Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
160. The protein is not inserted. The plant itself produces the protein.
Tue May 13, 2014, 12:28 AM
May 2014

Last edited Tue May 13, 2014, 01:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Your desire when modifying the organism is to produce or enhance a desired biosynthesis process.

The problem is the biosystem of the plant is complex and any altered or introduced biosynthesis process will affect other existing biosynthesis processes. To affect or introduce the desired process is to introduce hormonal production to induce the process. Because nearly all biosynthesis processes within the host plant are dependent upon hormonal levels, any introduction of new hormones or increase or decrease in existing hormones will affect more than the targeted biosynthesis process. This effect will be minimal in the vast majority of genetic modification, but all it takes is a single altered biosynthesis process to produce an undesired effect.

A simple example would be ethylene biosynthesis in dioecious plants. If you suppress ethylene production in a female of a species that is dioecious, you will induce male sexual expression because in dioecious plants both ethylene and gibberellins are produced in the male and female plants. Hormonal controllers in males produce higher levels of gibberellins and hormonal controllers in females produce higher levels of ethylene.

This suppression of ehtylene biosynthesis could be accomplished via many techniques and is useful in dioecious plant breeding when female sexual expression and traits are the desired outcome (Kiwi comes to mind for desired fruit production in a selective breeding program).

If you genetically altered a female kiwi plant in such a way as to inhibit ethylene biosynthesis, say you wanted a desired effect but a higher level of negative ionic particles exist in the plasm of the plant just enough to inhibit ethylene biosynthesis, you will never experience female sexual expression but will always produce male sexual expression. You will have effectively altered the sex of the host plant. Depending upon where the gene you introduced exists, you could produce a super male that will only have male sexual expression in any offspring.

That's a simplistic example of how an unforeseen biosynthesis process could have damaging effects, but also one that is more likely than the potential for carcinogenic biosynthesis due to how sexual expression in dioecious plants occurs.

Biosynthesis processes in organisms do not occur in a vacuum.

Edited to add: In my super male example of the dioecious kiwi, 1/2 of all offspring will produce normal male sexual expression and 1/2 of all offspring will produce super male sexual offspring. This super male expression requires the inserted gene to exist on the same chromosome as the gene that controls normal female ethylene biosynthesis. Since any fruit production genetic introduction will most likely also occur on that chormosone, the potential for unforeseen biosynthesis processes is much higher than under any standard genetic modification procedures.

So much for states rights....eh. Historic NY May 2014 #1
Wait, be fair, remember republicans hate America, in that context this makes sense randys1 May 2014 #54
Well said. Louisiana1976 May 2014 #65
That's not true Fumesucker May 2014 #79
So much for the invisible hand of the free market. DetlefK May 2014 #56
Considering how much they claim the commerce clause has been abused Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #66
YOU ALL OWE ME MONEY FOR THE SUNSHINE!!! JackRiddler May 2014 #71
I suppose states rights only matter when those rights are aligned with conservative interests. nt ohnoyoudidnt May 2014 #120
That's the Republican committment to states rights for you. n/t Crunchy Frog May 2014 #2
And freedom. Jamaal510 May 2014 #13
But the Republican notion of freedom is the freedom of corporations to hide food ingredients. Enthusiast May 2014 #33
The fact the you put progressives in quotes answers your own question. Revanchist May 2014 #3
+++ 1,000 +++ n/t RKP5637 May 2014 #4
normally I'd agree with you, but I disagree on this issue.... mike_c May 2014 #5
I don't agree that the paternalistic choice is the correct one. pnwmom May 2014 #6
Post removed Post removed May 2014 #7
you know what is every one thinking? wisechoice May 2014 #8
Companies fighting labeling are proving they have no confidence in their prioduct. MohRokTah May 2014 #11
Exactly.. chickenshits are scared to death people are going to see the GMO Cha May 2014 #30
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. Scuba May 2014 #35
no, they oppose labeling because they know that scientifically illiterate consumers... mike_c May 2014 #43
A wonderfully illustrative example of 'post hoc ergo prompter hoc' LanternWaste May 2014 #55
That's what the same companies said about labeling monosodium glutamate, too. MohRokTah May 2014 #57
Oh no! Monsanto might not take over the world. JackRiddler May 2014 #67
this is the liberal version of climate change denial.... mike_c May 2014 #69
No, it's the usual libertarian-corporatist bullshit. JackRiddler May 2014 #73
I completely agree with this post.... mike_c May 2014 #74
Well I'm glad we can agree on the most important point then. JackRiddler May 2014 #75
which is the major reason I do not want to support Monsanto by purchasing GMO foods. bettyellen May 2014 #86
because GMOs are not the problem-- Monsanto's business behavior is the problem... mike_c May 2014 #90
I do not trust such an entity... JackRiddler May 2014 #92
I do not want to by GMOs, and I should not have to justify that decision to you- period. bettyellen May 2014 #93
I agree.... mike_c May 2014 #94
I bet I would not respect half your purchases, LOL. Who cares? People do not always make rational bettyellen May 2014 #95
No, it's mega corporations refusing full disclosure. MohRokTah May 2014 #115
...as is the consumer's right. Chan790 May 2014 #153
I think there is some real scientific information that is putting GMO into question airplaneman May 2014 #12
I'm not sure how I feel about labeling GMO foods. Bonx May 2014 #15
Well, science isn't for you or I to decide. alp227 May 2014 #20
And it shouldn't be for Monsanto to decide either. pnwmom May 2014 #25
Everyone throws around Monsanto's name like Dr Hobbitstein May 2014 #39
Yeah, a worldwide NYSE company with a market cap of $63 billion Art_from_Ark May 2014 #40
It isn't a question of scientists publishing deliberately false studies. It's a question of studies pnwmom May 2014 #78
Nonsense mindem May 2014 #105
Monsanto is NOT smaller than Whole Foods. MohRokTah May 2014 #117
Sorry, smaller would be the wrong word... Dr Hobbitstein May 2014 #164
this simply reinforces my main point.... mike_c May 2014 #47
consensus? wisechoice May 2014 #42
They are not scientific organizations! alp227 May 2014 #45
your colrful post means nothing wisechoice May 2014 #61
Note: "advocacy" alp227 May 2014 #62
not so much.... mike_c May 2014 #49
Your post was alerted on - jury unanimously said LEAVE IT: Skip Intro May 2014 #22
A personal thank you to Skip Intro and the Jurors. airplaneman May 2014 #166
I want all foods properly labeled. Very shifty and dishonest of any Corp. against full disclosure. Sunlei May 2014 #23
Yes, consumers should know they're buying a product that Roundup was used Cha May 2014 #31
I don't have any disagreement with that.... mike_c May 2014 #44
Gotta disagree rpannier May 2014 #14
It's not just in Korea. Independent researchers in the US have also been prevented pnwmom May 2014 #26
This pamphlet from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Art_from_Ark May 2014 #41
There is a series hole in your logic. The people that want GMO labeling want it so they rhett o rick May 2014 #16
Why don't people want every hybrid technology labeled? Why just GMOs? HuckleB May 2014 #98
That should be a Monsanto commercial... daschess1987 May 2014 #17
where did you hear me say anything at all positive about Monsanto? mike_c May 2014 #52
Really? billhicks76 May 2014 #18
And just because the FDA during the Reagan administration decided that henceforth pnwmom May 2014 #27
yes, as a matter of fact it is.... mike_c May 2014 #46
Thanks for the info billhicks76 May 2014 #96
There is a study that disputes their safety BrotherIvan May 2014 #112
I presume you've read the paper.... mike_c May 2014 #116
That assumes a very healthy patient BrotherIvan May 2014 #118
Wow! Enthusiast May 2014 #34
Other than anecdotal observations, this premise is based on precisely what? LanternWaste May 2014 #53
The reverse is true of products labeled "organic" Nuclear Unicorn May 2014 #70
i remember when GMO was first coming out scientists were genetically modifying rice to contain more dionysus May 2014 #165
, blkmusclmachine May 2014 #9
If they were certain the food was safe, they would have GMO plastered on the labels. MohRokTah May 2014 #10
Because the anti-GMO types have POISONED that word! alp227 May 2014 #21
NO, because the companies producing the shit have NO CONFIDENCE MohRokTah May 2014 #38
"Fear! Fear! Fear!" HuckleB May 2014 #99
We are so powerful!! roody May 2014 #103
If they were certain the food would safe, they would give independent researchers pnwmom May 2014 #29
Thank you, PNWMom. Some things are so clear cut and easy to see... Ecumenist May 2014 #84
You know when I was in the middle east Mbrow May 2014 #19
And, don't forget Mexico is smart enough to kick Cha May 2014 #32
Well... Unknown Beatle May 2014 #24
And let independent researchers use their seeds in research and publish their results freely. pnwmom May 2014 #28
Why label something that is safe? alp227 May 2014 #48
Yes, the burden of proof DOES fall on the food companies. MohRokTah May 2014 #58
The reason the burden of proof doesn't fall on the food companies is because of the Reagan- pnwmom May 2014 #76
Why not force-feed something that is safe? JackRiddler May 2014 #87
What is your economic relationship roody May 2014 #104
Follow the money Dorian Gray May 2014 #36
Does this smell like TPP? pangaia May 2014 #37
I think it could be part of it - TBF May 2014 #64
They should all be wearing suits with a Monsanto coat of arms badge. L0oniX May 2014 #50
Well, I suppose that the food industry is concerned that MineralMan May 2014 #51
That they fight the labeling tells me there's more to it than they are willing to disclose. MohRokTah May 2014 #59
Exactly! BrotherIvan May 2014 #109
Yes, just as they've fought other labeling, such as allergy labeling. pnwmom May 2014 #77
Just take a look at this thread to see why. jeff47 May 2014 #97
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #101
What is your financial relationship roody May 2014 #106
I don't have one. HuckleB May 2014 #107
Why are you so committed to denying roody May 2014 #114
Why are you so committed to labeling something that is meaningless? HuckleB May 2014 #121
Obviously, it means something to many people? roody May 2014 #130
No, the issue is very different from the anti-climate change debate. pnwmom May 2014 #108
Nope, that's not a difference at all. jeff47 May 2014 #122
This researcher of 30 years USED to agree with you. pnwmom May 2014 #134
And there's climate scientists that USED to agree with the consensus. jeff47 May 2014 #138
Did you even bother to read the article? You can read her direct quotes. And if Monsanto pnwmom May 2014 #141
Monsanto is not all GMOs jeff47 May 2014 #144
Monsanto is the biggest and the most powerful, and it's funding the fight pnwmom May 2014 #147
And yet, the fact that your article doesn't work at all jeff47 May 2014 #151
You haven't done anything to prove that PhD scientist is wrong. pnwmom May 2014 #162
Then they should eb PROUD to stick a 24 point font label of GMO on their products. MohRokTah May 2014 #111
Only if you aren't paying attention to this thread. jeff47 May 2014 #123
How is not eating GMO food hurting ANYBODY? MohRokTah May 2014 #124
I already gave that example. jeff47 May 2014 #125
I don't care. It's worth sacrificing the environmental benefits to avoid any potential risks. MohRokTah May 2014 #126
You should probably re-read and re-think that subject line. jeff47 May 2014 #129
Again, laughable bullshit. You need to rethink what you are saying. MohRokTah May 2014 #132
No, what I'm saying is backed up by science. jeff47 May 2014 #135
I DO understand the process for making a GMO. MohRokTah May 2014 #137
If you did understand it jeff47 May 2014 #139
IT's not the DNA itself that I am concerned about. MohRokTah May 2014 #142
So now you're claiming our digestive tract un-hardboils eggs. jeff47 May 2014 #146
Nice way to put words I never said into my mouth MohRokTah May 2014 #150
They have to survive digestion if they're going to do anything in the human. jeff47 May 2014 #154
You really are clueless MohRokTah May 2014 #156
If only you'd bothered with the last 3 words. jeff47 May 2014 #158
The protein is not inserted. The plant itself produces the protein. MohRokTah May 2014 #160
One final point. MohRokTah May 2014 #163
One last point. I am not advocating banning GMO food. MohRokTah May 2014 #127
You are advocating the impossible. jeff47 May 2014 #131
That's the biggest pile of bull I've ever seen posted here. MohRokTah May 2014 #133
No, you really don't know what GMO means. jeff47 May 2014 #136
There are a variety of techniques, but specifics would require a book. As shortened as possible... MohRokTah May 2014 #140
Too bad you left off the important part. jeff47 May 2014 #143
Insertion is the most complex part and that is why I cut it off. MohRokTah May 2014 #145
Nah, it's actually pretty simple to provide a message-board quality jeff47 May 2014 #149
Again, putting words in my mouth that I never said. MohRokTah May 2014 #152
If that were true, everyone would see it. jeff47 May 2014 #155
So people who contract stomach cancer after twenty years of dipping snuff had no effects from their MohRokTah May 2014 #157
Why are you running away? jeff47 May 2014 #159
And now youve built the strawman. MohRokTah May 2014 #161
As others have noted...so much for states' rights.... Swede Atlanta May 2014 #60
I'm not into woo in general - TBF May 2014 #63
Good for you, so glad you told us that. JackRiddler May 2014 #68
Rude replies for wanting labels on food? TBF May 2014 #82
Associating it with "woo" is playing into their hands JackRiddler May 2014 #85
I miss the days when I could come on this TBF May 2014 #88
If you're tired of people putting others in boxes, then why do you do the same pnwmom May 2014 #89
There is no big conspiracy to taint our minds with fluoride... JackRiddler May 2014 #91
Fluoride doesn't cause defects - study HuckleB May 2014 #167
Monsanto has succeeded in its strategy to control all the research pnwmom May 2014 #72
I think you misunderstood my post - TBF May 2014 #81
But why did you use the word woo? n/t pnwmom May 2014 #83
I have a right to know if my food was made by Franciscan monks. mathematic May 2014 #80
+1,000,000 ... 000 HuckleB May 2014 #100
I don't understand your analogy. The producers of non-GMO's are happy to label their products. pnwmom May 2014 #110
That would require me to actually look for Franciscan monk labeled food. mathematic May 2014 #113
I agree. Let the free market decide -- with labeling. pnwmom May 2014 #119
Your anaology is laughable. eom MohRokTah May 2014 #128
Hahahaha. DemocraticWing May 2014 #148
Progressives support GMO labeling. roody May 2014 #102
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Republicans are working o...»Reply #160