Nature Newsblog
« Drifters could explain sweet-potato travel | Main | How to survive in a black hole »
Pharmed food crop approved for growth despite controversy.
Rice modified to express proteins often found in breast milk will be planted in Kansas. The go-ahead for the planting came on 16 May from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Posted by Nicola Jones on May 18, 2007
Categories: | Permalink
| Comments (9)
| TrackBacks (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2605
Subscribe to this blog's feeds:
Comments
What would happen if the Rice DID escape into the environment?????
Posted by: AYOBUNMI SANGODE | May 19, 2007 12:49 AM
Re: rice with human dna.
excellant idea, and more would be better so that the rice cannot be cross bred with wild rice. I would like to see the wheat gluten modified by human dna.
Posted by: james johnson | May 21, 2007 12:12 AM
It is obsurd the waste of time and money that has been spent creating this pharma rice. Everyone knows that rice,by itself helps with diarrhea!It is a known fact. The trial experiences of this rice used in Peru on children was a disaster. Institute for Responsible Technology website has much info on it as well as Jeffrey Smith's new book Genetic Roulette. The approval of this rice was made because the biotech companies 'own' the FDA.
Posted by: yann123 | May 21, 2007 05:36 PM
I think it's remarkable and significant that nearly 20,000 concerned consumers/citizens/public took the time even to make comment in opposition as a form letter. The article seems to imply that negative form letters aren't serious enough to consider; yet it doesn't say how many of the negative comments were not form letters. How else are we supposed to make comment, considering how difficult it is to become/stay informed about the incestuous relationship of FDA/USDA and monopolizing, profiteering megaPharma!
Posted by: margaret | May 22, 2007 02:47 PM
One of the more interesting things about this story is that even though there were thousands of responses and more than 99.8% of those were negative, USDA still approved the application. This raises the question of how USADA uses public comment and what its criteria are for approval of a GE crop.
Posted by: suzanne wuerthele | May 22, 2007 04:42 PM
"The approval of this rice was made because the biotech companies 'own' the FDA."
Exactly. I look forward to the day these crimminals are indicted, tried and executed for treason.
Posted by: L. Stevens | May 23, 2007 04:00 AM
It is ridiculous to hear again and again the same major motivation for production and planting of the GM crops in large quantities outside being naive like these: because of kids dying from diarrhea in poor countries, intentions to feed Africa, or help the suffering "third" world, etc... While it is too evident that none of the GM products are going to help anyone in Africa, 3-rd world or bring relief to any of those suffering kids simply because even the surplus from ordinary agricultural products being largely overproduced today by farmers in the USA or the Europe will rather be dumped to waste sites than transported elsewhere... GMs require more efforts to grow (because of additional control requirements), biotech companies want to get back at least the money they have invested into their research and less control over the GM fields to reduce costs despite the risks of genetic pollution of environment. On the other hand pharmacies are neither going to help anyone in the poor countries because they do not see it as their business. After all they haven't produced anything to protect these people from malaria and other tropical diseases so far, because no one was rushing to pay for it yet... Please let me doubt if GM's will change the situation to any better. And, once experimental crops were grown in Peru (whoops ?!.), who can assure that enough control measures were observed to prevent it from spreading in countries outside the USA. If they spred, how large might be impacts on local environment, biodiversity and people? Known facts like same gene coding for protein that protects beans from pests, codes a little different but highly poisonous protein in peas (GM case) and a possible link between bees massively dying out in the USA in locations with fields of GM wheat in vicinity says something that may sound very unpleasantly to some. Are we going to "feed the third world" or those starving kids of Africa just to see possible long term side effects before giving it to the richer populations? This is a complex matter, but if we are rushing just out of curiosity, because "money talks" or maybe just for fun (hey all'ya see how taugh and clever we're..) we may be close to an invention of a very "modern" way to pollute and damage our environments and ourselves. This is my private opinion...
Posted by: Viktoras | May 24, 2007 04:33 PM
Fear of the unknown is driving people to object to scientific ventures. What if the GM seeds escape? What if they pollute the environment? What if a tornado spreads the seeds? These are hypothetical questions. Leave it to the experts to assess and make a decision. Every Tom, Dick and Harry cannot decide on such important regulatory issues. If we do not trust the experts (I see ridiculous allegations that the biotech companies “own” FDA), then we cannot achieve any progress. Let me try to illustrate this with an example.
We can insist that before boarding a commercial aircraft, we need to personally verify the results of all the pre take-off tests, check the flying records of the captain and his assistants, be apprised of the contingency/emergency plans kept is place in the unfortunate event of an accident (bird hit/ lightning strike/ mid-air crash/ loss of engine power….. etc). Flights would never materialize in such a situation. You leave it to the Federal Aviation Authorities and the airline technical staff and the system rules that govern such matters to make sure that a safe flight is operated. If someone has objections to the concept of flying, he/she has the choice of not using an aircraft. But he/she has no right to prevent the airline from operating flights.
Similarly, if people have objections to GM crops, let them not use the products. But if someone wants to grow the crop or if someone wants to use the products, let them have the freedom to do so, provided the crops and the products are approved by competent authorities.
Posted by: George Thomas | June 5, 2007 05:08 AM
Reasonable Use of GM Techniques:
“Advocacy groups” generate more heat than light on these issues. Much scientific research has been done, but much remains unknown. Personally, I have no objection to inserting a native grass gene into rice to make it produce more protein, or tolerate heat and humidity, or any other logical use of genes between such close relatives. I worry about inserting bacterial or animal genes into plants because we really have no idea of what to look for as long term consequences of such chimeras. It is not fear of the unknown, just the surety that because it is completely novel, we really do not know what to test for until somebody notices a strange new problem in the field.
Are we really sure we only inserted the one gene with only one effect to monitor? Will some new fungus or insect become a major problem due to the new proteins? Are some people allergic to the new proteins? Will the new amino acid balance in the rice alter the adults’ intestinal flora in unforseen ways? The genes will escape into other fields, or to native plants, of this we are sure from current experience. We are discussing the staple food of 3 billion people.
For example, the Bt corn debate continues. Spraying with Bt was quite safe and effective, but did entail labor and fuel costs. The plants may be toxic to beneficial insects. The pollen has been tested strain by strain – some are relatively harmless to Monarchs – but what about the other species of butterflies, other insects? [[see PNAS | October 9, 2001 | vol. 98 | no. 21 | 11925-11930 ]] What about downstream effects? A topic for research might be whether Bt corn runoff alters the population of insect larvae that feed the fish in nearby streams? They have studied the effects of direct application of Bt to streams for black fly control, relative to non-target species. How does a field producing a toxin all season compare to spraying Bt the old fashioned way a few times per season? We have Bt cotton, Bt potato….
Inserting genes just to make a crop plant more tolerant of weed killers is the last straw – it encourages more use, and possibly more careless overuse, of extremely toxic chemicals. What happens if the weeds pick up the tolerance genes?
Engineered bacteria for industrial-scale fermentations require strict controls to prevent spills or airborne dust. Picture yourself living in a wooden house near a biomass ethanol plant.
If someone finds a way to reduce the raffinose in beans, that may be a good thing.
But I hope nobody tries to add lactose, as well as proteins, to rice.
Posted by: F C Lewin | June 8, 2007 10:52 PM