Why scientists are worried about the GMO apple and potato

[JohnyCanuck]

&feature=youtu.be

When Brazilian research scientists fed tiny pieces of RNA to young honey bees, they expected little to happen—certainly nothing earth-shaking. The RNA used is not naturally found in bees. It was taken from jellyfish, chosen because it was supposed to have an insignificant impact. The RNA didn’t cooperate.After mixing just a single meal of RNA into the natural diet of the worker bee larvae, as the bees grew older, scientists discovered that a staggering 1461 genes showed significant changes compared to controls.[1] In other words, about 10% of all the bees’ genes, including those vital to health, were either turned up in volume, or more often than not, turned down.[2] The authors of the study concluded that such a massive change “undoubtedly” triggered changes in the bees’ development, physiology, and behavior.

Perhaps the scientists from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) missed this 2013 study when they recently approved potatoes and apples genetically engineered not to brown. “Arctic” apple slices (nicknamed the “Botox apple”) can supposedly sit on the shelf for 15-18 days without discoloring to reveal their age. Sliced up “Innate” potatoes will similarly not show any darkening day after day until they eventually dry up.

To accomplish this effect, scientists at Okanagan Specialty Fruits and J. R. Simplot introduced genetically engineered genes that make their apples and potatoes produce double stranded RNA (dsRNA) to shut off the browning genes. dsRNA is the same type of RNA that was fed to bees.

The question that serious scientists are asking is: If we (or bees, or birds, or deer) consume the dsRNA in the apple or potato, can it influence how our genes work? Will these genetically modified organisms (GMOs), eaten as apple pies, french fries, or whatever, change our development, physiology, and behavior?

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/why-scientists-are-worried-about-the-gmo-potato-and-apple/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. The older I get, the more often I find out those old, trite sayings of the old farts before me to be

ever more true.

If indeed we're changed at a genetic level by what we eat, then truly 'You are what you eat'.

I wonder if this sort of effect is why certain foods are linked more often to cancers, being more likely to screw up genes controlling cell division.

[merrily]

2. Close. You are what you metabolize.

(From someone with severe deficiencies in that realm)

[Dont call me Shirley]

20. Me too, merrily

[merrily]

23. So sorry. It can be tough.

[merrily]

3. The Daily Show just "proved" GMO potatoes were a wonderful thing.

And, who can argue with Aasif Mandvi and Jon Stewart?

[Buzz Clik]

5. There was some real science under the comedy.

It would be worthwhile to take note...

[merrily]

24. Obviously, I did take note. There may be some science in the OP as well.

[GreatGazoo]

4. McDonald's rejected them last year

http://modernfarmer.com/2014/11/mcdonalds-refuses-buy-genetically-modified-potatoes-fries/

[Buzz Clik]

6. The paper quoted in the opening paragraph does not quite say what is being implied.

The genes or gene structure of the bees was NOT altered. The paper was not suggesting that they were "changing" over 1400 genes in bees. Not at al.

The scientists were attempting get certain genes already present to express. This is a common approach to genetic modification -- finding agents that will cause suppressed genes to express and/or suppress genes that are currently expressed. In the quoted study, the scientists found that their "agent" in this case impacted far more genes than they intended. This by no means that they created new genes or created a race of mutant bees; they were simply reporting the results of a preliminary study on gene expression.

The total hysteria surrounding genetic medication is ridiculous and puts an exclamation point behind an observation that is being made by more and more scientists: the left has far less comprehension of science than they think.

[Dont call me Shirley]

21. Those who support gmo foods have by far less comprehension of science and nature than they

arrogantly believe.

[Buzz Clik]

22. Keep telling yourself that.

But you're dead wrong.

[Dont call me Shirley]

25. I'm living right and you know it.

[Buzz Clik]

26. How could I possibly know that?

Or care?

[HoosierCowboy]

7. Watch what happens...

...when every competing food product has a "No GMOs" label on it except the one product are GMO and can't have that label.
GMOs will be gone from the marketplace in a flash.

[jwirr]

8. Good question.

[knightmaar]

9. This is not a coherent sentence

"In other words, about 10% of all the bees’ genes, including those vital to health, were either turned up in volume, or more often than not, turned down."

Genes can be turned on and off.
They can be changed to a different allele.

How do you propose to tell if they'd been turned "up" or "down"?

[Buzz Clik]

12. I think this is scientific baby talk for turning on or turning off genes.

He's trying to create the impression that merely feeding RNA to bee larva will allow the RNA to be incorporated into the bees' genes.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

10. I know I like to get my info from dance instructors...

"Jeffrey Smith is a dance teacher[1] and a long-time woo promoter who made a big career when he decided to join the anti-GMO movement. He used to be big on Yogic flying and Transcendental Meditation, and was a candidate for the Natural Law Party in Iowa.[2] Nowadays he bills himself as a "leading consumer advocate"[3] and is rather secretive about his past. Notably, he does not appear to have any training in biology.[4] He runs a PR outlet called Institute for Responsible Technology. Its main activity is spreading contrived, unscientific FUD about genetically modified crops. The Institute is supported by donations from over a dozen organic food companies and is promoted by the alt-med woo site NaturalNews [5]. Smith sits on the board of John Fagan's Genetic ID company, and appears to have connections to the Maharishi cult (which Fagan is also a member of).[6]

Smith appears to believe that chemtrails are part of Monsanto's conspiracy to control the world food supply[7], and was a guest speaker at the 2012 Consciousness Beyond Chemtrails Conference.[8]"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Institute_for_Responsible_Technology

I leave science to the scientists. I find it best to get the info directly from the source, not filtered through a dance teacher who believes in chemtrails.

[Buzz Clik]

13. You'd better watch your step...

... or he'll challenge you to an angry dance off.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

15. Or a Yogi float off...

Charlatans, snake oil salesmen, and woo peddlers. Yet there are many who would rather believe someone with zero credibility in the field of science over peer-reviewed and published science. Mass proliferation of confirmation bias and conspiracy theories are what makes the internet suck.

[JohnyCanuck]

19. Woo peddlers?

You mean woo peddlers like Dr. Jack Heinemann, a professor of genetics and molecular biology and director of the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand or the woo peddlers at the USDA and the EPA who came up with similar assessment as to the overlooked possibilities that unintended harm could be caused by dsRNAs. Apparently the USDA's own scientists..., sorry, I mean "woo peddlers," liked Heinemann's woo filled report so much that they cited it in support of their own findings.

In 2013, Heinemann and colleagues published a full protocol for assessing the risk of dsRNAs in a highly respected risk assessment journal Environment International.[6] Not long after, USDA scientists published a similar analysis{7} and cited Heinemann’s work. In early 2014, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also published a white paper{8} that verified Heinemann’s concerns about risk assessment, as did a subsequent analysis by the EPA’s Science Advisory Panel.{9}

The USDA scientists’ paper, for example, called for “sequencing genomes for species” that will be exposed to the dsRNA to “understand those that may be affected.” All the papers acknowledged the need for comprehensive testing conducted under a variety of conditions. And they admitted that the current assessment protocols for evaluating the impact of GMOs or chemical pesticides are not sufficient to evaluate all the risks associated with dsRNA. The EPA paper stated, for example: “The knowledge gaps make it difficult to predict with any certainty whether unintended effects will occur in non-target species as a result of exposure to dsRNA.”

http://www.responsibletechnology.org/posts/why-scientists-are-worried-about-the-gmo-potato-and-apple/

[Dr Hobbitstein]

28. And you keep linking to the same thing...

Written by the SAME guy. A guy that, I might add, is a woo peddler to the Nth degree. His entire site is woo. If you want to debate me, please use credible sources written by credible people.

[chervilant]

11. hmm...

"...they did not expect double-stranded RNA to survive digestion and be taken up in the blood system."

Really?!?

We humans are SOOOO arrogant in our blithe use of our "sciences" -- in our hedonistic rush to use our massive brains to "improve" our planet. How arrogant is it to think that we can make "significant" changes like this to an ecosystem that has taken BILLIONS of years to evolve?!?

Our younglings are "inheriting" a mell of a hess, and I cannot understand how anyone embraces willful ignorance in the face of multiple crises that portend our "extinction" event. We ourselves are like an evolutionary experiment gone dreadfully wrong!

[Buzz Clik]

14. I think this clown has snagged you in his net.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. Everything you eat has RNA and DNA...

If you added a fish gene to a tomato and ate said tomato, what would be the difference between eating that or a fish with tomato sauce?

The answer? Nothing.

One should know more about basic biology before making an opinion on such.

[fasttense]

17. You and Buzz Kill can have all the GMO you want to suck up

but quit trying to force it on the rest of us.

I don't want your GMO, I think it is just design to make more money for some huge corporation at the expense of the rest of the world. It's just like corporations to dump hidden expenses and costs on to the rest of society. Corporation have taken over the FDA and they can get anything through even Thalidomide laced vitamins for pregnant women. They have captured just about every regulatory agency in the US and when they OK something you can bet it is designed to make some corporate CEO and share holders lots and lots of money. It is NOT designed with the safety and health of the customer in mind.

So go gobble up all the poison laced Monsanto monster foods you want but the rest of us should have a choice.

[Scootaloo]

27. Your angry, defensive response does not address the question raised n/t

[fasttense]

31. But your blissful acceptance of corporate genetically manipulated food does? n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

30. You're really angry...

It's really not healthy to be so angry.

[fasttense]

32. If you can't win the argument on facts, you attack the messenger as being "angry". n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

35. Uhmm.... Your post WAS angry.

And you presented ZERO facts. But hey, enjoy run and gunning on a week old thread.

[fasttense]

36. And now your post is angry and presents no facts. Get control of those busy little fingers. n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

37. Cool story, bro! n/t

[JohnyCanuck]

18. To be fair, Some scientists believe it's more complicated than you are trying to make out.

What did you use to get the fish gene into the Tomato, not the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, I hope.

CaMV 35S Promoter in GM Feed that Sickened Rats Transferred into Rat Blood, Liver, and Brain Cells
The rats were fed an ordinary rat chow found to contain GMOs on PCR analysis using probes for the cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter, a gene control element in more than 80 % of commercial GM crops grown with potential health hazards predicted since 1999 Dr Mae-Wan Ho

Researchers led by Hanaa Oraby at Egypt’s National Research Center in Cairo are not the first to look for horizontal transfer of genetically modified (GM) DNA into animal cells, but certainly among the first to do an experiment aimed at detecting it and succeeded [1]. Horizontal gene transfer is the direct uptake of DNA (or RNA) into cells and integration of the sequence into the cell’s genome. Some of us regard horizontal gene transfer as the most serious hidden hazard of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) released into the environment ([2] Horizontal Gene Transfer - The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering (ISIS special report). But a prevailing culture of denial by vested interests and regulators has obstructed proper investigation until very recently (see [3] Horizontal Transfer of GM DNA Widespread, SiS 64).

A GMO is an organism with synthetic foreign DNA gene sequences inserted into its genome in a laboratory process of artificial genetic modification that bypasses normal reproduction. Part of the foreign DNA is a control element called a promoter that is necessary for expressing the foreign genes. The most widely used is the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter (which is what enables the virus to hijack the cell for making endless copies of the virus). The CaMV 35S promoter is now in more than 80 % of all GM plants [4], and is the first test for the presence of GMOs in unknown samples.
Probing for CaMV 35S promoter in the rat diet and in rat tissues

The Cairo researchers used three pairs of primers - specific short anchoring sequences that bind by specific base-pairing to the opposite ends of the DNA segment of interest – so as to amplify different segments from the CaMV 35S promoter with PCR (polymerase chain reaction). The amplified segments can then be isolated and detected on electrophoresis. The primers together amplify nearly 80 % of the entire promoter sequence. The experimental diet was an ordinary lab chow containing 60 % yellow maize and 34 % soybean, but unlabelled as to whether it is GM or not. The presence of GM material in the diet was ascertained using PCR assay with the three pairs of primers, which all gave the expected positive results, indicating that the diet contained GM material (up to a maximum of 94 %, if both the soybean and maize were completely GM).

snip

When first deployed, geneticists assumed that the CaMV 35S promoter would only work in plants, as the complete virus (wrapped in its protein coat) specifically infects only plant cells. But it soon transpired that the isolated piece of promoter DNA without its coat is extremely promiscuous, and works in cells across kingdoms of plants and animals, as well as bacteria. We issued a serious warning against its use in 1999 [8] Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter - A Recipe for Disaster (ISIS scientific publication) when it was found to have a recombination hotspot where it tends to fragment and join, which makes it prone to unintended (horizontal) gene transfer into cells of all organisms exposed to the GMO, including bacteria, fungi, pollinators, wild animals and humans (see [9] CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed, and it is active in animals (ISIS scientific publication). What that implies is the CaMV 35S promoter can break loose from the plant genome DNA and jump into the genome of all those other cells, with the potential to mutate, activate or inactivate genes (including those leading to cancer), reactivate dormant viruses, or create new viruses by recombination (gene shuffling) [8, 10] (Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter, ISIS scientific publication) But our warnings were met with abuse and denial and ultimately ignored.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CaMV_35S_Promoter_in_GM_Feed_that_Sickened_Rats.php

[Dr Hobbitstein]

29. You do realize that tomato never made it to market, correct?

But it's brought out all the time as an example that GMOs are bad.

[fasttense]

33. The poster was using it as an example of how complicated the food web is

and how easy it is to get it very wrong.

But you knew that.

Keep believing that huge corporations are doing "good" science and one day global warming will magically disappear too.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

34. You're conflating two different issues.

GMOs undergo MUCH testing. Like the tomato mentioned before. It was tested, and DIDN'T make it to market. It's a good example of the system working.

However, corporations =/= GMOs. I am not supporting big corporations like Dow or Monsanto. I am, however, supporting peer-reviewed, tested science.

But you knew that.

[fasttense]

38. The only scientists feeding the nation GMOs

are working for corporations. I know of no Mom and Pop businesses pumping out GMOs and then hiding them in our processed foods without labels.

It takes a huge, heartless, corporation with enough sell outs and greedy fools to get enough capital, to lobby enough congress critters, to grease enough palms of regulatory agents, to force monster foods on everyone even if they don't want them. The only way to avoid GMOs anymore is to grow and grind your own wheat, corn and soy. Even then you don't know for certain if your GMO crops haven't cross pollinated with all the GMOs crops around you.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. Cool story, bro! n/t

[fasttense]

40. So, name one brave scientist pumping out GMOs who is NOT working for a corporation. n/t

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. Name one thing on the market

That was developed by scientists (or engineers, et al) that is not put out by a corporation. Not all corporations are bad. Hell, the vast majority are down right awesome.

Rallying against established science because one or two corps you don't like (out of several billion corporations in this) world profit from it is unwise.

Gmos =/= Monsanto =/= corporations