Discussion on genetically modified Crop

GMO crops

This review is on genetically modified crops, our views, thoughts on its ethics and the effects.

What it is:

As far the basic definition goes, genetically modified crop/food are man made alterations and changes to the genes of a crop. This is to produce desirable characteristics in the crop. This is a highly technologically intensive process and cannot be just "done" by anyone. The problems would be testing and finding out the quality of the resulting modified crop by comparing it against the unmodified version of the crop. 

Apart from subject the modified version of the crop to comparative study, they also try to find out problems which may have arisen because of changes to the genes in the first place. This generally takes years to prove negative and when requires stringent procedures for market validation by the FDA.

A wiki extract of exactly how they alter genes is given below:

Genetic modification involves the insertion or deletion of genes. In the process of cisgenesis, genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could be conventionally bred. In the process of transgenesis, genes from a different species are inserted, which is a form of horizontal gene transfer. In nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. To do this artificially may require transferring genes as part of an attenuated virus genome or physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host using a microsyringe, or as a coating on gold nanoparticles fired from a gene gun. However, other methods exploit natural forms of gene transfer, such as the ability of Agrobacterium to transfer genetic material to plants, and the ability of lentiviruses to transfer genes to animal cells.
The method to introduce new genes into plants requires several important factors such as specific promoter, codon usage of the gene and how to deactivate the gene. The specific promoter must relate to area that we want the gene to express. For instance, if we want the gene to express only in the rice instead of the leaf then we would only use an endosperm specific promoter. The reason is because we only want our transgenic genes to express only in the rice and not the leaves. The codon usage of the gene must also be more optimized for the rice since there are several different codons for each of the 20 amino acid. The transgenic genes should also be able to be denatured by heat in order for human consumption.

What I think =) 

 

If i were given a single word to pronounce judgement on this entire topic and walk away, it would be "NO".

The first problem I've got is the fact that i believe God made all things perfect, nothing ever required alteration. And after 1000s of years, quite suddenly, there's this talk about making nature suit better to your needs?... Isn't the other way round?... Haven't we reached a unsustainable situation where we bring up GMO (genetically modified orgasms) to try and compensate the losses we bought upon ourselves?...

The second thing i have to say... Is "Precision". "Modern technology is very awesome". Yes, taken. But i don't think there'll ever come a point where we make out own form of nature. If we never reach that kind of perfection, i don't see how we now suddenly have this incredible right/capability to alter, nature as perfect as it is, to (better) suit our needs.

Well ofcourse they haven't proved anything yet, But that's the point isn't it?... Things like his generally take years to prove... And that's possible only in its natural form, long term human testing. It sounds weird, but i meant just observing what happens in humans over a long term, in years. A number of drugs, initially deemed alright and FDA approved later turned out to have been the source of added problems to drug takers' health. Vioxx is an example. I recall watching them get sued to pieces on the news as kid in the 4th grade... They were a company which produced drugs for various heart conditions. Over the years, statistics were studied and long long after the drug was approved for public use (note that the approval process itself would have taken a matter of years)... the shocking proof that people were actually dying and suffering from added problems caused by Vioxx, was unignorable.

My point is... The same could be easily applied to GMO. The very first GMO hit the market only in 1996. That isn't even 20 years ago. This is in comarison to Vioxx which had been around for years. Not just present as an optional drug, but a main stream drug which seemed to produce favorable results in many and most patients... ironically, without any side effects.

I've also noticed that only a select few bio technological firms hold dominance in the GMO industry. The fact of them making alliances within themselves is understandable and obviously swift, in order to protect mutual existence and interests. How does this bring out customer variety? How does this put a second organization powerful and interested enough to find faults with market dominating GMO even on the map?... and by what criteria do you put up industry standards for an industry so completely swollen up in market secrets, screts which even if known are technologically superior to imitate?. They're obviously take help from the companies themselves, who, in turn, I'm sure, would be delighted to set standards similar to the ones they're already familiar working with.

My final thoughts on this would be that... This should never happen. Should have never happened. The fact that we never complained for 1000s of years, should ring a bell asking us "What went wrong now?" instead of us asking "What seems to have always been wrong?"