Golden Rice

[wacki]

For those of you that are against GM crops, what do you think about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4386933.stm

UK scientists have developed a new genetically modified strain of "golden rice", producing more beta-carotene.

The human body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A, and this strain produces around 20 times as much as previous varieties.

It could help reduce vitamin A deficiency and childhood blindness in developing countries.

The World Health Organization estimates up to 500,000 children go blind each year because of vitamin A deficiency.

When the original strain of golden rice emerged from laboratories in Switzerland five years ago, it was hailed by some as an instant solution.

But that original strain did not produce enough beta-carotene to ensure that children would get their daily requirement from eating normal quantities of rice.

And because of concerns about GM agriculture, it still has not been grown in field trials in Asia.

QUICK GUIDE

GM Food
The new variety, developed at the UK laboratories of the biotechnology company Syngenta, produces much more beta-carotene.

Syngenta is making the rice available for free to research centres across Asia, who will, if they are given the go-ahead by their governments, begin field trials.

Not everyone believes golden rice is the best answer to Vitamin A deficiency.

Some agricultural experts and environmental groups say aiming for a balanced diet across the board would be a better solution.

But it is the first concrete evidence that GM technology can produce crops aimed at solving the pressing problems of the developing world, rather than increasing the profits of western biotechnology companies.

The latest scientific research is published in the journal Nature Biotechnology.

[dr_venkman]

I think that given pricetag of the Iraq invasion GM foods are irrelevant, because with the money saved you could feed every hungry human in the world for 20 years with food that wasn't genetically tampered with.


But where's the fun in that.

[sam h]

Without knowing too much about it, I am a supporter of the idea of genetically modified crops. It seems like there is a lot of potential there.

I do have a couple questions, though, that maybe you could clear up Wacki.

Generally speaking, how rigorous do the trials have to be to show that something like this is safe? Is it possible that there will be interaction effects with elements of the natural world that couldn't be predicted from laboratory experiments? Is this what the "field trials" are for and how extensive do those have to be?

[wacki]

Sam, I will get back to you on this. There is a lab two floors down from my lab that does this kind of work.

From what I understand, the FDA is more relaxed on GM foods then pharmaceuticals. At the same time, I don't think people understand how precise this GM stuff is and how random nature is.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It could help

[/ QUOTE ]

The essential problem is that there is a lot of money being spent in developing this which MUST be recovered by selling it. There are no (that I am aware of) checks in place to ensure that there is no, or minimal, damage to the health, environment or local agro economies. The only voices questioning this are (relatively) poorly funded "liberal" groups (what makes them liberal is of course a mystery).

You want beta carotene -- eat your rice with some carrots.

[wacki]

Eeeckkk

After much thought and research this is my current position on this:

1) The overall benefits of GM crops/plants are huge. People are even creating plants to clean up the toxins our factories have dumped in the environment. GM crops/plants are +EV and it's not even close.

2) The restrictions/testings of GM crops aren't as stringent as pharmaceutical drugs. In most cases they shouldn't be as adding a vitamin B to rice is very low risk as opposed to creating a never before seen drug. The mechanics of the system aren't even similar.

3) On the other hand our government overlooks how the tobacco company laces tobacco with radioactive heavy metals. The research done by Tyrone Hayes on Atrazine is another example. Many chemicals we KNOW ARE CANCEROUS/DANGEROUS are overlooked by the FDA. I don't understand why they do a good job in many areas but seem to be committing neglect (and a crime in the case of polonium) in other areas. I think this is by far the biggest danger. It is not the unknown that worries me, it is the known.

Sorry for the delay sam h

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
2) The restrictions/testings of GM crops aren't as stringent as pharmaceutical drugs. In most cases they shouldn't be as adding a vitamin B to rice is very low risk as opposed to creating a never before seen drug. The mechanics of the system aren't even similar.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know the science but intiutevly have a problem with this. You said yourself nature is random. I am therefore worried about cross fertalisation and possible "mutation".

If we feck up with a drug yea it bad but if we accidently introduce some GM crops that become hybrid in someway we dont want and couldnt forsee then the consequences are potentialy catastrophic.

Im not against GM crops as I can see the potential but I want the monitoring and due processes associated with it to be hard as iron, and still then I have some anxiety about it.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Im not against GM crops as I can see the potential but I want the monitoring and due processes associated with it to be hard as iron, and still then I have some anxiety about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well almost nothing is as hard as iron in the medical field. No matter how much you test.

If we took a gene from a carrot, whose only purpose is to produce vitamin B, and inserted it into rice, what would you be afraid of? Does making the "new" rice really require extensive study? The process by which a drug becomes FDA-approved is lengthy, rigorous and costly. Often this process brings the costs up to $400 million. With drugs, it is understandable because they are venturing into the complete unknown. Here, we are not. What we are doing here is often very similar to making a salad. We are just mixing things together instead of creating something new. Should we still test? Of course, but to require $400 million dollars of testing on every GM product is a bit much IMO. on the other hand some of them should recieve $400 million dollar total price tag. Any GM product that produces new proteins would be a good example. It is very situational.


I guess what I'm trying to understand is your genetic background. If you don't understand those concepts I can see why you are nervous.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
If we took a gene from a carrot, whose only purpose is to produce vitamin B, and inserted it into rice, what would you be afraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad tasting orange rice.

And the ebola virus.

Thanks for keeping us up on these wacki, you're like Science Digest for Dummies.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Here, we are not. What we are doing here is often very similar to making a salad. We are just mixing things together instead of creating something new.

[/ QUOTE ]

This just isnt true. Whilst in the lab we can control what we mix together, once introduced into nature there can be unforseen consequences. I will do more research and get back to you, but I can tell you off the bat that you are grossly underestiamting the dangers of GM.

Edited to add the following article from the independent.

More than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are now contaminated with genetically modified material - dooming organic agriculture and posing a severe future risk to health - a new report concludes.

The report - which comes as ministers are on the verge of approving the planting of Britain's first GM crop, maize - concludes that traditional varieties of seed are "pervasively contaminated" by genetically engineered DNA. The US biotech industry says it is "not surprised" by the findings.

Because of the contamination, the report says, farmers unwittingly plant billions of GM seeds a year, spreading genetic modification throughout US agriculture. This would be likely to lead to danger to health with the next generation of GM crops, bred to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals - delivering "drug-laced cornflakes" to the breakfast table.

The report comes at the worst possible time for the Government, which is trying to overcome strong resistance from the Scottish and Welsh administrations to GM maize.

The House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee drew attention to the problem in North America in a report published on Friday, and said the Government had not paid enough attention to it. The MPs concluded: "No decision to proceed with the commercial growing of GM crops [in Britain] should be made until thorough research into the experience with GM crops in North America has been completed and published". It would be "irresponsible" for ministers to give the green light to the maize without further tests.

Peter Ainsworth, the committee chairman, accuses the Cabinet of "great discourtesy" to Parliament by making its decision on the maize last Thursday, the day before the report came out, and plans to raise the issue with the Speaker of the House.

This week's statement by Margaret Beckett, Secretary of State for the Environment, is expected to fall short of authorising immediate planting of the maize, and provide only a muted endorsement for the technology. She will make it clear that the Government wants the GM industry to compensate farmers whose crops are contaminated. This could make cultivation uncommercial. The US study will increase the pressure on her to be tough.

Under the auspices of the green-tinged Union of Concerned Scientists, two separate independent laboratories tested supposedly non-GM seeds "representing a substantial proportion of the traditional seed supply" for maize, soya and oilseed rape, the three crops whose modified equivalents are grown widely in the United States.

The test found that at "the most conservative expression", half the maize and soyabeans and 83 per cent of the oilseed rape were contaminated with GM genes - just eight years after the modified varieties were first cultivated on a large scale in the US.

The degree of contamination is thought to be at a relatively low level of about 0.5 to 1 per cent. The reports says that "contamination ... is endemic to the system". It adds: "Heedlessly allowing the contamination of traditional plant varieties with genetically engineered sequences amounts to a huge wager on our ability to understand a complicated technology that manipulates life at the most elemental level." There could be "serious risks to health" if drugs and industrial chemicals from the next generation of GM crops got into food.

Lisa Dry, of the US Biotechnology Industry Association, said that the industry was "not surprised by this report, knowing that pollen travels and commodity grains might co-mingle at various places".

You may also find the following link intresting:
Concerned Scientists.