
In the first two sections, I tried to show how the genome is connected in many still unknown ways such that the behavior of a gene depends on the behavior of other genes, its location relative to other genes, and that these connections themselves change over time as the organism adjusts to its internal and external environment. The "one gene, one protein/function" model is not reflective of the way scientist are now thinking about genetic networks and the interactions among them.<br />
<br />
An important point here is that genetic networks are only jeopardized by genetic engineering and not by traditional plant or animal breeding. Traditional breeding, which mates organisms of a single species together, respects genetic networks because when the chromosomes of the male and female join, their genes (alleles) are nearly invariably located in corresponding locations and thereby match up. In other words, the gene(s) for eye colour, for example, are located in the same place of the same chromosome for almost all organisms of a given species, so when meiosis occurs in sexual reproduction, the genes are aligned and present no problem in the offspring when some genes come from the male and others from the female. By contrast, genetic engineering does not respect genetic networks but instead inserts genetic material into the genetic networks at random locations. Because context matters within the genetic network, the result of the insertion cannot be known, predicted, or controlled.<br />
<i><br />
4. How do they get the genes in anyway?</i><br />
For a biotech company to produce a GMO they have to insert genes into an organism's genome and then get them expressed (i.e. coding for the desired protein). As it turns out, this is not an easy task and it is precisely here where many of the most concerning risks of genetic engineering are brought to the fore. In essence, the whole process involves shooting the desired gene randomly into the host organism's code with the hopes that it will get lodged in somewhere where it will not disrupt any genetic network too much. The gene, it should be pointed out, is not fired into the host code on its own. As it turns out, it is actually a part of a patched together assembly of genes from at least multiple different organisms (mostly viruses and bacteria) known as a "vector" or a "genetic cassette" (Ho, 1998). Among these genetic components there is an "origin of replication", which is used to replicate the desired genes in preparation to shoot them into the host code; a "multiple cloning site", which allows the scientists to insert the desired gene into the vector; a "genetic marker", which is used to establish whether or not the vector was successfully inserted into the host code; and a "promoter", which is used to ensure that once the vector is in the host code that the desired gene is being expressed.<br />
<br />
The origin of replication, multiple cloning site, and promoters are of particular concern because they can make the desired gene, the vector, and the host organism's code more unstable. They are all acquired from different pathogenic organisms such as viruses, and may have been further altered in the lab through synthetic DNA modification. Viruses replicate by parasitizing host genetic codes to create further copies of the virus. Genetic engineers have isolated various parts of viral DNA in order to make use of these hijacking techniques by taking parts of the viral machinery of different organisms and parceling them together into a vector. So, for example, a viral promoter is a gene that viruses use to ensure that once they got into a host code, the viral genes would be recognized and expressed. This is necessary for genetic engineering because cells usually have mechanisms to ensure that foreign DNA is not continuously planting itself into the cell's genome. <br />
<br />
It should be apparent here that genetic engineering is far from being simply a "more precise" way to breed for desired traits. By contrast, it is a technique to insert DNA into another organism through bypassing its own defense system by using DNA from viruses and other pathogens. It should also be noted that viruses insert their DNA into sex cells only very rarely. Why is this important? If a virus inserts itself into any other cell of my body and uses the cell to spread, its genes are not being passed down to my descendants. For example, the rhinovirus, responsible for the common cold, only inserts itself into certain respiratory epithelial cells. Its genes do not travel to my sex cells and therefore have no impact on my future offspring. This minimizes ecological and evolutionary impact. Sex cells are generally well-protected in the body to avoid the risky disruptions that occur through viral infection. When genetic engineers say that GMOs are natural because they are employing a form of gene transfer that viruses and bacteria have been using for eons, we should view their claims in a critical light. In fact, in multicellular organisms such as plants and animals, the body has mechanisms precisely to prevent viral transfer of genetic material into its sex cells. This should warn us of the risks of doing so.<br />
<br />
Using promoters to express the desired gene in the host code is especially risky because promoters often overpromote. They upregulate the gene (just like the regulatory DNA discussed earlier) such that it produces far more of its protein products than would be normal in its original context. Further, its capacity to overpromote changes the ways in which the host genes surrounding the vector end up getting expressed. It thereby often ends up promoting unintended genes in the organism (Ho, Ryan, & Cummins, 1999). The concern here is that promoters have a strong capacity to modify the genetic networks of the host organism in unpredictable ways. When these are combined with other elements, such as the "origin of replication" genes, we sometimes find that the desired gene actually gets replicated and reinserted in different places across the genome, functioning like "jumping genes" (or, as they are technically known, transposons (Keller, 1983), see footnote 4, below). This further exacerbates the functional integrity of the genetic networks. Promoters and origin of replication genetic segments may also make the vector (or parts of it) unstable and more likely to jump out of the host's genome and into the environment. This now appears to be an uncommon process (de Vries & Wackernagel, 2004), though researchers point out that the colonization of the soil by bacteria that have incorporated such transgenic material should take much more time than has been assumed by many of these studies (Nielsen & Townsend, 2004). Further research is clearly necessary: if these genetic elements can be taken up by soil and gut bacteria, remaining in these micro-ecosystems indefinitely, they carry the risk that they will in turn incorporate themselves into other organisms at some point in the future (with obvious possible unpredictable results on those organismss genetic function).<br />
<br />
<i>5. Summary</i><br />
The risks of genetic engineering emerge on various fronts. First, the "single gene, single function" model is not appropriate. Indeed it is destructive because it trains us to think of life as a machine made out of isolatable, detachable and replaceable parts. The organism is better thought of as an evolving and interconnected system, where its parts are always defined contextually and contingently. When viewed from the perspective of fluid and dynamic genetic networks, the effects of inserting a gene into a genome are not predictable or easily measurable. This is one clear reason why public concern about GMOs needs to be taken seriously by regulatory agencies. Second, the techniques of genetic engineering are problematic and may exacerbate the problems associated with inserting foreign DNA into organisms. Current biotech techniques, which use DNA material from pathogenic organisms, can make the desired gene, the vector, and the host organism's code unstable, and can cause the promotion of proteins and unintended genes, disrupting genetic networks and sometimes possibly jumping into the environment to get taken up by other organisms.<br />
<br />
Although genetic engineering technologies are advancing rapidly, our understanding of the genome is undergoing a significant shift that puts into question many of the premises upon which GMOs are based. We can expect that genetic engineers will attempt to accommodate better the fact the genetic networks and epigenetic dynamics exist and cease to employ some of the riskier techniques described in this article. In any case, we must keep vigilant and continue to update ourselves on these evolving approaches so that we can publicly discuss and critically evaluate the technologies for their potential impacts on our health and on the environment. Above all, we must raise our concerns in a clear and articulate manner to our government officials, who themselves may well need some educating on the science of the genome in the 21st Century.<br />
<br />
<i>Footnotes</i><br />
<br />
i. A third approach to breeding is called "mutagenesis" and it involves subjecting cells to high levels of radiation to induce mutations and selecting from the mutated cells those that have desirable traits. Mutagenesis has been around for about 100 years, but should not be considered a form of "traditional plant breeding". In any case, it will not be discussed in this article.<br />
<br />
ii. Although these procedures have different technical names (known as cisgenic, linegenic, transgenic, and xenogenic engineering respectively), they are all forms of genetic engineering that rely on essentially the same technologies and bear many of the same risks. The common scientific name for them is usually simply "transgenic" engineering.<br />
<br />
iii. Of course, as the science of epigenesis evolves so will the desire to apply the knowledge. Epigenetic engineering seeks to modify the behavior of genes through altering the way in which the genes are read and/or expressed in cells. Epigenetic engineering is not necessarily a benign alternative to genetic engineering because it can instigate many of the same interactional effects as genetic engineering. Consumers should be on the lookout for developments in this new field (will they be called EGMOs, as in "epigenetically modified organisms"?).<br />
<br />
iv. Botanist Barbara McClintock discovered the presence of transposons, mobile genetic elements that are a part of an organism's genome and which jump around and can replicate inside that genome. Their evolutionary and immunological functions are a subject of great interest. In some ways, transposons may appear to be similar to the overactive promoters introduced by genetic engineers. Closer inspection reveals that the genome has actually evolved to let certain types of genes jump around while restricting this capacity in others. When genetic engineers add promoters to genes and insert them into the genome, the location of the promoter can create new types of transposons that do not have a history of interaction within the organism's genetic networks.<br />
<br />
<br />
<i>References</i><br />
<br />
Arbeitman, M. N., Furlong, E. E. M., Farhad, Johnson, E., Null, B. H., Baker, B. S., Krasnow, M. A., et al. (2002). Gene expression during the life cycle of Drosophila melanogaster. Science, 297(5590), 2270-2275.<br />
<br />
Biémont, C., & Vieira, C. (2006). Genetics: Junk DNA as an evolutionary force. Nature, 443, 521-524.<br />
<br />
de Vries, J., & Wackernagel, W. (2004). Microbial horizontal gene transfer and the DNA release from transgenic crop plants. Plant and Soil, 266, 91-104.<br />
<br />
Dillon, N. (2003). Gene autonomy: Positions, please... Nature, 425, 457.<br />
<br />
Fischle, W., Wang, Y., & Allis, C. D. (2003). Histone and chromatin cross-talk. Current Opinion in Cell Biology, 15(2), 172-183.<br />
<br />
Griffiths, P. E., & Stotz, K. (2013). Genetics and philosophy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.<br />
<br />
Heinemann, J. A., Kurenbach, B., & Quist, D. (2011). Molecular profiling - a tool for addressing emerging gaps in the comparative risk assessment of GMOs. Environmental International, 37(7), 1285-1293.<br />
<br />
Ho, M.-W. (1998). Genetic engineering: dream or nightmare? Penn Valley, CA: Gateway Books.<br />
<br />
Ho, M.-W., Ryan, A., & Cummins, J. (1999). Cauliflower mosaic viral promoter - A recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 11(4), 194-197.<br />
<br />
Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (1995). Epigenetic inheritance and evolution: The Lamarkian dimension. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.<br />
<br />
Jaenisch, R.; Bird, A. (2003). "Epigenetic regulation of gene expression: how the genome integrates intrinsic and environmental signals". Nature Genetics. 33 Suppl (3s): 245–254. <br />
<br />
Keller, E. F. (1983). A feeling for the organism: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. New York, NY: WH Freeman and Company.<br />
<br />
Lay, J. O., & Liyanage, R. (2006). Problems with the "omics". TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 25(11), 1046-1056.<br />
<br />
Makalowski, W. (2003). Genomics: Not junk after all. Science, 300(5623), 1246-1247.<br />
<br />
Nielsen, K. M., & Townsend, J. P. (2004). Monitoring and modeling horizontal gene transfer. Nature Biotechnology, 22, 1110-1114.<br />
<br />
Oritz, S. E. G. (2004). Beyond welfare: Animal integrity, animal dignity, and genetic engineering. Ethics and the Environment, 9(1), 94-120.<br />
<br />
Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: Autobiography of the species in 23 chapters. New York, NY: HarperCollins.<br />
<br />
Sansom, R. (2011). Ingenious genes: How gene regulation networks evolve to control development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.<br />
<br />
Schlesinger, M. J. (1994). How the cell copes with stress and the function of heat shock proteins. Pediatric Research, 36, 1-6.<br />
<br />
Suemori, H. & Noguchi, S. (2000). Hoc C cluster genes are dispensable for overall body plan of mouse embryonic development. Developmental Biology, 220, 333-342.<br />
<br />
Vorstenbosch, J. (1993). The concept of integrity: Its significance for the ethical discussion on biotechnology and animals. Livestock Production Science, 36(1), 109-112.Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-10691740816320665022013-05-30T12:44:00.002-07:002013-06-05T09:58:36.912-07:00Kickstarter's Ill-Conceived Support for Extreme BiotechnologyIn late April, a Kickstarter campaign was launched to raise money to produce <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/antonyevans/glowing-plants-natural-lighting-with-no-electricit">glowing plants</a>. The venture was plugged as environmental: if trees could glow in the dark, we could save energy and resources because we wouldn't have to line our streets with streetlights. <br />
<br />
We could use trees instead. <br />
<br />
The project falls under the radar of the typical biotech activist. It is not a food, so the growing number of health-conscious consumers may not care. It is also not being produced by a biotech giant, but rather by a handful of young businessmen/scientists. This might neutralize the concern of those fighting Monsanto because they hate monopolies and big business. Environmentalists may actually find themselves enamoured with the whole idea of "glowing plants": it is purportedly "sustainable", after all, allowing us to reduce our energy usage. Right?<br />
<br />
Does this mean we shouldn't be concerned?<br />
<br />
No. From what I understand, this initiative is potentially one of the most dangerous yet -not just because of very real ecological risks but also because of the precedence it could set. Even though the trees are not produced by Monsanto or Dupont, nor are they generating their own pesticides (such as some GMO foods), the potential risks are enormous. Let me outline them them briefly:<br />
<br />
1) Like all engineered organisms, the glowing plants will have unintended side effects. The inserted firefly genes may well be benign in fireflies, but that does not provide any evidence that they will be harmless in plants. The interactions between the firefly genes and the plant's own genes will cause each to behave in potentially unpredictably ways. This is known as "pleiotropy" and I have <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">written</a> about it before. Even if their are no pleiotropic effects (and this would require <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/12/substantial-equivalence-tricky.html">extensive study</a>) their may be direct ecological effects. For example, how might glowing trees affect the behavior of moths? Of bats? Of birds and squirrels that build nests in them? Or even of ants? Migrating birds already die in colossal numbers because they get confused at night from the lights in big buildings and fly right into the glass. Note that this was not anticipated (and probably not likely anticipatable!) when we began constructing tall glass buildings. We cannot assume that there will be not behavioral changes and it is easy to imagine some frightening scenarios that might occur. <br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0uC5B1ax5OKcWT931PLrcw-V9AfYUCEypfqdHbGsJaNJ-UGXSoJfno1rX6RJ9jQ8qyOu61yxp7ElKP3tAcYec6tAaT1ZCVqZuK1YpyfZPvmblPZqr3lWlZzpeFgU_sHLlIaJ9MklEUczB/s1600/405540c616c2ddf6dbd96c55eebaac7d.jpg" imageanchor="1" ><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0uC5B1ax5OKcWT931PLrcw-V9AfYUCEypfqdHbGsJaNJ-UGXSoJfno1rX6RJ9jQ8qyOu61yxp7ElKP3tAcYec6tAaT1ZCVqZuK1YpyfZPvmblPZqr3lWlZzpeFgU_sHLlIaJ9MklEUczB/s320/405540c616c2ddf6dbd96c55eebaac7d.jpg" /></a><br />
2) The founder of the glowing plants campaign, Antony Evans (pictured on the left... by the way, don't send them hate mail - it is better to educate him), has a reckless marketing gimmick: they will send 100 free "glowing plant" seeds to anyone who contributes over $40 to their project. To date, over six thousand people have signed on, and so hundreds of thousands of these genetically engineered seeds are set to be distributed across North America to all these funders. The problem is that <i>no government agency is testing, regulating, or overseeing these transactions</i>. Kickstarter is allowing fundraising for a type of technology that no government even knows how to regulate.<br />
<br />
3) The project is being fundraised through a crowdsourcing platform. If successful, then others, also intent on creating any number of chimeras and monsters, will be able to raise money as well. We may well see dozens or hundreds of independent biohackers raising money online to reprogram organisms. As Huffington Post writer <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/l-jim-thomas/synthetic-biology-kickstarter_b_3247151.html">Jim Thomas</a> points out, in the near future, people may soon be able purchase organisms with designed characteristics off the internet as nonchalantly as we now purchase apps from iTunes. If these are not regulated, hundreds or thousands of novel organisms could flood our ecosystems. Keep in mind that the introduction of novel species into ecosystems is <i>already</i> the second biggest cause of species extinction (behind habitat destruction). If this project sets a precedent and hundreds like it are allowed to emerge, biodiversity and the ecosystems that life produces, are in grave danger. This is not an apocalyptic environmentalist fear-mongering. We have ample evidence that new species make other species go extinct and can destabilize the resilience and functionality of ecosystems.<br />
<br />
4) Green-tech solutions often eclipse our vision of what really needs to be done. We spend millions of dollars tinkering in labs when we should be spending that money protecting ecosystems. The cheapest and most effective way of attending to the ecological crisis is by conserving ecosystems, which provide trillions of dollars in services for free every year. Green-tech solutions are often hopelessly misguided anyway. How green are glowing plants really expected to be? Are streetlights <i>really</i> what are draining our energy resources? Seems like the smallest fraction of the problem to me, and new LED streetlights are providing impressive advances in efficiency. Green-tech solutions feed the inner tech-geek in us, but they scarcely provide meaningful solutions to the real problems we face.<br />
<br />
5) My fifth point is unabashedly sentimental. I admit, it might be "cool" to see a glowing tree. But I certainly don't want to live in a world where the trees lining the streets are glowing at night. Where the new "normal" is to not have the spontaneous beauty and elegance of a growing tree eclipsed by some nerdy tinkerer's get-famous-quick scheme. There is already far too little 'nature' allowed into our cities and the little that is here provides me with immeasurable peace and solace. Imagine how devastating it would be if, everywhere you turned, you saw just another human creation. In those glowing trees, you might hear chirping birds. Some of the birds were genetically altered to eat some insect pest more efficiently (and the insects themselves are pests because they, too, were an earlier green-tech GMO project gone awry (think: killerbees and superweeds)). Other birds were genetically engineered to produce 'cooler' songs or to have brighter colours (because Kickstarter would be especially appreciative of projects with a 'cool' factor). Everywhere you look, you are reminded of human imperfection, egoism, and greed. Richard Louv has documented the importance of nature for the health, sociality, and intelligence of children. We all need nature. We need life's wild and complex freedom around us. Evolution created us as it created the rest of the biological world, and we must maintain environments where we can witness and appreciate the complex birthing process of the Earth. What little we have left, we need to keep.<br />
<br />
In a recent interview, Evans, the project founder, stated that Glowing Plants was "a demonstration project to inspire people to get involved with the amateur DIY Bio movement." This might be the 15 most frightening words I've heard in a long time. Listen up! Ecosystems aren't made of Lego blocks that can be built and rebuilt at will. I suggest that any biotech tinkerer who does not understand the concepts of ecological stability, resiliency, redundancy, or have a basic understanding of how the rate of evolutionary change optimally balances novelty and development, should spend more time learning about the world around them. <i>Leave the childish games inside the game room if you must play them at all.</i><br />
<br />
<b>What you can do.</b><br />
<br />
Kickstarter cannot continue to facilitate the widespread contamination of ecosystems by biohackers. Kickstarter has helped scores of fledging artists and entrepreneurs get off the ground. For this they should be commended. But their support for this project is ill-conceived. Please sign the <a href="http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Tell_Kickstarter_not_to_allow_bioengineered_organisms">Avaaz petition</a> immediately to demand that they reconsider providing a platform for projects seeking to engineer and distribute unregulated modified organisms. A project called "<a href="http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/kickstopper-stopping-syn-bio-pollution">Kickstopper</a>" is raising money to stop the release of these untested seeds - well worth it to throw a few bucks at them!! Send a personal email to <a href="mailto:support@kickstarter.com">Kickstarter</a> too. Share the news with your friends. <br />
<br />
And, of course, there is always <a href="https://www.facebook.com/Kickstarter">Kickstarter's Facebook page</a>...<br />
<br />
It is also worth emailing the USDA's agency that deals with the release of transgenic organisms into the environment. Send a brief, informed and polite email to <a href="mailto:BiotechQuery@aphis.usda.gov">BiotechQuery@aphis.usda.gov</a> to ensure the most effective response.<br />
<br />
We haven't got much time. Kickstarter will release the funds on June 7th unless we let them know loud and clear that this is an unacceptable risk!<br />
<br />
JUNE 5th: BREAKING NEWS: Prestigious scientific journal, <i>Nature</i>, comes out with the following warning: "A controversial new project is seeking public donations to develop a glow-in-the-dark version of the thale cress (Arabidopsis thaliana) using genes from fireflies. If the effort succeeds, thousands of supporters will receive seeds to plant the hardy weed wherever they wish." (see full <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/glowing-plants-spark-debate-1.13131?WT.mc_id=FBK_NatureNews">article</a>). This has instigated some serious rhetorical back-peddling from the project founders.<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-29460810306095670222012-12-09T20:53:00.002-08:002015-11-11T11:11:24.510-08:00"Substantial equivalence" - A tricky, misleading term!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyErlHJ0jyPoWvsgOxg_Sx51mZoBu93T-_GdtTyIpeZZbxeqdTmGjUMiRxAm_ogVhdiNmYOb05D7gbwrFudXieVRnfqnpxucQO-v78FMdVAVqoLIb8uHlbqGMNx77Vbj5LWpOkUNhAbjhX/s1600/gm_corn.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="204" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjyErlHJ0jyPoWvsgOxg_Sx51mZoBu93T-_GdtTyIpeZZbxeqdTmGjUMiRxAm_ogVhdiNmYOb05D7gbwrFudXieVRnfqnpxucQO-v78FMdVAVqoLIb8uHlbqGMNx77Vbj5LWpOkUNhAbjhX/s320/gm_corn.jpg" /></a></div>The biotech industry argues that genetically engineered organisms do not require labeling, should not be subjected to rigorous testing, and do not warrant careful public scrutiny. <br />
<br />
This is because, the industry proclaims, genetically engineered organisms are "substantially equivalent" to their non-engineered counterparts.<br />
<br />
<i>Substantially</i> equivalent?<br />
<br />
The concept of "substantial equivalence" sounds like an oxymoron. It sounds like an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too. Is there a deceptive ambivalence behind the phrase?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsWJ8BrjeRhaFzmrbu9Hg_DdBMQ1ABTSI-YvD7rH6Uuyk7N3X3vrxN0FzhhA-I225huUmmqJDL4-Uye6uGpckiEYj2P64WZmY8mI6P8mwr4yHMBenEF9P_hRZL6n5I-G69yewW-ws_jRUG/s1600/1-1-3.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="204" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsWJ8BrjeRhaFzmrbu9Hg_DdBMQ1ABTSI-YvD7rH6Uuyk7N3X3vrxN0FzhhA-I225huUmmqJDL4-Uye6uGpckiEYj2P64WZmY8mI6P8mwr4yHMBenEF9P_hRZL6n5I-G69yewW-ws_jRUG/s320/1-1-3.jpeg" /></a></div>Let's unpack the term.<br />
<br />
Of course, the industry could not say that the GMO was "<i>completely</i> equivalent" because then they would have no basis for claiming a patent on the organism.<br />
<br />
And they could not claim that it was "substantially <i>different</i>" either, because that would trigger concern that they'd rather not face. <br />
<br />
The secret was to find a combination of words that make the invention see<i>m just different enough</i> to merit a patent but <i>not different enough</i> for people to be concerned about. With "substantial equivalence", they landed in a pot of gold.<br />
<br />
Of course, the concept is misleading but that is why it is valuable. It functions like a slippery snake, evading any attempt to pin down its meaning. When those concerned about GMOs speak out, it slithers over towards "equivalence". When the patent offices inquire, it nests in the serpentine ambiguity of the word "substantial". <br />
<br />
(I apologize to the snakes out there for using this metaphor.)<br />
<br />
"Substantial equivalence" shares that oxymoronic sneakiness that makes so many other industry concepts so enervating. Think of "sustainable development" or "clean coal" or "ethical oil".<br />
<br />
The term "substantial equivalence" originally met with resistance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), who had internal documents describing the possible toxins, allergens, and new diseases that might arise from GMOs (Freese and Schubert, 2004). <br />
<br />
However, for whatever reason, the documents were ignored and the FDA decided to go along with the term. <br />
<br />
So did the FAO.<br />
<br />
The FDA also decided that it would be sufficient if <i>the biotech companies conducted the studies by themselves</i> to establish whether or not their GMOs were "substantially equivalent". This would not be considered a conflict of interest.<br />
<br />
And the FDA decided that the <i>FDA itself would not need to conduct any testing of these novel organisms</i>. It would just believe the biotech companies' reports.<br />
<br />
The FDA's regulation gets even more stringent at this point. Listen up.<br />
<br />
The actual experimental write-ups by the companies are classified so no independent scientists can access them. The FDA has no problem with this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAoi8W4uK1ZIUe9Q3j6zd7ITnA3BRb8n_jUXpBkUEGp20RpEzJdZGZgAp0a-75_7QYrqH8o5l5IKaua0NDl2RFCAJPrwsq4ep7d8rn28S3EfRA9SDOvXrj9ZPBdCVlKvg-w2_mlBG7bJ3/s1600/Cupcake.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="288" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicAoi8W4uK1ZIUe9Q3j6zd7ITnA3BRb8n_jUXpBkUEGp20RpEzJdZGZgAp0a-75_7QYrqH8o5l5IKaua0NDl2RFCAJPrwsq4ep7d8rn28S3EfRA9SDOvXrj9ZPBdCVlKvg-w2_mlBG7bJ3/s320/Cupcake.jpg" /></a></div>To make matters worse, biotech companies often <i>do not allow</i> external scientists to conduct health or environment tests using their seeds. In fact, when you purchase the seeds, you often have to <i>sign a legal document</i> assuring that you will not test them in any way.<br />
<br />
They are not merely seeking a monopoly on our food source. They are also seeking a monopoly on the knowledge we can gain about their products. Without the capacity to freely inquire into new technologies, we are unable to democratically evaluate them and make informed decisions with respect to the role they play in human societies.<br />
<br />
But before we go any further, it is useful to ask: what is it exactly that the biotech companies claim to analyze in order to deem their products "substantially equivalent"? <br />
<br />
A 2003 review in <i>Trends in Biotechnology</i> identified 7 main research foci. Now, we cannot actually see the studies that Monsanto or Dupont or Dow or Astra Zeneca conduct in these 7 areas because, as I said, they are company secrets. But even if we take their word for it and in <i>good will</i> assume that the reports they issue publicly are not biased, the seven areas themselves are not entirely convincing. <br />
<br />
In fact, with a little understanding of genetics and ecology, they all seem quite weak. <br />
<br />
Allow me to indulge a little bit in each of them. Here is what biotech companies claim to do, and here are my answers:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Study the introduced DNA and the new proteins or metabolites that it produces.</b><br />
<br />
Genes make mRNA which translate into proteins. Understanding what new proteins are produced is crucial for understanding how the gene is altering the behaviour, physiology and biochemistry of the organism. This is because proteins are the building blocks of processes and products in the body. Of course regulators should be studying the proteins that the introduced DNA produces!<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, studying the proteins that the introduced DNA produces is not enough. <br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because the introduced DNA interacts with other genes, switching them on or off, upregulating or downregulating them. For example, in yeast, over 95% of the genes interact with their neighbours (Featherstone and Broadie, 2002). Genes do not behave in isolation, they operate in <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">networks</a>. When we introduce new DNA into an organism, an undefined number of other genes end up producing proteins in unexpected ways too. The same goes for metabolites, which are synthesized in complex networks of co-interacting chemicals.<br />
<br />
<b>2. Analyze the chemical composition of the relevant plant parts, measuring nutrients, anti nutrients as well as any natural toxins or known allergens.</b><br />
<br />
The key word in this is "relevant". I assume that for GMOs intended for consumptions, the "relevant plant parts" are those parts which people eat. But the novel genes are not just in those relevant plant parts. They are in every single cell of the organism's body! And even if humans are not eating those other plant parts, SOMETHING is. And it is important to know how <i>that something</i> will react because it is part of a larger ecology and so changes to it could have ecological effects.<br />
<br />
Second, it is easy to test for "known" allergens and anti-nutrients. But what about unknown ones? The concern is that novel proteins or novel combinations of proteins or metabolites might trigger some health problem. Given that it is impossible to test for an unknown allergen does not mean that the burden of proof should be placed on those concerned. Yes, it is a scientific problem to figure out how to conduct such tests. But that is the problem of those who produce the technology.<br />
<br />
If industry responds that such studies are unnecessarily complicated, the public should be able to evaluate whether not engaging in thorough research is a necessary risk for our current social and ecological needs. <br />
<br />
<b>3. Assess the risk of gene transfer from the food to microorganisms in the human gut.</b><br />
<br />
Unsurprisingly, there are problems with this one too. And again, they stem from a refusal of the biotech industry to respect living beings as complex interactive networks. <br />
<br />
The quantity and variety of gut micro-organisms is continually shifting across time, is dependent on cultural, environmental and climatic factors, and numbers from 300 to 1000 bacteria species, and fungi and protozoa too. Can we possibly imagine that biotech companies test for all of these possible combinations? It is a permutational nightmare and would be exorbitantly costly. But it gets worse: the gut itself is an environment for the gut organisms, and as the gut changes (from sickness, from exposure to chemicals, etc.) they way the gut microorganism behave changes too. Some genes may switch on, others may downregulate, as the organisms co-evolve with their mini-ecosystem. What about all those factors? Further: considering the biotech companies do not actually conduct tests on humans we cannot assume that the environment within which these microorganisms are being tested for gene transfer is equivalent to the environment in the human gut. Finally, the context of the GMO is not stable. Environmental stressors can switch on certain genes or inhibit others, altering the way that the transgene behaves and potentially making it unstable. Alternatively, changes in the human could modify the degree to which the gene may jump.<br />
<br />
Proponents of genetic engineering might say: Lighten up! It's just a gene! Why would it be more likely to jump out of the food and cause a nuisance than any of the other genes?<br />
<br />
Well, the answer, again, is clear: the gene didn't just arrive by some happy coincidence into the host code. It was <i>forced</i> in using viral vectors despite the defence mechanisms within the cell to prevent the invasion of foreign DNA. After in, it was shaken into activity using a viral promotor. These viral genes are aggressive and unpredictable. After all, it is through these genes that viruses can hijack other organisms' genetic codes. Viral genes increase the instability of the other transgenic genes. <i>The same stuff that made it get in can also make it jump out</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Study the possibility that any new components in the food might be allergens.</b><br />
<br />
It is interesting to ponder how this could be done without human studies. Anyway, I've addressed the concerns with this point in #2 and #3 above.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Estimate how much of a normal diet the food will make up.</b><br />
<br />
How much of it we eat is simply not relevant to answering the question of how similar the novel organism is to its natural counterparts. There isn't much else to say about this one.<br />
<br />
<b>6. Estimate any toxicological or nutritional problems revealed by this data in light of data on equivalent foods.</b><br />
<br />
This is potentially useful. The idea is this: suppose the novel proteins are present in some other food. The scientists study that food for toxicity so that they have likely scenarios with respect to their GMO. By all means this sort of analysis should be conducted. But it would be erroneous to assume that a given protein in one context has the same effects as that same protein in another. The other nutritive factors and metabolites in that food work synergistically or antagonistically in complex ways that render the protein's effect "context dependent". <br />
<br />
<b>7. Additional animal toxicity tests if there is the possibility that the food might pose a risk."</b><br />
<br />
These are typically 90 day studies and are inadequate to assess health across the lifespan or multi-generationally.<br />
<br />
<b>So, what would better "substantial equivalence" look like?</b><br />
<br />
It is <i>possible</i> that a gene might be inserted somewhere such that it did not do anything harmful to the organism, to the one consuming it, or to the surrounding ecology. Of course it is <i>theoretically possible</i> that some GMO is "safe" in these senses. But the point is that no study is anywhere near establishing this and there are sound genetic and ecological reasons to believe that this would be a rare phenomena.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, there are some technologies emerging that can show in much greater detail whether or not a GMO is "substantially equivalent". There are problems with these tests, but it is good for food activists to become familiar with them.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLjjcLjv3cV9gYxG-E2sm-aGhqHwZgI556jhmSS2u3LQ3jvPvzmd8fy3r3294O5GhCQ__W2frD8vuuab6jexq-gxj7y-FnklK0EJ-uZnHrKn2GJi4UtjdREOHIT3_4wRjtLgH7EilVo_mU/s1600/genetically-modified-food-tomatoes-syringes-photo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLjjcLjv3cV9gYxG-E2sm-aGhqHwZgI556jhmSS2u3LQ3jvPvzmd8fy3r3294O5GhCQ__W2frD8vuuab6jexq-gxj7y-FnklK0EJ-uZnHrKn2GJi4UtjdREOHIT3_4wRjtLgH7EilVo_mU/s320/genetically-modified-food-tomatoes-syringes-photo.jpg" /></a></div><b>Proteomics, metabolomics, and transcriptomics</b> (often known collectively simply as <i>OMIC studies</i>) provide much greater insight into the effects of transgenic alterations than any of the simplistic and limited biochemical tests conducted. For example, a proteomic study would show how the protein products in the new organism differ statistically from a natural organism of the same species. This would help identify pleiotropic effects. If an inserted gene altered the behaviour of some gene nearby it, this altered behaviour would (theoretically) show up as some change in the protein distribution relative to a non-engineered organism.<br />
<br />
These studies are still insufficient due to statistical inadequacies, but also because they only provide snapshots into the behaviour of the GMO. The GMO might be tested in laboratory conditions, where the inserted gene behaves in one way with its neighbours. But in complex field conditions, the gene often behaves differently and its behaviour changes over its lifespan. It would be unrealistic to think that the biotech companies could comprehensively test for protein changes across every likely field condition because there is an enormous variety, dependent on humidity, temperature, interacting organisms, predators, nutrient availability, etc. <br />
<br />
Needless to say, most biotech companies and their cheerleaders are arguing that ANY OMIC study is unnecessary and that current substantial equivalence protocols are more than sufficient. <br />
<br />
I apologize that this article got pretty technical, but I really think we need to know this stuff. Anyway, my conclusion is simple: <br />
<br />
"Substantial equivalence" is a misleading term. Current regulations provide many holes for potentially serious health and environmental effects to slip through. Newer OMIC studies exists, which would provide a finer grained filter to skim out potential problems, but these studies are certainly not foolproof. Activists should understand that this neologism is used for political gain and as a tool for ensuring compliance. It is not a scientific term and it is not likely to be in the near future, given our analytical limitations in understanding the genome.<br />
<br />
It is important that we expose the regulation for what it is. The biotech industry constantly accuses those concerned with genetic engineering of ignorant fear-mongering. The techniques that these companies utilize and enthrone with the Godly title, "<b>Science</b>", are neither noble nor ingenious. Behind their cunning words lie a dearth of precision and a surplus of greed.<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-30274204923733545072012-11-21T05:47:00.000-08:002012-11-21T17:20:12.567-08:00The Powerful Potential of Anti-GMO Cyber-Citizens!Sometime last night, <br />
with the cold November winds blowing amuck outside his window, <br />
and the naked trees scratching menacing songs on the rooftop,<br />
a man stumbled upon something that warmed his heart.<br />
<br />
<br />
It was, of all things, a <b>Thanksgiving Survey</b> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/smuckers?fref=ts" target="_blank">Smucker's Facebook</a> page.<br />
<br />
The survey asked consumers to vote on their favourite Thanksgiving food. The top choices were (in order of preference): turkey, stuffing, potatoes, ham, and pumpkin pie.<br />
<br />
Now, as many of you know, these surveys are designed so that people can participate and <i>add items</i> to the list. The man softly grinned and tapped the words "Non GMO food" into the survey. <br />
<br />
Then he voted for it.<br />
<br />
Word got around because somebody posted it on a consumer advocacy group's Facebook Page and that group, in turn, posted to someone else.<br />
<br />
It went viral.<br />
<br />
Many people ended up voting. I surely did. <br />
<br />
By the time I had gone to sleep, "Non GMO food" had received twice as many votes as the next highest on the list. When I woke up this morning, I saw that it had received 5 times as many. For those stats hounds out there, here's the current score:<br />
<br />
<b>Non-GMO Food 259<br />
Turkey 64<br />
Stuffing 46<br />
Ham 19 (... how ham got ANY votes is beyond me!)<br />
Pumpkin Pie 16</b><br />
<br />
<b>(editor's note: The questionnaire has now been removed)</b><br />
<br />
While people voted, they also voiced their concerns about Smucker's GMO policy on their Facebook page. Dozens of comments filled the page and I am happy to report that no one was tempted by the obvious cheap-shots that Smucker's has heard a million times. There were no "Sucker's" or "Schmucker's" flung about at all! <br />
<br />
By and large, people were civil, which is the most effective way to be in situations like this.<br />
<br />
(<i>What is Smucker's GMO policy by the way?</i> It is basically this: we will use genetically engineered ingredients and we will pay a lot of money to confuse you into believing that labeling is a bad idea if you ever think to try and push the government for your right to know what is in your food.)<br />
<br />
This quick, simple action demonstrates the new power that citizens have in the age of the internet. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskxllnPRePiX1aa1pJfxd63vJy9Cy0km5baN1QSJlTZKbJ64mJU6TEjBCmwKMkS7vSg3C8-GICm5smCwBvNNpV1vM8w_EDK1PDiar9VlcboTX8huG1RD3XBy8TJMHa1-QX-0F1iSm0fhD/s1600/bee_hive-300x255.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="255" width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjskxllnPRePiX1aa1pJfxd63vJy9Cy0km5baN1QSJlTZKbJ64mJU6TEjBCmwKMkS7vSg3C8-GICm5smCwBvNNpV1vM8w_EDK1PDiar9VlcboTX8huG1RD3XBy8TJMHa1-QX-0F1iSm0fhD/s320/bee_hive-300x255.jpg" /></a></div>It is a wonderful example of "swarm intelligence". <br />
<br />
Like bees and ants, concerned citizens who use Facebook, Twitter and other forms of social networking, work in a distributed and de-centralized intelligence that has a power that we are only just beginning to recognize. Through the connections and relations it provides, the system is capable of doing things that any individual one of us is impotent to achieve.<br />
<br />
As many of the bigger NGOs lumber about, held back by their own weight and bureaucracy, people networking over computers are spontaneously and dexterously birthing new and exciting actions daily. We still need those NGOs for some functions but there are some things that we can do better than they can.<br />
<br />
We are crafters of a Beautiful New World Order and <i>posting, sharing, liking, tweeting, recommending, and commenting</i> are among our most important work tools.<br />
<br />
<b>My sense is that if we organized ourselves a little bit, we could increase our effectiveness severalfold.</b><br />
<br />
There are over a hundred anti-GMO groups in North America. Many of these groups are performing redundant activities, posting and reposting the same soundbites and visuals. Of course, swarm intelligence requires some redundancy. <br />
<br />
But we could <b>divide our labour in an organized way and increase our impact immeasurably</b>.<br />
<br />
How?<br />
<br />
Well, we could have a few groups whose specific job is to scour Facebook Pages looking for opportunities for us to act. Along with the Smucker's vote, there are probably hundreds of other important resources for us within Facebook. <br />
<br />
But we don't have to stay within the navy blue halls of Facebook either: we could have a few groups that scan the major news networks for food issues related to GMOs and organics. Many of these news agencies provide "comment" sections that are beckoning our delightful responses! <br />
<br />
We could have a few groups foraging in the "women's magazines" and a few others in the "men's" ones (I know, I hate the gender division here too). <br />
<br />
We could have another group surveying the online science magazines.<br />
<br />
And, of course, we'd need some other groups to scope out the smaller newspaper websites too.<br />
<br />
And then there's the blogs!<br />
<br />
<b>Each time a group finds a relevant article, they would leave their comments, copy the link, and send it off through our networks.</b><br />
<br />
<b>Upon receiving these ACTION ALERTS, we would simply click on the link, read the article or post, voice our comments and go about our day feeling slightly happier.</b> We have contributed a little to a new and powerful form of participatory democracy. That always feels good. <br />
<br />
When the Smucker's staff open their Facebook account today, their socks are going to fall off. <br />
<br />
Can you imagine if we left as few stones as possible unturned, if virtually every North American media resource was well represented with our messages, if customers ignorant of the issue were continually exposed to our polite and informed, yet firm and resolved voices?<br />
<br />
I don't want to lead you into any fantasy utopia. But we can certainly get <i>closer</i> to achieving this by organizing a little and dividing our labor. <br />
<br />
So let's start! What is your group going to focus on?<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-76650268278389401522012-11-16T11:53:00.002-08:002012-11-16T19:42:52.153-08:00Educating more Effectively about GMOsI am elated, absolutely elated, that North Americans are becoming more concerned about genetic engineering. This is a wonderful, hopeful time!<br />
<br />
When the biotech companies and the food giants threw $45 million into defeating our right to know what is in our food, they had no idea what a silly move that was. Instead of silencing their opponents, they made it clear to those sitting on the fence that they would do anything to maintain their profits. My capitalist and socialist buddies alike, hearing the story, shake their heads. It is a move that will disgrace them for decades to come.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVVPHkH6X5jpK8trHTPZdW6Xg8gE9v-1srstc5lvvIMscRM6C1z8Jn38IB3SPc0NayCFeuN2gA7gK91JAXPHlblFCOfWYIWzqRVk6RiUftHPvtHyYHhcD6VUd5wIzgZQ6E0gUGLwQYNaO-/s1600/Cartoon-about-losing-momentum.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="234" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgVVPHkH6X5jpK8trHTPZdW6Xg8gE9v-1srstc5lvvIMscRM6C1z8Jn38IB3SPc0NayCFeuN2gA7gK91JAXPHlblFCOfWYIWzqRVk6RiUftHPvtHyYHhcD6VUd5wIzgZQ6E0gUGLwQYNaO-/s320/Cartoon-about-losing-momentum.jpg" /></a></div>As a result, many of us are now beside ourselves with excitement. The defeat of Proposition 37 did not feel like a defeat because the industry exposed their true nature while bashing us down. We are witnessing thousands of people across the continent rising up and speaking out, initiating boycotts and stickering campaigns, all with a newfound gusto that is rare in the activist world. "Worldchangers" cherish these moments when momentum seems to be on our side.<br />
<br />
But I want to ask all of you to conserve your energy. <br />
<br />
This will be a long battle. Too many activists burn out because they put all their soul into something and aren't given back results that reward them for their commitment and passion.<br />
<br />
We cannot afford to burn out. It is the long haul that matters.<br />
<br />
If we can organize people and send ten thousand letters to Nestle or Coca-Cola today, it is <i>less effective</i> than sending those same ten thousand letters spread out over a couple months. If the rate steadily increases over that time, it is especially worrying for the companies. Consider the graph below, with two lines depicting the number of letters received about GMOs over a given period of time. If you were a CEO of Coca-Cola, which trend, A or B, would you be more concerned about?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRDtcRKwThaZHOjt2jOEcgKryNT-QwsLkYKFzLx6g89aBXG9qilEuDhTMhN3x91p_puTDz1mDyLrRSp5_IyaAZAjOORqvap7fQJmybdky8FLVK8rbaU2-4CsGbB0Sj8lhp_RZsBjmjILC2/s1600/graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="180" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRDtcRKwThaZHOjt2jOEcgKryNT-QwsLkYKFzLx6g89aBXG9qilEuDhTMhN3x91p_puTDz1mDyLrRSp5_IyaAZAjOORqvap7fQJmybdky8FLVK8rbaU2-4CsGbB0Sj8lhp_RZsBjmjILC2/s320/graph.jpg" /></a></div><br />
So... not only is it in the interest of our health and sanity to slow down a little bit, it is likely to benefit our cause as well. <br />
<br />
Besides, there are only so many people we can persuade with the frantic, frenetic energy that many of us now feel. But there are many more that we will turn off. <br />
<br />
Let's all slow down and breathe here. We have to steer this momentum in a useful direction and not have it burn up like newspaper in a campfire.<br />
<br />
As we spread information about genetic engineering through our various forms of social media or through conversations with those around us, we must constantly work at refining what we say and how we say it. <br />
<br />
Activists are among the least effective educators. But we really only do our cause a disservice if we do not discriminate between what is educational and what is not.<br />
<br />
Here are some criteria to consider:<br />
<br />
<b>1. Is your information scientific?</b><br />
<br />
The biotech industry is continuously accusing us of being unscientific. We should learn from this that appearing scientific is important. Is the claim we are making supported by a reliable scientific source? Is the article peer-reviewed or does it authentically state the position of some peer-reviewed article or scientist? Can we openly acknowledge the possible weaknesses of a study so that we can say things like: "While it is true that the sample size of this study was small, it nevertheless indicates the need for precaution and further research because the biotech industry sometimes even uses small sample sizes." Here is an example of <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408390701855993" target="_blank">a scientifically reliable article</a> and <a href="http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february022012/gmo-babies.php" target="_blank">here is one that is surely not</a>. Let's all enrich our understanding of genetics and <i>why exactly</i><a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unintended-side-effect-of-genetic.html" target="_blank"> there are so many risks</a> to this technology!<br />
<br />
<b>2. Are you being preachy?</b><br />
<br />
Why is it that Jehovah Witnesses turn so many of us off? Why is it that Angry Vegans often make meat eaters want to go and eat more meat? It is not because of <i>what</i> they are saying. It is <i>how</i> they are saying it. Are you speaking in a way that will make the average consumer feel like you think you are <i>better</i> than them? When people approach us as if they know everything and as if their life mission is to "save" or "wake up" the masses, they flip a switch in our brains from "receptive and listening" to "ok, I gotta get outta here. This person is too much". <i>People are most open to learning from those who are open to learning from them</i>. Reciprocity builds relationships, trust, and a motivation for <i>both</i> people to develop and grow.<br />
<br />
<b>3. Do You Know that Less is Sometimes More?</b><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKDvoGF8FWonPjzJhRKzGJEDQ9crm4wNUXKXxFhsMPWTGyMVS4Th-42y8EFLrjCOoH6_CR5-MxfcFYfAgoXCMCRKMi42NcZiKKNYwZ-0g846vr5z9L9N6zLhXBXdRvv8A6PlysoudQ3sBO/s1600/student-sleeping.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="220" width="272" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgKDvoGF8FWonPjzJhRKzGJEDQ9crm4wNUXKXxFhsMPWTGyMVS4Th-42y8EFLrjCOoH6_CR5-MxfcFYfAgoXCMCRKMi42NcZiKKNYwZ-0g846vr5z9L9N6zLhXBXdRvv8A6PlysoudQ3sBO/s320/student-sleeping.gif" /></a></div><br />
Too much information shuts people off. It is better to have a few, well-considered and well-delivered sources of information than a deluge of mediocre ones, interspersed with the occasional excellent one. <i>The slurry of average-quality messages will camouflage the great ones</i>. People like diversity. People like new stimulation. People do not like opening their Facebook feeds and seeing 20-30 posts monotonously re-informing them that "GMOs are bad" or are "destroying the world". They already get too much junk, most of which they just pass over. We should strive for <i>optimal</i> quantity not <i>maximum</i> quantity. And if, one day, we feel ourselves just a bit too fired up about our friend chomping down on a GMO cheeseburger? We need to take a moment, stop, and reflect: am I calm enough? Or will my comments deter him from listening to me <i>ever</i> again about this issue? If the latter, then maybe it is better to just keep silent right now.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Can you make your Message <i>Pleasing</i></b>?<br />
<br />
Mass advertising works for products that people <i>want</i> to buy. It creates thirst and desire. But what <i>we</i> are selling does not often come across as pleasant or good or desirable. It sucks, but the truth isn't always nice.<br />
<br />
There is some basic psychology here and you can bet the marketing firms hired by Monsanto know all about it: drinking a can of Coke makes people feel good. But being told that the Coke they've been drinking for 20 years is killing them (and the planet) makes people feel bad. Humans are simple creatures, attracted to what makes them feel good. They will generally prefer the quality of an immediate pleasure to the promise of a long term one. In fact, studies show that people will actually flock to their temptations precisely when they feel most badly about themselves. Our negative messaging may steer people straight towards their vices and dependencies... No wonder so much activism doesn't work!<br />
<br />
A GMO-free world has a lot a beauty, health and magic and we need to show people that taking part in imagining such a world is itself more satisfying than munching Lays' GMO potato chips. It is more satisfying, isn't it? Well, how do we <i>show</i> that without force-feeding it?<br />
<br />
In conclusion, I suggest that all of us make a lunch date with a teacher we know so we can ask them about teaching strategies and approaches that work in the class. Good teachers have care and tact and subtlety (in their better moments!) that will be of tremendous value for us in our struggle to improve ourselves and become better activists. To the chalkboards! <br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-83491457936301802012-11-12T10:21:00.000-08:002012-11-21T08:43:25.949-08:00Contact Information for the Biotech and Food Companies opposing Labeling of GMOsI have compiled the contact information for the major biotech companies, organizations, and food companies that <b>launched the $45 million campaign to defeat mandatory labeling of genetically engineered organisms</b> in food.<br />
<br />
I urge you to write a brief letter and send it to each of these companies. You can copy and paste the same text if you like. It should take less than an hour to run through this list! <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil2kA3XKV6s7yGvD_OKdVgFF6EezdF-Uhwic0yEzX2xbZjvgyovSy5vcwZOkPW9Rv3UrZxqcmqImfF_arziJkulwX8rRbvdLlg8th5j1RquwZ286jL3wa6FrEdHCo1nj8XlfRMznhQnopZ/s1600/mail_send.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="128" width="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEil2kA3XKV6s7yGvD_OKdVgFF6EezdF-Uhwic0yEzX2xbZjvgyovSy5vcwZOkPW9Rv3UrZxqcmqImfF_arziJkulwX8rRbvdLlg8th5j1RquwZ286jL3wa6FrEdHCo1nj8XlfRMznhQnopZ/s320/mail_send.png" /></a></div><b>Here are some pointers for writing an effective letter:</b><br />
<br />
1. Be polite (they are less likely to think you are a fanatic and more receptive to your message). <b>It is ESPECIALLY important to be polite when writing messages on different companies' Facebook Pages.</b> Faithful customers will be reading your comments and will not be receptive to insults and polarizing language. If your message is furious and violent, the company may also alert Facebook that you are spamming their page and Facebook may revoke your posting rights. Be nice.<br />
<br />
2. Let them know how disappointed you are that they do not support our right to know what is in our food (i.e. Proposition 37).<br />
<br />
3. Explain that although you love their products (if you do), you will not be purchasing them anymore.<br />
<br />
4. Explain that you will also be talking to your investor/bank because you do not want any of your investments supporting the company.<br />
<br />
5. Explain that you will be communicating your reasons for boycotting the company to all of your friends.<br />
<br />
6. Ask them to change their policy and support the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered organisms, and that you will reconsider your boycott if they make such changes.<br />
<br />
<b>Send this page as a link to everyone who you think might be concerned about GMOs!</b><br />
<br />
<b>NOTE</b>: Alliance for Natural Health has just produced <a href="http://www.anh-usa.org/prop-37-we-be-back/" target="_blank">this great page</a> where we can send a letter to all of the companies at once! It is very important to sign on to this and spread it widely. But form letters are really NOT substitutes for individual letters. Do both!<br />
<br />
Organic Consumer's Association now has a <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26642.cfm" target="_blank">webpage</a> with the call lines of these companies too, if you'd rather give them a ring!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMI_rsyk3JHs8xKY3nAdEL_y9-jbLw8Ae-85IHoFcR7X5abxkVFh5tks61IxkNnPCrUAdoRH7uYij6qDzTlR1tVBEE3sX5dbTUWJ-MOJDaCtGQk6Yiayidau3HhEU6BhqNAsSRdocrpMJ8/s1600/prop_37_heroes_and_zeroes_2012.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="207" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMI_rsyk3JHs8xKY3nAdEL_y9-jbLw8Ae-85IHoFcR7X5abxkVFh5tks61IxkNnPCrUAdoRH7uYij6qDzTlR1tVBEE3sX5dbTUWJ-MOJDaCtGQk6Yiayidau3HhEU6BhqNAsSRdocrpMJ8/s320/prop_37_heroes_and_zeroes_2012.jpg" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Biotech Company Contacts:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.monsanto.ca/whoweare/Pages/ContactUs.aspx" target="_blank">Monsanto</a><br />
<a href="http://www2.dupont.com/Contact/en_US/corp/index.html" target="_blank">Dupont</a><br />
<a href="http://www.dow.com/company/contact/" target="_blank">Dow Chemical</a><br />
<a href="http://www.basf.com/group/corporate/en/contact" target="_blank">BASF</a><br />
<a href="http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/contacts/Pages/contacts.aspx" target="_blank">Syngenta</a><br />
<a href="https://secure.bayer.com/bayer/contact.aspx?lang=en" target="_blank">Bayer</a><br />
<a href="http://www.whybiotech.com/contactus/index.asp" target="_blank">Council of Biotechnology Information</a><br />
<a href="http://www.bio.org/contact-us" target="_blank">Biotechnology Industry Organization</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Food Company Contacts:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pepsico.com/Contacts.html" target="_blank">Pepsico</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pepsi?fref=ts" target="_blank">Pepsi's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/about/contact/" target="_blank">Grocery Manufacturers Association</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://kraftfoods.custhelp.com/app/answers/list" target="_blank">Kraft Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/KraftFoods?fref=ts" target="_blank">Kraft Foods Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.coca-colacompany.com/contact-us/" target="_blank">Coca-Cola</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/cocacola?fref=ts" target="_blank">Coke's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.nestle.ca/en/contactus/index.htm?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b95B58799-E1A2-4F49-AB4E-EEEEB0DB06CA%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fen%2fcontactus%2findex.htm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest" target="_blank">Nestle USA</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/Nestle" target="_blank">Nestle's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.conagrafoods.com/utilities/contact.jsp" target="_blank">Conagra Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/ConAgraFoods?fref=ts" target="_blank">ConAgra's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.generalmills.com/en/ContactUs.aspx" target="_blank">General Mills</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/generalmillscareers?fref=ts" target="_blank">General Mills' Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/contact-us.html" target="_blank">Kellogg Company</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/frostedflakes?fref=ts" target="_blank">Frosted Flakes Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://smithfieldfoods.com/contact-us/" target="_blank">Smithfield Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/SmithfieldFoods?fref=ts" target="_blank">Smithfield Foods Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.delmontefoods.com/contactus/Contact.aspx" target="_blank">Del Monte Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/delmonte?fref=ts" target="_blank">Del Monte Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/Feedback.aspx" target="_blank">Campbell's Soup</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/campbellscondensedsoup?fref=ts" target="_blank">Campbell's Soup Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.heinz.com/our-company/investor-relations/request-information.aspx" target="_blank">Heinz Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/HeinzKetchup?fref=ts" target="_blank">Heinz Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.thehersheycompany.com/contact-us.aspx" target="_blank">Hershey Company</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/HERSHEYS?fref=ts" target="_blank">Hershey's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.smuckers.com/contact/default.aspx" target="_blank">The J.M. Smucker Company</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/smuckers?fref=ts" target="_blank">Smucker's Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bimbobakeriesusa.com/about_us/contact_us.html" target="_blank">Bimbo Bakeries</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.oceanspray.ca/contact.aspx" target="_blank">Ocean Spray Cranberries</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/oceanspray?fref=ts" target="_blank">Ocean Spray Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mars.com/global/about-mars/contact-us.aspx" target="_blank">Mars Food North America</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mars/133596254452?fref=ts" target="_blank">Mars Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.hormelfoods.com/contact.aspx" target="_blank">Hormel Foods</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.unilever.com/resource/Contactform/index.aspx" target="_blank">Unilever</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/unilever?fref=ts" target="_blank">Unilever Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bumblebee.com/contact" target="_blank">Bumble Bee Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/BumbleBeeFoods?fref=ts" target="_blank">Bumble Bee Foods Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.pinnaclefoods.com/Contact+Us" target="_blank">Pinnacle Foods</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.deanfoods.com/our-company/about-us/contact-us/" target="_blank">Dean Foods Company</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.bungenorthamerica.com/contact-us/index.shtml" target="_blank">Bunge North America</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://mccormick.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/mccormick.cfg/php/enduser/ask.php?p_sid=_2cXY5bl&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD05NSw5NSZwX3Byb2RzPSZwX2NhdHM9JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9JnBfc2VhcmNoX3R5cGU9YW5zd2Vycy5zZWFyY2hfbmwmcF9wYWdlPTE!" target="_blank">McCormick & Company</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/GrillMates?fref=ts" target="_blank">McCormick Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.wrigley.com/global/contact-us.aspx" target="_blank">Wrigley Jr. Company</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/extraofficialUK?fref=ts" target="_blank">Wrigley's Extra Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://abbottnutrition.com/Contact-Us/Contact-Us.aspx" target="_blank">Abbott Nutrition</a><br />
<br />
<a href="https://www.emailtracker.cargill.com/PAFFAIRS/emailtracker.nsf/emailformExt?OpenForm" target="_blank">Cargill, Inc</a><br />
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/Cargill.Careers?fref=ts" target="_blank">Cargill Facebook Page</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.richs.com/contact/" target="_blank">Rich Products Corporation</a><br />
<a href="http://www.flowersfoods.com/FFC_ContactUs/EmailUs.cfm" target="_blank">Flowers Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.dole.com/ContactUs/tabid/965/Default.aspx" target="_blank">Dole Packaged Foods</a><br />
<a href="http://www.knouse.com/Global/ContactForm.aspx" target="_blank">Knouse Foods Cooperative</a><br />
<br />
OK. So those are the bad guys. Now we don't want to just be negative activists and criticism should only ever be a portion of our important work. We must also take time to thank, congratulate, and admire those striving to move humanity towards a sustainable future. There are companies and organizations who have contributed lots of money to support labeling of GMOs. They need to know how much we appreciate them! <br />
<br />
Contact these proactive companies too!<br />
<br />
<b>Major Companies supporting labeling of GMOs:</b><br />
<br />
<a href="http://shop.mercola.com/pages/ContactUs.aspx" target="_blank">Mercola</a><br />
<a href="http://us.naturespath.com/company-info/contact-us" target="_blank">Nature's Path</a><br />
<a href="http://www.drbronner.com/contact.php" target="_blank">Dr. Bronner's</a><br />
<a href="http://www.lundberg.com/Info/Contact_Us.aspx" target="_blank">Lundberg Farms</a><br />
<a href="http://www.amys.com/community/contact" target="_blank">Amy's Kitchen</a><br />
<a href="http://www.clifbar.com/contact" target="_blank">Clif Bar</a><br />
<a href="http://www.organicvalley.coop/contact-us/" target="_blank">Organic Valley</a><br />
<a href="http://www.annies.com/connect" target="_blank">Annie's</a><br />
<a href="http://nutiva.com/contact/" target="_blank">Nutiva</a><br />
<a href="http://www.edenfoods.com/contact/" target="_blank">Eden Foods</a><br />
<br />
<br />
There were <i>many</i> more companies that just these supporting our efforts, and many organizations and citizen groups as well! They all deserve our recognition and support. For a full list of labeling endorsers, visit this <a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/endorsements" target="_blank">link</a>!<br />
<br />
New: Organic Consumer's Association now has a form letter to thank all of the supporters. You can reach it <a href="http://action.fooddemocracynow.org/sign/our_organic_heroes/?akid=681.462948.42olqE&rd=1&t=1" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
<br />
Other posts related to taking action against the biotech bullies: <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/8-ways-to-topple-biotech-bullies-after.html">10 Easy Ways</a>, <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-next-step-after-proposition-37.html">The Next Step after Prop 37</a>, <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-powerful-potential-of-anti-gmo.html">Cyberactivism</a><br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-90462044936124253262012-11-08T06:49:00.002-08:002012-11-15T14:25:03.757-08:0010 easy ways to topple the Biotech Bullies after Prop 37In the wake of the defeat of Proposition 37, I have compiled a list of 10 things we must continue to do to ensure that our movement succeeds. I have not presented them in any order of importance. I consider them all crucial.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFAVpR7CXrpur3MtUfa7ISEnmxdQe98Ozmh65pU-SCttyfFb6sBeDusqj_i-BPg_NVQermbj_770jHUS0iVmgJS1_9YCvdKwQ9ijhUpeVPx6oHRXVTFBqWHBIF0x0c1yUIn58vzf-iroO/s1600/David-and-Goliath-250x285.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="285" width="250" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFFAVpR7CXrpur3MtUfa7ISEnmxdQe98Ozmh65pU-SCttyfFb6sBeDusqj_i-BPg_NVQermbj_770jHUS0iVmgJS1_9YCvdKwQ9ijhUpeVPx6oHRXVTFBqWHBIF0x0c1yUIn58vzf-iroO/s320/David-and-Goliath-250x285.jpg" /></a></div>Ask <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm#contact" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association</a> and the <a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/contact" target="_blank">California Right to Know Campaign</a> to help organize and network these next steps. They have the resources and we need their help!<br />
<br />
<b>1. Continue the push for labeling</b><br />
<br />
While Proposition 37 may have been defeated, Californians will have more opportunities to bring labeling to their state. Meanwhile, other states in America and other countries can learn from the successes and failures of Proposition 37 to develop more effective strategies to fight for labeling in their regions. This is already happening: labeling initiatives are popping up in dozens of American states, in Canada, and beyond. Send <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/contact-information-for-biotech-and.html">letters</a> to the companies fighting against labeling and let them know how disappointed you are!<br />
<br />
<b>2. Boycott GMO products</b><br />
<br />
GMO products are unethical, unhealthy, and environmentally destructive. They are produced by biotech companies that are increasingly monopolizing the food chain and using their profits to suppress dissent. Boycotting GMO products should be an obvious priority for anyone in the movement. Consume <a href="http://www.nongmoproject.org/" target="_blank">verified Non-GMO</a>! Use this <a href="http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/shopping-guide.html" target="_blank">non-GMO shopping guide</a>! But remember: GMOs are not just in our food! Make a statement: say no to GMO cotton, to GMO trees, to GMO vaccines, to GMO fuel, to a GMO world!<br />
<br />
<b>3. Boycott companies producing GMOs</b><br />
<br />
Many companies produce GMO and non-GMO products. If we purchase their non-GMO products, they can still use that money to fund GMO research and to purchase advertising space on public airways to try and convince us to consume their products. Until they come clean and shift out of biotechnology, there are enough ethical non-GMO companies around that we can support instead. Sign <a href="http://www.anh-usa.org/prop-37-we-be-back/" target="_blank">Natural Health Alliance's pledge</a> to boycott these products today, and they will email our pledge to all those companies. You can also email each of the companies individually at <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/contact-information-for-biotech-and.html">this easy to access page</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>4. Boycott biotech investments</b><br />
<br />
Make an appointment with your financial advisor. You need to get your money out of the biotech industry immediately! Far too few people make use of this incredibly important and effective way of promoting change. Say no to GMO mutual funds, stocks, futures, options, and RRSPs. Ask your financial advisor about "ethical investing" and have him make sure that no biotech companies and junk food companies are in them. Do not fear: ethical investments do not show less productivity or increased risk than regular investments.<br />
<br />
<b>5. Keep educating yourself</b><br />
<br />
The biotech industry points the finger at anti-GMO activists and calls us "extremists", "Luddhites", "anti-science", and "anti-progress". We have to actively and continuously work on ourselves to dispel these labels. We need to seek out the rigorous and scientific articles. We need to understand the details. We need to identify reliable sources of knowledge. We need to scrutinize our information sources and not blindly trust any claim made against GMOs. We will become better activists by doing so.<br />
<br />
<b>6. Educate others</b><br />
<br />
And as we educate ourselves, we must also educate others. We need to figure out how to present ourselves as calm, rational and knowledgeable about the subject. We need to uncover what <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-biotech-preachers-playing-science.html">tactics</a> the biotech bullies use to pull people to their side and identify these tactics to people so they develop immunity against them. We need to figure out how to talk about the complexity of the issue to people who may have little understanding of it. This will all take time and we will surely all make mistakes. But we will get better at it if we remain open to change and self-improvement.<br />
<br />
<b>7. Continue developing networks</b><br />
<br />
The internet is obviously an amazing opportunity for different people concerned about health, environment and social issues to connect and share what they are doing. We can actively work at strengthening our networks by seeking other groups and inviting them into our circles. If all of our friends on Facebook are narrowly defined "anti-GMO" groups, then there will be a lot more inbreeding going on than if we stretch our network outwards to include other concerns that overlap with ours. What about animal rights groups? Anti-poverty activists? Futurists? Schoolteachers? Philosophers? Christians? And as we share articles and links with these groups, we must be careful to choose articles that we think they will most appreciate. We must try to adapt to our audiences.<br />
<br />
<b>8. Email and Phone</b><br />
<br />
We should be calling and emailing the companies that we will no longer support and explaining clearly and carefully why we have chosen to boycott them. We must not use anger because anger is not convincing. We do not want to shut them off. We should also be calling and emailing the companies that have been heroes through the struggle for a non-GMO world. We must congratulate them and praise them and let them know that the bold steps they have taken have paid off. They must know that their pro-activity fosters loyal customers so that they can continue improving the quality and ethics of their products.<br />
<br />
<b>9. Label it yourself</b><br />
<br />
If they won't label it, we're gonna label it! This is a great way of educating consumers, of putting pressure on our grocery stores, and on letting the biotech bullies know that we are serious. Remember: stock brokers pull money out of companies when they see volatility. We can easily create the kind of fear and apprehension in the security of GMO companies through engaging in our own labeling campaigns. Visit <a href="http://www.stickeringforourfuture.org/Stickering_for_our_Future%21/Home.html" target="_blank">Stickering for our Future</a> and <a href="http://labelityourself.org/" target="_blank">Label it Yourself</a> for free downloadable stickers.<br />
<br />
<b>10. Support each other</b><br />
<br />
Activism can be exhausting and demotivating. We are fighting against huge, seemingly relentless forces. We have to learn to take care of ourselves so that we have energy and drive for the long run. If we crumble at a loss, we lose our power to continue fighting. I was really impressed by many of the comments I saw from anti-GMO activists after Prop 37 was defeated. People took time and effort to support each other. We cannot let activists fall down. We need everyone to keep strong in this battle for the health of the Earth.<br />
<br />
Good Luck Everyone and thanks for all your hard work!<br />
<br />
Related posts: Biotech and <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/contact-information-for-biotech-and.html">Food Company Contact/Email List</a>, <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-next-step-after-proposition-37.html">The Next Step after Prop 37</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-56315573988654612822012-11-06T07:20:00.003-08:002012-11-13T08:59:14.740-08:00The next step after Proposition 37I am sitting here, on the eve of California's vote for <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)" target="_blank">Proposition 37</a>. Proposition 37 would require that food products containing genetically engineered organisms be labelled in the state. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5OxGVBmNm8wEe4UpknHDIJ9reE0XkslfvmNpzI8pOi1YrYY-Leno_-823xql_kR5Nd_P06tu4moPQl0HQ13uKpdoomqdGalpzmTGUAMcCLM43Z5qbYmM6K6D7cEJY9T5Zf_4eEMHPtnZb/s1600/VoteMoney.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh5OxGVBmNm8wEe4UpknHDIJ9reE0XkslfvmNpzI8pOi1YrYY-Leno_-823xql_kR5Nd_P06tu4moPQl0HQ13uKpdoomqdGalpzmTGUAMcCLM43Z5qbYmM6K6D7cEJY9T5Zf_4eEMHPtnZb/s320/VoteMoney.jpg" /></a></div>I am quite confident that the proposal will not pass. Over the past month, the biotech industry (Monsanto, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer and others), supported by hefty contributions from the junk food industry (Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Hersheys, Nestle, Kraft, and others), has launched a 45 million dollar campaign to intimidate and confuse the Californian people. <br />
<br />
Polls taken late last week suggest that support has fallen to 38%.<br />
<br />
Though it will not likely pass, those working on the proposal have not failed. Earlier, I wrote a <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/proposition-37-victory-regardless-of.html">blog post</a> suggesting that this crumbling in support does not mean that we have lost the game. What it means, rather, is that we must re-assess what the goal is. While earlier polls suggested that 90% wanted labeling, most of these people were not really committed to the issue and probably knew nothing of it one way or another. They could not accurately be called supporters. Now we have 38% of Californians who <i>still</i> want labeling <i>even</i> after being absolutely deluged with misinformation, lies and scare tactics (<b>NOTE: after the vote, support was actually 47%!! Congratulations</b>). This is obviously a great number of people. If we work together, we can accomplish an even greater goal than labeling: we can make genetic engineering unprofitable and force the companies to pursue more ethical ways of making money -- or go extinct.<br />
<br />
In this post, I want to focus on the strategy of boycotting. Boycotting is the only form of direct democracy we have. Every purchase is a vote as important as any vote for any political candidate. Just like politicians, companies re-assess strategy if they lose only a few percentage points of support (i.e. cash). The biotech bullies can coerce the freedom of the press to prevent the labeling of their products. But they cannot coerce us to use their products.<br />
<br />
Some people are critical of boycotts, and they rightly point out the limitations of "lifestyle change" politics. I would never suggest that boycotts are sufficient for change. We must continue to educate, network, push governments, call out companies, and create sustainable and enriching alternatives. But it is necessary that we pursue boycotting as well and take responsibility of this democratic right that we have and the power inherent in it.<br />
<br />
Boycotting also presents educational opportunities although most boycotters do not exploit these opportunities effectively. Each time we eat or refuse to eat a product, we have the chance to explain why we have chosen to do so to those we are with. The educational challenge is to explain in a way that does not come across as self-righteous or "holier-than-thou". <i>Too many activists push people away</i> from their cause because they really don't know how to talk about it without repelling their audience. I myself am guilty of this too. As a result, I often don't explain enough and shirk the opportunity entirely.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCh3l9uc-P4zszJmetDFAu8uyU4g4yZJOBqV2Xtuw4UD3U3PlZKHDxLZBG063cIUu61vPZAwVH7tAdsSvOXV7uxvsPVPyXS1QmrN8NTXuX231NcOR5uPFGp6LNUmRARPdvczbs9dxusPo-/s1600/Revised-Seal-copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="235" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCh3l9uc-P4zszJmetDFAu8uyU4g4yZJOBqV2Xtuw4UD3U3PlZKHDxLZBG063cIUu61vPZAwVH7tAdsSvOXV7uxvsPVPyXS1QmrN8NTXuX231NcOR5uPFGp6LNUmRARPdvczbs9dxusPo-/s320/Revised-Seal-copy.jpg" /></a></div>There are several types of boycotting possible, and we must pursue all of them. On the most basic level, we can refuse to purchase ingredients that contain genetically engineered products. There are now <a href="http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/" target="_blank">shopping lists</a> and <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/shopnogmo/id393454798?mt=8" target="_blank">barcode scanning programs</a> to help us decipher whether some item is genetically engineered. There are also <a href="http://www.nongmoproject.org/" target="_blank">verified non-GMO products</a> that we should be supporting with our vote instead.<br />
<br />
The importance of organic animal products cannot be overstated. It takes between 5 and 20 kilograms of grain to produce 1 kilogram of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio" target="_blank">beef</a>. One steak might come from several dozen ears of GMO corn supplemented with GMO soy for protein. It takes about 2 kilograms of grain to produce a <a href="http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd14/1/faro141a.htm" target="_blank">dozen chicken eggs</a>. Some animals are more efficient than others at converting feed into meat, milk, or eggs, but in every case a substantial amount of grain goes into producing any animal product.<br />
<br />
On the next level of consumer boycotting, we can boycott any products produced by companies that are supporting genetic engineering. In this age of corporate conglomerations, it is not surprising to find that many of the well-known organic food products are actually owned by <a href="http://www.certifiedorganic.bc.ca/rcbtoa/services/corporate-acquisitions.html" target="_blank">major food companies</a>. For example, Kraft owns Boca Foods, General Mills owns Cascadian Farm, and Heinz has a 20% equity in Spectrum. <br />
<br />
There are still many independent companies, such as Amy's Kitchen, Nature's Path, Eden, Nutiva, and Organic Valley. You can show these companies that you value them by purchasing their products. You can even email them encouraging words explaining how important it is that they have remained independent. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxSrzUdDIBKP66Imve471R-k4viQxLype8qOdf4mTyAk3pxVSu-M7k97wJoUqtPH3PpfDQXeUUjCWcKhL85hrd3Ct9mBlnqAJV1SOYu1uXT8z1PXjBoQi3MJ7W3FxW3jR39D280rBvyz2U/s1600/01_B.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="283" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxSrzUdDIBKP66Imve471R-k4viQxLype8qOdf4mTyAk3pxVSu-M7k97wJoUqtPH3PpfDQXeUUjCWcKhL85hrd3Ct9mBlnqAJV1SOYu1uXT8z1PXjBoQi3MJ7W3FxW3jR39D280rBvyz2U/s320/01_B.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Nor can we afford to limiting our boycotting to foods. GMO cotton clothes, GMO corn ethanol for our cars, GMO pet food, cleaning products, toothpaste. We need to avoid as much of it as we can. We need to pull our dollars out of toxic companies and throw them into businesses trying to forge paths to a sustainable future.<br />
<br />
Now let me explain <i>the most important type of boycott of all</i>. <b>It is imperative that we make sure that our mutual funds, RRSPs, GICs, and other investments are not pouring money into biotech companies</b>. We need to talk to our investors, our financial advisors, and our banks and have them dump Monsanto and Dupont from our investment portfolios. Some <a href="http://www.naturalnews.com/034989_Monsanto_mutual_funds_sell.html" target="_blank">articles</a> have recently called attention to this essential strategy, but many people still ignore the power of this form of boycotting. If 10% of us make it clear to our bankers that we will not support genetic engineering, and provide lists of companies we do not want to invest in, the message will spread through the investment world very quickly. It is crucial that we can explain clearly and without judgment why we are concerned about genetic engineering. Be gentle. We should always be cognizant of who we are talking to and what their perspective might be. Spouting off about conspiracy theories, government-alien partnerships, chemtrails, or crop circles is unlikely to impress your financial advisor. Don't drift off topic. The "wacko" flag will fly up right above your head. Better to stick to the facts of the <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">science of GMOs</a>.<br />
<br />
Even our chequing or savings accounts may inadvertently be used to fund biotech companies. Our banks re-invest the money we put into our accounts. Setting up accounts with credit unions that only lend to local businesses is a safe way to avoid some of these problems. Even this is not guaranteed but it opens up discussions and credit unions will often be more receptive to concerns such as ours. Try it out!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTLLC4ero-R-hn05CQUA5Ga2QAYW_QoJhePISqDt5KC5X18gwBRm_PR3R4tbZe5EbFy7HVbXqA6Ab9SwMvhaj4TjvM0tdYP0G7ZBl9nmMtsS4ryGDwvLBisJ4yHFCpCMNfRcBrpChIDKaG/s1600/Gandhi1.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:right; float:right; margin-left:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgTLLC4ero-R-hn05CQUA5Ga2QAYW_QoJhePISqDt5KC5X18gwBRm_PR3R4tbZe5EbFy7HVbXqA6Ab9SwMvhaj4TjvM0tdYP0G7ZBl9nmMtsS4ryGDwvLBisJ4yHFCpCMNfRcBrpChIDKaG/s320/Gandhi1.jpeg" /></a></div>Gandhi was an influential proponent of the power of boycotting. For him, it was not simply a political tactic or a strategy (though it was <i>certainly</i> these things). For Gandhi, boycotting was an opportunity to align one's actions and one's values. He considered aligning action and value a deeply spiritual practice, a part of his influential doctrine of <i>satyagraha</i>. Gandhi was always critical of phrases such as "the ends justify the means". He countered that "the means are, after all, everything". Each time we align our values and actions, we gain strength, motivation, and self-esteem, we educate others, and we come closer to the Truth that can guide our lives. So said Gandhi.<br />
<br />
Suppose we do not boycott GMOs. Suppose we insist that the problem is too big (as many Indians thought about the British occupation in Gandhi's time) and that individual action is ineffective. What would happen? Well, things would unfold something like this: those we talk to would not believe the issue serious enough to act on because they see us consuming GMOs. Banks and biotech companies would not believe we really cared about the issue because all we do is march on the streets with banners. They would continue "business as usual" knowing that after the march, we go home and put GMO-fed lamb chops on the barbecue. Governments would not see any significant financial shifts and would deem the anti-GMO movement as a fringe concern of little political impact.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/" target="_blank">Right to Know Campaign (RKC)</a> and the <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/" target="_blank">Organic Consumers Association (OCA)</a> are the two most appropriate organizations to foster an effective boycotting campaign. Unfortunately, I believe that many of their staff will feel unmotivated, tired, and saddened if Proposition 37 does not pass. We <i>can</i> and we <i>need</i> to fuel them with energy. They have links, networks and a resource base that is too important to let wither. We need to email them (<a href="http://www.carighttoknow.org/contact" target="_blank">RKC</a>; <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm#contact" target="_blank">OCA</a>) and tell them that we want them to organize a massive boycotting campaign. We must tell them that we want the campaign to be as easy as possible and to comprehensively cover all aspects of what needs boycotting, from foodstuff to investments. We also need to congratulate them for their months of hard work and for giving us the hope that another world was possible. They gave us that hope and after November 6th we may need to give it back.<br />
<br />
And suppose Proposition 37 passes? I'll uncork a bottle of red wine, call my friends, and celebrate. When I wake up the next morning, I'll compose my email to the Right to Know Campaign and the Organic Consumers Association anyway. Even if we get labeling, we still need this boycott to push unethical and unhealthy business practices into oblivion.Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-57621477285255036442012-11-02T07:29:00.002-07:002012-11-13T09:01:06.253-08:00Proposition 37 a victory regardless of outcomeIf passed, <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)" target="_blank">Proposition 37</a> would ensure that most genetically engineered foods be labeled in the State of California. <br />
<br />
It would also ensure that products using the word "Natural" could not contain genetically engineered organisms. <br />
<br />
Because California is the most populated state in America and its <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/faqs.aspx#10" target="_blank">biggest food producer</a>, it is widely thought that if labeling starts there, it will spread across to other states and also affect food policy in Canada. Then, Canada and the United States would finally join the 62 other <a href="http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/" target="_blank">Nations</a> that already enjoy the rights to mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. <br />
<br />
That is why Proposition 37 matters to all of us.<br />
<br />
Since 1910, California has allowed new propositions to be voted on directly by citizens on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition" target="_blank">ballots</a>. Anyone can initiate a proposition for consideration, and depending on the type of proposition, it will be put on the ballot if between 5 and 8% of California's population has signed a petition demanding it. <br />
<br />
In theory, this is potentially a great tool for fostering a robust democracy. It provides a direct channel for citizens to turn their concerns into legislation.<br />
<br />
In reality, it has had a mixed history. The power of this ballot system is greatest when the issue has no strong economic interests against it. When a proposition promises to jeopardize the earnings of major corporations, unlimited amounts of money and resources will be thrown into defeating it, no matter how important it is for our health or prosperity.<br />
<br />
Proposition 37 is no exception.<br />
<br />
The major biotech-pesticide companies, Monsanto, BASF, Dow, Dupont, Syngenta, and Bayer, have contributed over <a href="http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_37,_Mandatory_Labeling_of_Genetically_Engineered_Food_(2012)" target="_blank">22 million dollars</a> to defeating Proposition 37. Monsanto, the maker of Agent Orange, DDT, PCBs and rBGH, voted in 2011 as the world's <a href="http://naturalsociety.com/monsanto-declared-worst-company-of-2011/" target="_blank">Worst Company of the Year</a>, alone has forked over 7 million dollars into overturning the people's will. These six companies produce most of the genetically engineered organisms on the market today and have hundreds of different animals, plants and microbes waiting in the pipeline to be released once public concern of GMOs dwindles. <br />
<br />
<i>If it dwindles.</i><br />
<br />
Over 20 million dollars have also been spent by food companies, including Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Kellog's, Nestle, General Mills, Conagra, Del Monte and Unilever (to name some of the bigger contributions).<br />
<br />
It now appears certain that Proposition 37 will be defeated. With 45 million dollars and fueled by boundless avarice, these companies have unleashed a tirade of misinformation, lies, and aspersions through glossy television commercials, radio messages, and junk mail. With huge advertising budgets and a well-slicked team of marketing psychologists, market researchers, graphic designers and editors, they have successfully stirred up and stoked the fear they need. <br />
<br />
Consider: Nearly 70% of Californians strongly supported Proposition 37 in early September. <br />
<br />
Only 38% support it now. <br />
<br />
By contrast, only 20% were against it a month ago. <br />
<br />
Opposition has now jumped to 50%.<br />
<br />
Tens of thousands of citizens across North America have worked tirelessly to promote Proposition 37, earnestly and bravely speaking out on behalf of the health of humans, future generations, the rights of other species to genetic integrity, and of the stability of ecosystems. Tens of thousands of citizens have volunteered days and weeks campaigning to raise awareness, signing up on calling teams, and amassing petition signatures. <br />
<br />
Not only have they donated time and money, they have also committed their hearts to the initiative. <br />
<br />
When a handful of super-rich companies can thwart public opinion through <i>lies</i> jacked up on millions of dollars of advertising steroids, it is easy to get discouraged. We know that what is at stake is a lot more important than corporate bottom lines. It seemed so certain that California was going to finally get labeling, so to watch the erosion of popular support is heartbreaking. It shakes up not only our confidence in the possibility of a healthy world for our children but also our faith in democracy itself. We ask ourselves: Why aren't there any mechanisms to protect the people's will against the power of money? Why haven't governments learned their lesson after the decades-long <a href="http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050310_tobacfrm.htm" target="_blank">tobacco industry misinformation fiasco</a>?<br />
<br />
If you are like me, you feel depressed about the drop in support for Proposition 37. If you are like me, you may feel like there is no point in putting effort into changing the world. You likely feel raw and fragile: you <i>again</i> committed your heart to something you care so strongly about only to see it <i>again</i> crushed by this greedy, senseless machine. If you are like me, you probably want to take some time off and spend it in the company of what makes you happy and gives your life meaning. <br />
<br />
But if you are like me, what makes you happy and gives your life meaning is the very thing that is getting destroyed. And so it feels like there is nowhere to go.<br />
<br />
Before I lead you all the way down into the suffocating abyss that we activists so often find ourselves in, let me try and shine some light on what has happened with Proposition 37. I have some strong grounds for considering our work on this a success, even though the proposition is virtually guaranteed not to pass.<br />
<br />
Look at this fact: despite the biotech bullies' campaign to wash the airways with 45 million dollars worth of lies and deceit, 38% of Californians still demand labeling. <i>That is an incredible fact</i>. Consider, for a moment, their calculated techniques: one of their main ones is to convince people that labeling will inflate their grocery bills by hundreds of dollars a year. This is, of course, <i>nonsense</i>. Labeling did not <a href="http://cfsactionfund.org/why-we-need-prop-37/myths-and-facts-of-proposition-37/" target="_blank">increase costs</a> in any of the other 62 countries where labeling is now required. But we have no effective way of communicating this on the scale that the biotech bullies do (it is much more likely that the biotech bullies <i>themselves</i> will be the ones set to lose a few hundred dollars a year per customer after consumers avoid purchasing their foods). The biotech bullies have narrowed in on Average Joe's pocketbook, knowing that this is an extremely powerful incentive, especially in our current economic climate. They supplement these arguments by <a href="http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14380:unmasking-the-no-on-prop-37-lies-and-dirty-tricks" target="_blank">falsely attributing</a> quotes to the FDA and to Stanford University, and by accusing proponents of the propositions of being "<a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-biotech-preachers-playing-science.html" target="_blank">anti-science</a>" or "anti-progress". <br />
<br />
Despite this, three out of every eight Californians still want labeling.<br />
<br />
This indicates either a tremendous commitment to the issue or a solid mistrust of the biotech industry. Or both. In any case, nearly half of Californians are now strong enough that they are immune to 45 million dollars of masterfully varnished deception! Remember: this is not an election time partisan issue, where voters blindly throw allegiance behind their favoured colour: neither Romney nor Obama have spoken out in support of the proposition. <br />
<br />
Instead, this indicates that a significant number of people are waking up.<br />
<br />
Some might argue: but we had 66% support in September and 90% support earlier in the year. How can you spin this failure into a success story?<br />
<br />
I would point out that most of those people had very little clue what GMOs are, had had no exposure to the controversy one way or another, and had not committed themselves strongly to any position. Those people were easy to waver and many of them may be easy to pull back to our side too. What is more significant is that we've now got a rock base of 38% of people totally committed, regardless of the scare tactics and attempts at indoctrination they've been subordinated to by their television sets. This could mean 38% of Californians making purchasing decisions that reflect their ethics and conversing with the rest, slowly drawing them back. If we consider the fact that much <i>less</i> than 38% are committed to organic food, we should realize that we have quite a powerful foundation here.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRfIbz_m2OzixxHGG6Z987NEeNrVeK4KyQAAnd6JbJpRrMzhQykHNh8SQ0sPEfTUj-L-HKo2-n2kUUECdsLYvmTedMuHvTnNdNLIqI-wksgnjueKTPOEpPIJhZ1S9KLPilh0727W5EY5pe/s1600/stop-bully-logo-300x300.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="300" width="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRfIbz_m2OzixxHGG6Z987NEeNrVeK4KyQAAnd6JbJpRrMzhQykHNh8SQ0sPEfTUj-L-HKo2-n2kUUECdsLYvmTedMuHvTnNdNLIqI-wksgnjueKTPOEpPIJhZ1S9KLPilh0727W5EY5pe/s320/stop-bully-logo-300x300.jpg" /></a></div>Now if we can work on this strong base, we can overcome the biotech bullies anyway. This proposition doesn't need to pass. If we can work with our momentum and commit in partnership to <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/11/the-next-step-after-proposition-37.html">not purchasing</a> products that contain GMOs, the industry will topple. Before Proposition 37 emerged, we certainly would not have been able to find 15 million Californians likely to boycott companies to avoid GMOs. Now we have that. And we have millions more across North America who have learnt more about GMOs and the corporate control of our food chain through the efforts of Californians. Proposition 37 has galvanized this support, increased awareness, and has brought us together. <br />
<br />
If we consider only the triumph or failure of Proposition 37, we are likely to be disappointed, give up, and all the work we've done would be shed for nothing. But if we recognize our work on Proposition 37 as one phase in a larger project, then our work has already been a resounding success. It is natural that we feel sadness and grief. We must face these emotions directly and support each other through them. But we cannot misinterpret this historical moment: the world is waking up and our most important and exciting work is still ahead of us!<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-35047362977623948362012-10-18T13:48:00.002-07:002012-11-13T09:02:11.405-08:00Dr. Oz endorsing GMO labeling and Bruce Chassy's attackDr. Oz has done a good thing by endorsing labeling of GMOs. <br />
<br />
Bruce Chassy, PhD does not think so. According to him, Dr. Oz has breached medical bioethics protocol. Is Dr. Oz really a rogue pseudo-doctor recklessly abusing his power and creating controversy over issues he knows nothing about?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeMrn2XxNN_tA_e-it9WA2Fn_QbTv-mn0rR4v06pJ6PpNvcgaXLe4aVFrDrvsK1hB_CnFBJaBRgqkrd_NqoZ5NmI3eYgGd65qK3BBw_EOGyBiZ36kPOVMbpkKQr2KVMJDHa5lzGu4ZPs1Q/s1600/Debate-Cartoon.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="265" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgeMrn2XxNN_tA_e-it9WA2Fn_QbTv-mn0rR4v06pJ6PpNvcgaXLe4aVFrDrvsK1hB_CnFBJaBRgqkrd_NqoZ5NmI3eYgGd65qK3BBw_EOGyBiZ36kPOVMbpkKQr2KVMJDHa5lzGu4ZPs1Q/s320/Debate-Cartoon.jpg" /></a></div>I agree with Bruce Chassy that Dr. Oz may not have been wise to use Jeffery Smith as an opponent to genetic engineering. But this should not be allowed to obscure the larger good of Dr. Oz's courageous stance. <br />
<br />
Whether or not Jeffery Smith is a credible source is not relevant. I agree that many of his points simply establish correlation not causation. However, the right to know if a food is genetically engineered goes far beyond currently established health claims.<br />
<br />
<i>Genetic engineering necessarily causes <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/unintended-side-effect-of-genetic.html">unintended side effects</a> and all geneticists know this</i>. Bruce Chassy presents himself as a public sector scientist, and he may well be, but he has <a href="http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/5077-2-journals-to-review-editorial-policies" target="_blank">received multiple research grants</a> from biotech companies, including Monsanto. Nevertheless, even Bruce Chassy knows in his heart that genetic engineering necessarily causes unintended side effects.<br />
<br />
Why?<br />
<br />
Because genes do not operate in isolation to one another. How a gene behaves depends on its neighbors in the genetic code. Proteins expressed by a gene have regulatory functions that turn off, turn on, promote, or inhibit the genes around it. These effects feed back and affect the gene in turn. The vast recursive complexity of the code makes it a marvel of biological evolution no less wonderful than the interconnectedness of ecological systems.<br />
<br />
Genetic engineers shoot genes randomly into DNA. The genes may land anywhere in the code. But where they land matters. The gene becomes a part of a genetic network and its specific role in the genetic network depends on where it lands. Bruce Chassy knows this. Monsanto knows this. <br />
<br />
But they do not tell this.<br />
<br />
Instead, they project the idea that genetic engineering is a cool, calculated <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-biotech-preachers-playing-science.html">science</a> that is precisely controlled and that anyone who opposes it is an irrational Luddhite. This does a disservice to the spirit of science and free inquiry.<br />
<br />
It is completely reasonable, indeed scientific, to demand that an analysis of network interactions be done comprehensively to assess physiological and biochemical effects. Unfortunately, many genes operate differently in different environmental contexts, based on stresses and other factors, and the short-term studies of biotech companies could never establish the type of "substantive equivalence" that the biotech industry wants the public to believe it has acquired. It would require multi-generational studies over widely different environmental contexts.<br />
<br />
Given the lax regulation of the FDA, labeling is the minimum practice for good science. We need to monitor effects of different groups in long term studies and will not be able to do that if we don't know who is eating what. <br />
<br />
Label them, and I, for one, will certainly be a part of the <i>control group</i>!<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-2838385857273822422012-10-18T07:41:00.000-07:002014-02-06T19:36:36.948-08:00How should I teach my child to see a GMO?There are a number challenges GMOs present to a teacher or a parent. The issue is scientifically technical, but also quite abstract and philosophical. Many of the main problems about genetic engineering are lost to adults who themselves get mired in the controversy over whether eating GMOs is safe. <br />
<br />
In an <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/children-growing-up-in-genetically.html">earlier post</a>, I expressed concern about what it would be like for a child growing up in a world where everywhere they look, from the soil under their feet to the glowing green canopies buzzing with life above them, all they see are "products" modified, manipulated and controlled by humans. <br />
<br />
We need to protect the magic of the world. We need to give our children the chance to experience what shines through anyways, despite the genetic engineer's incursions. <br />
<br />
On this issue, adults need to tread a careful path between demonizing genetically engineered animals and plants, and condoning them. This is the topic of today's blog post.<br />
<br />
Children need to know that it is not okay for companies to steer the creative evolution of interconnected ecologies by short-term goals and through poorly understood processes. Children need to feel that the Earth itself has a power, an intelligence and a nurturing capacity. The Earth won't guarantee safety or health for anyone but if we consider the brutally inhospitable outside universe, we've got to realize that we're in a very special place. Children also need to learn that we can't get everything we want and that a part of living well and of fostering deep happiness comes with accepting the opportunities provided precisely by what <i>limits</i> <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/gmos-new-era-of-eugenics.html">us</a>.<br />
<br />
Parents and teachers, angry and frustrated about genetic engineering, may inadvertently teach children that GMOs are evil. <br />
<br />
GMOs are not evil. <br />
<br />
A genetically engineered cow or apple tree should not have been created in the first place. But now that it is here, what do we do? <br />
<br />
We need to show our children that we can still respect this cow and this apple tree. They are alive and participating in the unfolding of our world. We do not want to encourage eugenic thinking. We do not want to fracture our children's natural world into "good" and "bad". If we do, we succumb to the same <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/gmos-new-era-of-eugenics.html">corrupt and controlling logic</a> that we are trying to overcome.<br />
<br />
We need to explain to our children that it is not the cow's fault that she was born the way she was. We need to show them that we still believe that the cow is beautiful in her own way, despite the invasive procedures she has been subjected to. We need to cultivate pity and empathy for the GMOs.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJxtDeGu8BJWS6iMr24E9e5pD8ha8qGm7EDSqrqFyWjzFWLNE4HHU8WeduXsGbl5uNwHzU5CtjStqL6RSg5a51hoRyxkxv91gSSyHXw3_86HGbGzg0wchvFk3Yw5eipgzXM4_gkHhpbciP/s1600/Young_child_feeding_cow_by_cshky.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="214" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjJxtDeGu8BJWS6iMr24E9e5pD8ha8qGm7EDSqrqFyWjzFWLNE4HHU8WeduXsGbl5uNwHzU5CtjStqL6RSg5a51hoRyxkxv91gSSyHXw3_86HGbGzg0wchvFk3Yw5eipgzXM4_gkHhpbciP/s320/Young_child_feeding_cow_by_cshky.jpg" /></a></div>This does not mean that we should be encouraging their spread in ecosystems. Of course, we have to work towards the larger goal of stopping the production and release of GMOs into our environment. Our children need to know about this broader project too. And they need to understand that these are not incompatible or contradictory goals. It is completely consistent to love a GMO, as a fellow being on the earth, while working towards the cessation of their further production. In fact, both goals are one and the same: to open ourselves to the more-than-human world that underlies and floods through even our most conceited and self-absorbed schemes.<br />
<br />
Do any of you parents or teachers have experiences about teaching children about GMOs that you'd like to share? I'd love to hear about it...<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-75804718071695263092012-10-18T07:31:00.001-07:002012-11-13T09:03:03.960-08:00Animal welfare and GMOsI hope to approach today's blog topic by way of detour. Bear with me!<br />
<br />
First, I'd like to talk about the problem of terminology. <br />
<br />
Both the critics and the cheerleaders of genetic engineering agree that there is a problem with the term "genetic engineering".<br />
<br />
Those promoting genetic engineering downplay what is radically new and invasive about their techniques. They prefer the term "genetic modification" and have lobbied many governments successfully to make this the official term. This is why we commonly hear the acronym GMOs, which stands for "Genetically Modified Organisms". The hope is that the term "modification" can blur the boundary between modern biotechnology and traditional breeding. <br />
<br />
And so we see biotech companies continually claiming that "we have been genetically modifying plants and animals for ten thousand years. What we are doing is nothing new. Why such an uproar?"<br />
<br />
Those concerned with genetic engineering see a different problem with the term. For them, "engineering" evokes a precision, planning, and understanding that the genetic engineers simply don't have. They point out that the "shotgun" method genetic engineers use fires the desired gene into the host's DNA in a random way. There is no control over where the genes will land. They may land in the middle of another gene or in the middle of an important regulatory section. And yet, where a gene lands <i>matters</i> because how it functions depends on its context. Since the context cannot be controlled or predicted, the shotgun method is like gambling in a card game based on pure chance. <br />
<br />
This certainly does not sound like what my Oxford dictionary tells me "engineering" is: "to skillfully or artfully arrange for (an even or situation) to occur".<br />
<br />
Other candidates terms have cropped up, such as "transgenic", but for now we only have these two terms in common currency. I will continue to use the word "engineering" because it best expresses the goals and motivations of the modern biotechnology. <br />
<br />
<b>But I do want to address some of the consequences of the biotech experiments that are hidden away under the term "engineering". Specifically, I want to discuss what happens to all those creatures who have had genes shot into them in the "wrong" places, leading to deformity, pain, and death.</b> <br />
<br />
Here's the statistics for genetically engineered animals: Most embryos are so damaged that they spontaneously abort before the engineers can even implant them into the mother's womb. Of those that are implanted, 96 to 99.5% of genetically engineered fetuses die before being born from developmental disfigurations leading to physiological and anatomical malfunctions (Ammann & Vogel, 2000). Of those that are born successfully, most die from severe malformations and organ defects (Christ & Schurkens, 2003). Finally, of those that live past infancy, 85 to 99% of the animals do not exhibit the desired trait anyways, and are killed of as "<a href="http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-animalsandge.html" target="_blank">rubbish</a>".<br />
<br />
277 sheep had to suffer premature death and deformation to produce Dolly, the first cloned sheep. But these 277 tries were not "experiments" in the scientific sense. Because they were based on random applications, nothing was learned. They were shots in the dark. To produce another Dolly would take more or less the same number of tries.<br />
<br />
The poor success rate is not just evidence of a heartless, institutionalized practice. It is also evidence of how imprecise and unscientific genetic engineering really is. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEice0ZTCyyPpSxe1VryL0vwrcaj8adSz6VWgp5PkAoXMK7rLw_y00L52CzjseqeXi-zHiHi82XZc0r-AIdlWMOL3DUipYagEltdQ4ctMRLOQ5yBTHwQnzeM-BcBw-93dStLBRxOuMZz3HME/s1600/Ktty_270x224.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="224" width="270" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEice0ZTCyyPpSxe1VryL0vwrcaj8adSz6VWgp5PkAoXMK7rLw_y00L52CzjseqeXi-zHiHi82XZc0r-AIdlWMOL3DUipYagEltdQ4ctMRLOQ5yBTHwQnzeM-BcBw-93dStLBRxOuMZz3HME/s320/Ktty_270x224.jpg" /></a></div>Animals do not only suffer during this R&D stage of bringing a product to the market. Those few animals that live to adulthood are created to suffer: they are genetically engineered to produce the most amount of meat or milk that is physiologically possible. Or, they are genetically engineered to produce bizarre compounds in their biochemistry, such as spiderweb silk or pharmaceuticals in their breast milk. <br />
<br />
Vegans and vegetarians might consider themselves "in the clear" on this issue because they are already minimizing or eliminating their consumption of products derived from animals. However, they must be careful here. Most "meat alternatives" in North America are derived from genetically engineered soy. Each time we consume genetically engineered soy, we are giving money to biotech companies that engage in genetic experimentation on animals.<br />
<br />
Those who maintain a sharp divide between humans and other animals will insist that any amount of animal suffering is justifiable as long as it leads to some gain, however small, for humans. In many cases, the human benefits are not even medical. They involve production efficiency, the satisfaction of non-essential consumables, and warfare. But a benefit is a benefit and the ends justify whatever means.<br />
<br />
As biologists continue to uncover the diverse intelligences, empathic capacities and social behaviour of other species, the sharpness of this divide is being called into scientific question. We may need time to catch up and re-conceive what other species mean to us.<br />
<br />
Are any of you readers concerned with GMO animals? Have you read about any experiments that you'd like to share? Please tell us and provide the links if you can!<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-40048810548678847202012-10-15T14:49:00.001-07:002014-02-06T19:36:58.344-08:00GMOs: A new era of eugenicsEugenics and GMOs<br />
<br />
The misguided Nazi activities aimed at "improving" the genetic stock have been widely condemned, and with good reason. World War Two is a sordid inkblotch on an already checkered human history. <br />
<br />
At the time, though, eugenic thinking and practices were widespread. <br />
<br />
The Nazis took this practice to a particularly gruesome extreme but dozens of other countries, including England, America, and Canada had all enacted eugenic legislation at the time. This included forced sterilization in cases of disease, mental illness, and mental "deficiency'. There was talk of breeding better humans, and of creating stronger, more intelligent races. Winston Churchill and Alexander Graham Bell promoted it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics#cite_note-66" target="_blank">John Maynard Keynes</a> described it as "the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists".<br />
<br />
It was only through the excesses of Nazi Germany that a light was shone on the horrific logical consequences of eugenic thinking. This paved the way for the abolishment of eugenic legislation.<br />
<br />
But while forced sterilization and associated practices may have dwindled, the opportunity to improve our stock is again hovering before us, this time in the possibilities and promises of genetically engineering humans. For some, it is a hope and salvation, for others a nightmare, but for biologists it is a technical reality on the not-too-distant horizon. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyuUsA25pZp8P1ZtZeuUVrYEkV3UsSQGOzKJt5eyILYWgU0TOy14K0e5v99Vy7qbordkrZT0rws2SD_w_ZYdPpteMaDpIy2Kmn08U_l7F9LEQrN_oFrrm0oveO4GwWFi1TvIui27-uq7Fj/s1600/mban1450l.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="282" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyuUsA25pZp8P1ZtZeuUVrYEkV3UsSQGOzKJt5eyILYWgU0TOy14K0e5v99Vy7qbordkrZT0rws2SD_w_ZYdPpteMaDpIy2Kmn08U_l7F9LEQrN_oFrrm0oveO4GwWFi1TvIui27-uq7Fj/s320/mban1450l.jpg" /></a></div>To what extreme will people pursue this new round of eugenic practices before it is apparent that we have once again traipsed down a path with horrifying consequences? How far do we need to go before it becomes apparent that we have succumbed to the same temptations and errors as the Nazis we condemn today?<br />
<br />
Because it wasn't just the Nazi <i>method</i>, of murder and massacre, that was evil. It was the entire enterprise of trying to control human biology according to value judgments and ideology. The motives behind the killings were just as brutal as the manner in which they were undertaken. The motives drew from lack of openness, from a dearth of inclusiveness, and from a narrow and self-righteous sense of what was the "right" direction for human evolution. They were rooted in a mentality that despised the diverse vitality, creativity, and exploratory nature of the organic universe. At the time, people had a very restricted conception of Darwinian evolution, modeled on the <i>struggle for existence</i> in the industrializing capitalist Western Europe. Through this faulty model, they failed to see the mechanisms by which evolution was really operating. We really don't have that excuse today.<br />
<br />
So, how is this <i>new</i> eugenic era coming about?<br />
<br />
Genetically engineering our children will likely start with eliminating deadly diseases that owe their origin to some genetic factor. As the technique becomes more widespread and we get accustomed to it, acceptable applications will nudge towards less fatal diseases, and eventually to "improving" intelligence and various cosmetic factors (at some other time we'll discuss that loaded word!). It will be very hard to draw the line between what is acceptable and what is not because on one side of the line or the other, there will always be an intermediate case that will make the line seem arbitrary. And at each point, those destined to profit will be keenly pointing out the arbitrariness of the line so that their application can be given a green light by government and by society.<br />
<br />
It is crucial that we begin thinking about <a href="http://www.geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=260" target="_blank">these issues</a>. However, we cannot ignore that, through genetic engineering, we are already engaged in a massive eugenics project on other species. This project has hardly been scrutinized at all in public debate. Those capable of implementing the technology are assumed to also be capable of assessing whether and how it should be implemented. <br />
<br />
There are virtually no ethical discussions framing the issue in mainstream media. Instead, the genetic engineering debate always seems to degrade into a technical issue as to whether or not it is healthy to eat GMO foods. As a result, biotech researchers are currently given a <i>carte blanche</i> to undertake thousands and thousands of different genetic experiments across the planet. For a snapshot of some bizarre and gut-wrenching ones, check out <a href="http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/photos/12-bizarre-examples-of-genetic-engineering/mad-science" target="_blank">this article</a>.<br />
<br />
And just as there is a tenuous dividing line between what sort of genetic engineering will be considered "necessary" and what sort is not, there will also be no clear dividing line between what degree of modification is allowable. Should we limit our engineering to altering a single gene, a few genes, or invite the creation of full-fledged hybrid chimeras? -There are always intermediate steps between each of these increasingly extreme applications. These intermediate steps will confuse us and make us believe that every and all genetic engineering activities are one and the same. The seductive logic will lead the innocent layman, at first convinced that knocking out a cancer gene is a good thing, down a path towards accepting by fiat the wholesale creation of brand new species through mixing and matching the codes of life.<br />
<br />
If you talk to an independently-funded geneticist, you may quickly realize that it is never as simple as "some genes are bad and some genes are good". The gene that causes sickle cell anemia provides increased resistance to malaria in its recessive form. Many of the genes that "cause" cancer are a part of genetic networks that serve various metabolic and developmental processes. Were these genes simply deleterious they would not have stuck around in our gene pool for millennia. Their net effect is beneficial and the proof is that they still exist. So rather than looking at them in isolation, we must analyze the genetic codes in a different way. Rather than assuming that a culprit gene is guilty and needs to be eradicated, the onus should be on proving that it is not part of a larger functional system. This larger system may be a <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">genetic network</a>, it may be something physiological, or it may even be ecological. <br />
<br />
What separates the Nazi at one extreme and a person of grace and dignity at the other is the extent to which each is willing to face existence with gratitude and awe. That the Earth could have birthed us <i>at all</i> is amazing enough, but that it did so in such an exuberant way, swelling up a world of millions of creatures of every colour and texture, is an inexpressible wonder. Let's be clear: I am not religious. I consider this an empirical fact.<br />
<br />
There is suffering and struggle in life to be sure. But I've noticed that those who live with grace find meaning and sense in these painful events. As my mother was dying of cancer this summer she told me how the disease was bringing her family together and causing her to re-evaluate her priorities in her life. <br />
<br />
These people are our teachers. They are bound by the same spirit as those few geneticists who look for the larger systemic value of commonly maligned genes.<br />
<br />
If we want to kill, consume, modify, manipulate or control others, we are certainly free to do so. But there is no limit to what we can destroy for however incremental a gain. This gain may be quantifiable, and thus satisfying for our need of security and certainty. And the losses may seem "external" and therefore irrelevant to us.<br />
<br />
But in the process we may find that we've lost something much bigger inside.<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-40014313637485158782012-10-14T10:57:00.000-07:002014-02-06T19:36:58.340-08:00Children growing up in a genetically engineered worldIf citizens don't keep putting pressure on the biotech industry and on government, within a couple decades we could easily end up in a world where most of the plants and animals around us have been engineered in some way. Food crops that have been genetically engineered, but not yet approved for commercialization or consumption, include virtually every plant and animal in our food supply. We are lucky that our continued pressure has put the brakes on the biotech industry and that they are releasing new GMOs at a rate much slower than they were intending ten years ago.<br />
<br />
But food is actually just a fraction of the genetically engineered organisms being created in labs today. Goats are being genetically engineered to produce material for bullet proof vests in their breastmilk, cows to produce pharmaceuticals in theirs, trees to sequester carbon (to "solve" global warming), and bacteria to clean up human messes. <br />
<br />
What is happening is clear: the biotech industry is ushering in a conceptual shift in how we view and relate to the other species with whom we share the planet. <br />
<br />
<i>Other species are being altered so that they function as factories for human goals</i>. A factory, assembly line model is not just being imposed <i>on them</i>, as we've already seen in the horrors of industrial agriculture. It is now being imposed <i>through them</i>. Their very meaning and existence on earth, their very physiology and biochemistry, now function for serving the goals of corporate entities and their pursuits of profits and market shares. <br />
<br />
While the debate about genetic engineering often ends up as an argument about whether or not eating GMOs is safe, there is a deeper, darker issue that is not often talked about. What will happen if we live in a world where most of the species around us are factories? The biotech industry actually has a word for this, showing <i>exactly</i> what sort of conceptual shift they intend. A cow or pig producing pharmaceuticals in its breastmilk is called a <i>"bioreactor"</i> by the industry. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2OgpKjIjm-C5xYgE0aChACwiDLT065fwexxChqRNfxYb8Z40Zj2-d4MzouOIe8rH2C9B8N1NvdU1Z0NY8sRCClqQU1jm8S8nxdU4Kgiz0inW_XtzWYDC62gfH_e8rFTfCkc2CMhs3Y59W/s1600/a-cow-peers-over-a-hedgerow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="212" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2OgpKjIjm-C5xYgE0aChACwiDLT065fwexxChqRNfxYb8Z40Zj2-d4MzouOIe8rH2C9B8N1NvdU1Z0NY8sRCClqQU1jm8S8nxdU4Kgiz0inW_XtzWYDC62gfH_e8rFTfCkc2CMhs3Y59W/s320/a-cow-peers-over-a-hedgerow.jpg" /></a></div>Ignore for a moment the ethical issues behind usurping the freedom, spontaneity and right to existence of the Earth's biological community, or the cow's right to complete the stages of life, including the right to feed its own calves healthy milk. <br />
<br />
Ignore the side effects that might ensue from our food crops becoming contaminated with bananas that produce antibiotics or vaccines and the economic damages that would entail.<br />
<br />
<i>Instead, consider for a moment what it will be like for children growing up in a world where every animal and every plant is not a product of the creative forces of the universe, but of the "ingenuity" of human beings.</i> Where the nuthatch flicking down the maple tree has been altered to absorb dioxin from the atmosphere (to "clean" the air) and the maple tweaked to produce brighter leaves in the fall.<br />
<br />
Urban children are already suffering from <a href="http://richardlouv.com/" target="_blank">nature-deficit disorder</a>, implicated with multiple cognitive and emotional disturbances. What will happen when there is nothing left that is not... human? <br />
<br />
What will happen when everywhere children look, the <i>magic</i> of the more-than-human world that so inspired our hearts when we were their age, that inspiration that teaches us the wisdom of gratitude and grace, is infected with the short-term goals of capitalist profiteers and technocrats?<br />
<br />
See also: <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/how-should-i-teach-my-child-to-see-gmo.html">How should we teach our children about GMOs</a>?<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-58086458856541465392012-10-13T11:32:00.005-07:002012-11-13T09:04:45.758-08:00Genetic diversity and food securityBiotech companies, and their journalists, are fond of telling us that genetic engineering is necessary to increase food production, to face a growing global population, and to create resiliency in the face soil degradation, salinity, and an increasingly unpredictable climate. If not the panacea to all our agricultural ills and woes, then genetic engineering is at worst a pragmatic, necessary evil for a world immanently in danger. For several years, I remember a certain major agricultural supply conglomerate had a "global population counter" on their front page, racing ever upwards at a dizzying rate. It required no words; the feeling of watching it was visceral and chilling.<br />
<br />
Unlike <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-biotech-preachers-playing-science.html">the technique</a> of using "science" as an authority to sway the public, appeals to food security rely on creating fear, and when the argument hinges on "helping feed the world's hungry", also on pity.<br />
<br />
It has often been pointed out that patenting life is antithetical to promoting food security or food sustainability. This is a discussion that spreads beyond the subject of this blog post, i.e., "genetic diversity". We will have to reserve talking about corporate control of seed supplies, exclusive property rights, and the lack of accountability of biotech companies when their seeds contaminate non-GMO fields for another time. Nor will we discuss the odd fact that biotech companies can simultaneously claim that 1) their crop is <i>so different</i> from traditional crops that they can patent it, and yet 2) it is <i>so similar</i> to traditional crops that they do not require special testing, oversight or regulation. While they have found a way to have their cake and eat it too, this does not mean that their technologies will serve to bring us all plentiful and nutritious cake for the upcoming century. A topic for another day...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirlzJpN4e5QekqcjIm69q0uYxOy7B4d1m7q8ehEV4cBJOvaiBipvrBwVZNjw0SM7Wzv2YxNYNgJJEEaa2KNypQHVlI7GWJWJy_bddnnbSQzZ9WuFbtO59x-ne1Gc-c6bdTgRV_2soSQA9X/s1600/1-1221129588D7gW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="240" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEirlzJpN4e5QekqcjIm69q0uYxOy7B4d1m7q8ehEV4cBJOvaiBipvrBwVZNjw0SM7Wzv2YxNYNgJJEEaa2KNypQHVlI7GWJWJy_bddnnbSQzZ9WuFbtO59x-ne1Gc-c6bdTgRV_2soSQA9X/s320/1-1221129588D7gW.jpg" /></a></div>Instead, I will focus on the relationship between genetic diversity and food security and how this connects with biotech crops. Now today, over 80% of corn, canola, and soy grown in America is genetically engineered. There are several varieties, though all of them have been altered for one of two characteristics. Either they have been altered to produce their own pesticide (from the soil bacterium <i>B. thuringiensis</i>), or they have been altered to be resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide produced by Monsanto. Since the varieties are all patented, farmers are not allowed to save their seeds or breed them with other varieties. Since these companies rely on such aggressive marketing campaigns, they also enjoy a colossal market share. What this means is that the genetic diversity of corn, canola, and soy is incredibly low. Throughout millions of hectares across the continent, from Saskatoon to Cincinnati, we find that virtually every ear of corn and every seed of canola is just one of a few possible genetic configurations. The continent is filled with a sea of uniformity, a monotonous echo-chamber reverberating corporate control. This is not just stultifying to our imaginations and our need for spontaneity, it is also quite dangerous. <br />
<br />
Here's why.<br />
<br />
To overcome uncertainties, nature has developed a strategy called diversification. This is not unlike "portfolio diversification" that many investors rely on. The basic idea is this: if one species or variety succumbs to some environmental pressure, others are likely to survive. Nature employs many techniques to do this on many different levels. Ask a biologist someday for examples. For centuries, farmers have basically followed this same system. When each farmer saves his or her seeds each year and replants them, he or she gradually develops what is known as a "land race". A land race is a variety that is adapted to the specific ecological constraints of the farmland and the cultural preferences of the farmer. Through this process, most of the world's important crops have developed into tens of thousands of land races. Laos, the small neighbour of Thailand and Vietnam, is thought to have almost 4 thousand varieties of rice alone, and India many times that number. <br />
<br />
If there is a drought, certain varieties will be better adapted than others. If there is a flood, likewise. For virtually every normal environmental condition, ranging from humidity levels, to salinity, to coldness and warmth, to the presence of certain pests or the absence of certain nutrients, land races will be found that are resistant to the problem at hand. And more than just "being resistant", land races get better and better over time, because they are created through an elaborate co-evolution between farmers, their crops and their local environments. <br />
<br />
So neither nature nor humans (for most of our history) have relied on mass production of replicas as a means for ensuring survival. This new strategy is extremely risky and there isn't really any reason to think it will work. Contrary to the approach of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a major Monsanto donor, there are many ways of supporting the development and diversification land races to ensure food security. But building local seed centres and creating seed sharing rituals cannot be patented. Nor can developing "swapping networks" across larger geographical spaces. <br />
<br />
The drought of 2012 that left much of America's corn crop destitute was attributed by many to climate change. However, unbeknownst to most of us, much of the corn that was not destroyed from the arid, midsummer heat was instead <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-04/-mounting-evidence-of-bug-resistant-corn-seen-by-epa.html" target="_blank">devastated by worms</a>. These "rootborers" were exactly what the biotech companies were trying to combat in developing corn that was genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide. Resistance was widely predicted by ecologists since these crops were first planted a decade ago. And without land races in the farmer's satchels, they are now at the mercy and dependency of the biotech companies for a solution to the problem. <br />
<br />
Is this what we mean by "food security"?<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-15046769935155703132012-10-13T08:49:00.003-07:002015-11-11T11:00:34.743-08:00Listening to our guts about genetic engineeringWhen most people first hear about genetic engineering, they feel shock and surprise that such a technology actually exists. I remember when I first heard about it, I was overcome by a dull nausea. The sky became heavy and the future of the earth uncertain. Most people feel like the technology is violating some sort of natural order, is playing "God", is eugenic, and that things "have gone too far". If one's first exposure to genetic engineering is in reading a science editorial explaining how they have created a monkey that glows in the dark because it had firefly genes inserted into it, this feeling is likely all the stronger.<br />
<br />
All the while though, a massive campaign is being staged to undermine our guts and our hearts. And the genetic engineers' public relations departments certainly know where to strike: biotech companies are now writing children's books about the (mostly hypothetical) benefits of genetic engineering (I saw one at my public library a few weeks ago), they are re-writing high school biology books, and putting out sharply polished ad campaigns in newspapers and on television. They have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try and convince the public that our instinctive reactions to genetic engineering are, quite simply, wrong. <br />
<br />
But the genetic engineering debate refuses to go away. It has been over a decade since citizens blew up over the first round of commercially approved crops. But now we are witnessing a similar explosion of concern.<br />
<br />
What is this all about? <br />
<br />
Proponents of genetic engineering claim that we have really been genetically modifying plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture and that genetic engineering is simply a more precise way of doing this. They have said and re-said this enough times now that some people who consider themselves "scientifically minded" have begun to believe them (see my <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">earlier post</a> on this issue). But repetition does not make something true. It creates confusion: what is apparently a "rational argument" is pitted against our emotional core (and most of us do not want to seem "emotional", especially in the 21st Century!). Eventually those of us not confident in the wisdom of our hearts succumb to the tantalizingly glossy logic. Repetition acclimatizes us to an idea (reread this sentence until you finally agree!). <br />
<br />
But none of this makes it true.<br />
<br />
And many of us know that. We are not automatically opposed to any new technology. This is not an issue of the neophobes vs. the neophiles. Look at how many new technologies are created and commercialized every year. We consider many of them benign, many of them silly, but we only feel a minority of them scratching at our bones. We are not against novelty nor do we have cognitive faculties so inflexible that our brains shut down in the face of any new way of doing things.<br />
<br />
Consider selective breeding. Breeding, the way that we have been "genetically modifying" [sic] animals for millennia, did not cause an uproar of protests. People do not, and as far as I know have never, considered it "unnatural". Contrasted with genetic engineering, few people would risk arrests and incarceration over selective breeding programs. Why? What is it about good-old-fashioned sexual reproduction that doesn't strike alarm bells? If we bring two organisms together, whose traits we might want to see combined, turn off the lights and leave them alone for awhile (so to speak), their offspring are more likely to have those traits that we desire. Isn't this playing God? (Ah, the slippery slope argument that has been around since those deceitful and morally bankrupt Sophists of Ancient Greece). What exactly makes it different from what we call "genetic engineering"?<br />
<br />
I'll name just two here: 1) whether or not the two organisms want to breed is ultimately up to them, 2) how their DNA combines is orchestrated by the process of cell fertilization. In both cases, the process of selection is not actually being dictated by humans. There is an element of "chance", which does NOT mean randomness. Chance means that we are not controlling the entire affair but are leaving important aspects of the process to be run by life itself. By selecting two animals that we want to see breed and putting them together, we are merely narrowing the canvas by which nature can do her magic. But the complex, creative dynamics that end up regulating which genes go together and how, is left to life. Life, in producing millions of diverse, yet interconnected creatures throughout the evolution of the Earth, has a big enough CV for at least this much job security. By contrast, humans have toaster ovens with built-in obsolescence and plastic that takes thousands of years to decompose, now taking up more space in the oceans than plankton. Who would you hire for the job?<br />
<br />
Human rationality excels at isolating variables and in making a decision based on considering them in isolation. Human rationality is terrible at understanding, let alone predicting, complex systems where many factors are interrelated. (Computers are better at this, but the variables and the types of relationships still need to be programmed, which means they need to be known and their dynamics over time well understood). The whole genius of human rationality is precisely in not seeing the whole, but in temporarily abstracting certain relevant variables. So when the job requires juggling thousands of interacting factors, we should assume that the uncertainties are high, our understanding is low, and that we should only intervene when absolutely necessary and with extreme care. Moreover, such interventions need to be a matter of public debate not dominated by monied interests.<br />
<br />
I think that people who feel in their gut that there is something wrong with genetic engineering are reacting to human control dominating the creative, integrating process of nature. It is the same part of their hearts that react strongly to the incomprehensible power of the jungle or ocean or mountain, teeming with life in myriad relationships we can scarcely imagine. It is the same part of their hearts that feels beauty in the face of such complexity. It is a recognition that humans are born of this process, and that human rationality is but a small product of it that ultimately must find its place within this larger creative matrix. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2NGuZNzYCbOETCXSuByZ6CTw24qS1d4WCf2dpsJimuZGFRov_rg7fX9W14y3wh6V_32FZ_0NZXyfpBsZeh03RsJzobaeVVNiM0bJegAPQ7H61Zmk5DCXhdQK-Fl_MBycHUwVxo5tFMlxo/s1600/1-123247185177II.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="213" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2NGuZNzYCbOETCXSuByZ6CTw24qS1d4WCf2dpsJimuZGFRov_rg7fX9W14y3wh6V_32FZ_0NZXyfpBsZeh03RsJzobaeVVNiM0bJegAPQ7H61Zmk5DCXhdQK-Fl_MBycHUwVxo5tFMlxo/s320/1-123247185177II.jpg" /></a></div>To genetically engineer is to ignore this complexity, these relationships and this beauty. Hubris is a folly. <br />
<br />
That is what our guts are telling us.<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-28383773737572246612012-10-12T15:08:00.002-07:002015-11-11T10:51:52.391-08:00The biotech preachers playing the "science card"Many people today, especially in the Western world think that religion is rapidly becoming "a thing of the past". What was once believed on faith is eroding, replaced by models and theories gained through observing the actual world and drawing out its patterns and regularities. Scientific theories, so people think, are surely "true" because they are used to develop technologies that, well, ... work. How can someone watch TV, they would argue, a technology based purely on the predictability and regularity of certain physical properties of the universe, and at the same time believe in such arcane things like "divine intervention" or an "afterlife"? For this modern mindset, the supernatural is being shaved away from the world, which is left bare and exposed by the scientific method, the sole tool humans have for understanding the world.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm4jWfTbE3KuhyTAAMeVxXAg1cx1OOVbFMCFOXGOMWarazU_nIEScJ_7mjzndagfiSpYIFQCjepahQW36ZsY4sV0-ZMrY8iWfoL4C2_lFEOErSksqNNcFl3FFzlO_s9zjqQN9oxxgA-QwE/s1600/1324-1243693872hUAs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="240" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm4jWfTbE3KuhyTAAMeVxXAg1cx1OOVbFMCFOXGOMWarazU_nIEScJ_7mjzndagfiSpYIFQCjepahQW36ZsY4sV0-ZMrY8iWfoL4C2_lFEOErSksqNNcFl3FFzlO_s9zjqQN9oxxgA-QwE/s320/1324-1243693872hUAs.jpg" /></a></div>Let's call someone who thinks along these sorts of lines a "scientific person", regardless of whether or not he or she is actually a scientist. Now, scientific people, like all people, are people. And as such they come to feel quite strongly about their beliefs and develop a bit of an identity around them. For a scientific person, there is no greater error than to believe in something that is "unscientific", and there is no greater insult than to be accused of such a belief. Once things get personal, it gets a little tricky, even for the scientific person, to see things clear-headedly ...as a scientist should.<br />
<br />
The problem is, many people know this. <i>It is therefore a very effective tool for someone to rally troops to their side to draw the line between what is and is not scientific.</i> And unsurprisingly, we find that this is a main strategy that proponents of genetic engineering use to convince people to subscribe to their technology. Predictably enough, upon hearing that concern about genetic engineering is "anti-science", many so-called "scientific people" flock into the pro-GMO camp. They do not consider whether or not the person drawing this line was using a scientific methodology in deciding what was and what was not science. They do not consider the values and motives behind the person making the statement. Their knee-jerk reaction against irrational, arcane, metaphysical and soft-headed "beliefs" leads them right into the lap of the biotech industry, that eagerly awaits, knowing that these arguments are sure to lure. And yet, this knee-jerk reaction may itself be irrational, especially if the "scientific person" does not actually look deeply into the science of genetics to understand what it is that the genetic engineers are really doing.<br />
<br />
So the proponents frame the debate and wait as people who identify themselves as post-religious gravitate towards their allegedly cool and reasoned science. When we observe this phenomena, there are important questions to ask. <i>Is it scientific, or is it ... religious (yikes!) to believe an authority figure just because they told you something in a language that they knew ahead of time could capture your allegiance?</i> Should the "scientific person" actually examine the science first before deciding what is actually "scientific"? <i>Is it scientific for the "scientific person" to make judgments in favor of genetic engineering without knowing anything about pleiotropy, chromatin marking, techniques of horizontal gene transfer, or about the concept of genetic regulatory networks?</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgenHoZo_BRA7MGECYiCCiLgD30PFhOA80TgQhiSNCvd5wb7_TacqrE1P0YAsc4zJgQvBHRisgO5dbsCZiv38R4FciYtHsN4Lixtba9k_vP6m9FXH3N0xlZg126y1SodSpIqXxv-xMjyJQu/s1600/bible-1345791756V6D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgenHoZo_BRA7MGECYiCCiLgD30PFhOA80TgQhiSNCvd5wb7_TacqrE1P0YAsc4zJgQvBHRisgO5dbsCZiv38R4FciYtHsN4Lixtba9k_vP6m9FXH3N0xlZg126y1SodSpIqXxv-xMjyJQu/s320/bible-1345791756V6D.jpg" /></a></div>The religion promoted by the biotech industry doesn't use the words "God", "heaven" or "the soul." These words will not work for the infidels they are seeking to prosthelytize. Using language to make people believe things requires cunning.<i> They need to ensure that those believing them do not think that they are merely "believing" but rather are directly in contact with "truth".</i><br />
<br />
To become a truly "scientific person" at least requires that we realize this. And a democratic appreciation of the actual scope and risks of genetic engineering will require such scientific people to be vigilant in their ongoing assessments.<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-11701968572824583882012-10-12T08:48:00.002-07:002015-11-11T10:45:56.708-08:00Why so many unintended side effects with genetic engineering?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVI7DS1cyGHvrtHHPYSgqwxsAKS4x3SXkBobDj7LtoWOJZofAW1jWdWK7pE3OalHqXVAg2NBykwGoqj-wob0g3X3Cmi-CIUTEYW-cs_eG_WPEzZcZdLaVtu21MNknq4IAJy7jxwyJB5Wc_/s1600/warning-sign.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="320" width="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVI7DS1cyGHvrtHHPYSgqwxsAKS4x3SXkBobDj7LtoWOJZofAW1jWdWK7pE3OalHqXVAg2NBykwGoqj-wob0g3X3Cmi-CIUTEYW-cs_eG_WPEzZcZdLaVtu21MNknq4IAJy7jxwyJB5Wc_/s320/warning-sign.jpg" /></a></div>It would help activists enormously if they could access the precise ways in which genetic engineering leads to unintended side effects. There are many ways this can happen. I have organized some in the following points:<br />
<br />
1) the gene inserted into a host DNA can jump out of it more easily and become incorporated into the DNA of other organisms, such as gut bacteria, soil microorganisms, and possibly even somatic cells. This tendency to jump is a result of two factors: 1) the host DNA has defense mechanisms that prevent foreign DNA from entering into it and 2) the inserted gene is usually attached to segments of viral DNA that it uses to force open the code DNA (just as viruses are able to do this!). These viral segments make the inserted genes unstable and more likely to migrate out -but also more likely to force themselves into some other DNA as well (see Ho, 2000, for details).<br />
<br />
2) the gene inserted into a host DNA will behave unpredictably because it will interact with the other genes and regulatory mechanisms within the host code. DNA codes form <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-anti-sciene-of-genetic-engineering.html">genetic networks</a> where different genes regulate each other's expression. DNA coding is NOT a one-to-one mapping (google "pleiotropic effects" if you don't believe me!). It is full of feedback loops and recursions!<br />
<br />
3) similarly, when we insert a gene into a host DNA, the host genes will behave unpredictably because of the novel gene now expressing itself in the genetic network. Because of points 2 and 3, it is best to consider the DNA code ecologically, where the function of genetic segments depend on relational factors and are not pre-set and determinate.<br />
<br />
4) if the organism manages to survive to adulthood (and this is unlikely: of the thousands of successfully inserted genes into host codes, <a href="http://thegeneticengineeringdebate.blogspot.ca/2012/10/animal-welfare-and-gmos.html">the majority die during development or infancy</a> because of mutations that arise from the new gene interacting deleteriously with its neighbors) it will have novel behaviors, physiology, and biochemistry. Because of this, it will interact unpredictably with other organisms in its ecological communities. <br />
<br />
5) some genetic effects do not show immediately but rather appear during stressful or limiting situations in the organism's life, when "epigenetic factors" cause genes to switch on or off at different rates and in different patterns. Similarly, some genetic effects will only show in future generations, as new environmental factors elicit new patterns of genetic expression (a great description of the relationship between genetic and epigenetic factors can be read in Jablonka & Lamb, 2006).<br />
<br />
<br />
Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1838662947586728272.post-18080212547891195822012-10-12T07:15:00.000-07:002015-11-11T10:45:09.261-08:00Genetic Networks & Why Genetic Engineering is not scientificA commonly told story by pundits of genetic engineering is that anyone against (or even concerned) about the potential effects of genetic engineering is "anti-science", "anti-technology", "a Luddhite", or "a stick in the cog of progress". <br />
<br />
Are these claims substantiated?<br />
<br />
Of course, the answer to this question depends on what you mean by anti-science or anti-technology. <i>If the scientific model upon which genetic engineering is based is faulty, is it anti-science to oppose it?</i> <br />
<br />
To this, I would answer: yes and no. It is "anti-science" in the strict sense that it is against a particular scientific model and is committed to providing a new one. But in this sense, all science is anti-science! All science is based on the principle that premises are open to revision and in need of aligning with evidence supported through inductive experimentation. Einstein was "anti-science" in this sense for promoting a relativistic physical model that flew in the face of the established theory mechanics. But his new model was also a better description of the phenomena.<br />
<br />
For this reason, concern about genetic engineering is COMPLETELY consistent with the scientific spirit. And the fact is that we have ample evidence to show the inadequacy of the model upon which genetic engineering is based.<br />
<br />
IF each gene coded for a single protein did not interact in any way with the expression or regulation of neighboring genes, and IF the resulting genetically engineered organism was therefore IDENTICAL except with respect to this single changed trait, and IF the changed trait could have no impact on the behavior of the organism in ecosystems, then genetic engineers would have reason to mock those claiming that genetic engineering is dangerous. <br />
<br />
The problem is that none of these assumptions are at all true. <i>The fact is that most genes are in networks</i>. Putting new genes into existing networks changes the existing relationships between the other genes. Unexpected consequences are the rule and the amount of chemical and physiological studies needed to establish equivalence in every aspect would be astronomical. Being required to provide such evidence would put biotech companies out of business. <b>Why did the anti-freeze gene from a flounder, inserted into a salmon's DNA, cause the salmon to grow at a faster rate? Until genetic engineers can predict this sort of thing, what they are doing should not even be called "engineering."</b> And yet, even though these sorts of unanticipated effects emerge, as long as they are marketable, they will be marketed. Supersalmon [sic] is now up for approval in Canada and the USA. <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcGGywHqiJqbGU1umgVkRqOPG5WFXVkuebjDTRXiGVTpO1zHCc6lhKa_zAhMcev7_TK78rPVHBzfIZuME3aZjQaV0du16HzMPAvBnKEEUGeJJY55fhBgszMorZJNLoCXqdWdAoLvvX4Vf0/s1600/OneGeneOneTrait.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="247" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcGGywHqiJqbGU1umgVkRqOPG5WFXVkuebjDTRXiGVTpO1zHCc6lhKa_zAhMcev7_TK78rPVHBzfIZuME3aZjQaV0du16HzMPAvBnKEEUGeJJY55fhBgszMorZJNLoCXqdWdAoLvvX4Vf0/s320/OneGeneOneTrait.jpg" /></a></div><br />
Source: <a href="http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~otto/talks/pwias/overheads.html">http://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~otto/talks/pwias/overheads.html </a><br />
<br />
<i>This image shows how the "code illusion", the assumption that each gene code for one property, is a computer metaphor that has no place in a scientific understanding of the interconnectivity of genetic systems. The image below shows networks of interaction between genes in an Aribidopsis plant (source: <a href="http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/2/31">Thum, et al. 2008</a>).</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvDnFhLoS4jgqxsgW8pm6d4CyXGy8ufQ5sRGk9BXuAbODnfwclDfmMJLpIesH7_cL41beIzh6eE2A_kuFVaPhrRnRG4eSJOmtz5SEVLv9p1Q5w7nQtqexjiCc08kEo_W2jtFI2a-TJNhY3/s1600/1752-0509-2-31-s7.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear:left; float:left;margin-right:1em; margin-bottom:1em"><img border="0" height="241" width="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvDnFhLoS4jgqxsgW8pm6d4CyXGy8ufQ5sRGk9BXuAbODnfwclDfmMJLpIesH7_cL41beIzh6eE2A_kuFVaPhrRnRG4eSJOmtz5SEVLv9p1Q5w7nQtqexjiCc08kEo_W2jtFI2a-TJNhY3/s320/1752-0509-2-31-s7.jpeg" /></a></div><br />
It is also impossible to predict how a genetically engineered organism will interact with the other living beings it encounters. Something as simple as a change in rate of growth, such as we find in the salmon, can have a number of impacts on (for example) interspecies competition and resource deterioration.<br />
<br />
The issue is simple: if we live in a world where things interact in complex ways, it is not ignorant or prehistoric or "New Age-y" to recognize that things interact in complex ways. However, if we insist that shooting genes randomly into a complex intertwined network is going to be ok, and that the potential effects can be self-monitored by biotech companies in short-term studies, then we are living in a bizarre, story-book version of the universe. It is fine to live in a simplified fantasy world if you are not doing any harm to those around you, but if you are actually modifying the evolutionary trajectory of the Earth's biosystems, then there is something to worry about.<br />
<br />
Proposition 37 is the MINIMUM step we should take to improve this massive experiment. If genetically engineered products are labelled, we can more properly monitor health effects because we can easily establish (more or less) a control group (i.e. those refusing to eat it). To refuse to discriminate between both groups is to refuse to partake in properly establishing the scientific experiment. <b>Those who are pro-science should feel confident in their decision to vote YES on Proposition 37</b>. The deluge of scare tactic ads on California television, funded by big food corporations and biotech companies, does not make their arguments any more scientific. They are attempting to convince the public using <i>power</i> instead of <i>evidence</i>. To the extent that we succumb to their allure, we are still channeled by an instinct to be led by the powerful and authoritarian. This itself is probably the biggest hindrance of all to a scientific society valuing free inquiry.Ramsey A.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15782677369247654478noreply@blogger.com0